Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-09 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl) December 9, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Pete Seibert Absent: Pam Hopkins 1.2. Swearing In New Member New Member Pete Seibert was sworn in by the Town Clerk 1.3. Election of Officers Brian Gillette moved to appoint Ludwig Kurz as Chair. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins Brian Gillette moved to appoint Karen Perez as Vice Chair. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 45 min. boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1 Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, from the Commercial Core 3 (CC3) District to the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0047) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 2.1, 2.2, & 2.3 will all be heard concurrently. Chairman Kurz: Clarified that the 3 items are all being heard as worksessions today. Planner Roy: Not looking for any motion today, just looking for feedback from the PEC. Started by introducing the location of the site and the existing conditions. Described an increase in accommodation units and the addition of EHUs and a new building only for housing EHUs. Roy then described the reason for the rezoning to PA -2 and the criteria for the rezoning. Lodges are not allowed in the current CC3 zoning. Roy then went on to describe the application for a Special Development District. This will help the proposal reach compliance with the Code with regard to parking requirements. Commissioner Lockman: Asked staff to clarify "nonconforming" Roy: The hotel was built before it was annexed into the Town. When it was annexed into the Town under CC3 it became legally nonconforming with respect to use. This means that the current development can be maintained but not expanded under the current zoning. Dominic Mauriello: Began by introducing his team. Mark Mutkoski: Introduced himself by describing his history visiting Vail. He then described the current state of the Hotel renovation. Also described the chain of ownership until now including his role as the Owner Representative. Described how they reinvigorated the property already in order to bring it in line with the Town's standards. The current hotel is not the highest and best use for the property. Mauriello: Continued to describe the site as it exists today. Pointed out several largely unutilized areas of the site and the surrounding commercial uses. Mauriello then began to describe the proposed additions to the site. Seventy-nine (79) net new accessory units, 19 limited -service lodge units (LSLUs), 12 dormitory units, and 16 employee housing units of 2-3 bedrooms. Two -hundred -twenty-three (223) parking spaces proposed, however this number will change due to some Fire Department concerns. From here, the applicant moved on to describe the proposed hotel units themselves. The applicant also provided a number of renderings, including some neighboring view renderings. Commissioner Perez: Asked if these renderings showed both buildings. Mauriello: Indicated that they did, but also stated that other angles showing more of both buildings could be provided in the future. Mauriello then went on to describe how the development would align with the goals of the Town. He then described the hotel's history and how this relates to the current non - conformities. This property has both nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses. Nonconforming structures cannot have their non- conformity expanded upon, but compliant additions and alterations are permitted by the code. Nonconforming uses effectively stop all additions to the nonconforming use. Current nonconformities include building height, density, parking, and internal landscaping. With respect to use, hotels and dwelling units are not permitted in the CC3 zone district, hence the rezoning request. The PA -2 zone district is more applicable to this development. The special development district is being proposed primarily in order to address some parking compliance difficulties. The parking requirements for the PA -2 would be 250 spaces, but 223 are being proposed. One reason for this proposed reduced parking has to do with the proposed meeting space on site. As attendees to this conference space would primarily be lodged within the Highline Hotel, there is a large overlap between the parking necessary for the conference space and the parking necessary for the hotel itself. Mentioned that the EHU building is creating the need for some of these deviations from the code, so there is a question regarding the value of EHUs to the Town vs the standards that relief is being requested from. Available land for Employee Housing is very limited in Vail. A Public Open House was hosted by the applicant in early December to share the proposed development to the neighboring public. Mauriello then addressed some of the concerns mentioned by staff in their memorandum to the Commission. Addressed concerns related to the increased density in the area, the rezoning to PA -2 in an area with limited commercial services, and parking deviations from what is required by the Code. Perez: The SDD is Vail's equivalent of a Planned building group. What is the purpose of the rezoning AND an SDD? Mauriello: In Vail, an SDD is an overlay as opposed to a replacement for a rezoning district. The SDD cannot violate the allowed uses of the underlying zone district. Perez: Clarified that she was referring to planned building groups as opposed to a planned unit development. Mauriello: Stated that it made sense for them to propose both in order to bring the hotel into compliance and to allow for the proposed EHU building. Lockman: Asked a question about an existing SDD on the property. Mauriello: Stated that this SDD was no longer active. Lockman: Directed staff to correct this in future memos. Kurz: Asked about the specific benefit to the town for the proposed SDD Mauriello: Talked about the need to increase hotel units in Vail. The Town has lost some significant hotel units in recent history. The SDD will also facilitate the addition of more EHUs, this is not required for the project, but the applicant feels this a net benefit for the Town. Kurz: Asked about the upcoming West Vail Master Plan. Matt Gennett: Stated that staff will be going in front of Town Council to get direction on the Master Plan scope on December 17. This Master Plan process is expected to take a calendar year. Mauriello: There was a previous attempt to improve this property, but it was recommended they wait for a previous West Vail Master Plan effort. This Master Plan effort fell through, so the applicant would like to avoid risking this happening again to the property owner. Kjesbo: Felt that the EHUs are being waved as a carrot for this application but saw that the E H U building could be sold off. Mauriello: This was stated in order to add some flexibility. Kjesbo: Felt that the employee housing needs to be tied in with the rest of the project to avoid the EHUs being sold off and never being developed. Perez: The three applications makes it unclear what is being proposed and what the timing will be for this project. It also obfuscates the benefit to the Town and the community. Mauriello: Stated that the proposed benefits were well stated in the proposal Perez: Need to look at how the stated benefits to the Town relate to the proposed deviations from the code. Lockman: Had a question regarding the proposed height, as staff and the applicant had a disagreement on how the height should be measured. Mauriello: Showed a rendering of the buildings. Stated that the height is strictly compliant with the code as some of the roof forms have been staggered in order to meet compliance. Perez: It would also be helpful to know how high the buildings would be above Chamonix Rd. Feels that existing residents are concerned about the view. Lockman: Had a question about the parking and valet Mauriello: Indicated that most units, including the EHU units, would be using the valet parking. Also, there will be a stairwell and sidewalk from the EHU building leading down to the rest of the development and Frontage Rd. Kurz then opened the floor for public comment. Molly Rabin Concerned about density in West Vail. Glad that the parking is being kept off of Chamonix. There are no sidewalks on Chamonix, so an increase in development will create a greater safety issue. Asked for some form of density study. Mike Spiers: Representing Brandywine Trace Condominiums behind this development. The proposed buildings dwarf the existing. There is no building of the scale of the EHU unit on Chamonix Mentioned that some affected views not shown in the application would be potentially significant. Jim Pike: Echoing Mike's comments. Specifically mentioned how some impacted views were not represented in the meeting. Thinks it would also be a great opportunity to add solar to these buildings. Pam Stenmark: Expressed gratitude for the questions presented by the PEC. Public Comments closed Kjesbo: Stated that his EHU concerns were already mentioned. Wants the EHU building to be in conjunction with the rest of the site. Could likely support the deviation from parking requirements. Needs a sun/shade analysis. Need references to new and existing heights. Feels PA -2 zoning is likely the correct zoning here. Likes the idea of adding a sidewalk heading towards the Frontage Road. Gillette: Thinks of something grander than this for the redevelopment of West Vail. Thinks the planning for West Vail should be done first before this. Doing the Master Plan right, might help direct this development to more accurately reflect Town goals. Sees this area being redeveloped as multiuse in the future. Approving the development like this may hamper redevelopment efforts in the rest of West Vail. Perez: Also indicated that the development needs to be developed comprehensively, needs a timeline as well. Need to make sure that the applicant is meeting the requirements of an SDD. Wants to also see a sun/shade analysis and more information on building heights. Concerned that with the conference center not being utilized much now, that increasing the conference space and needs is unnecessary. Seibert: Liked how this would solve some nonconforming use. Has a concern with the proposed valet parking for the EHUs. A large number of employees are likely to need their cars at the same time. Lockman: Echoed the concerns of Perez regarding the expanded conference space. Likes the idea of converting the underutilized commercial space into employee dorms, however, he also needed to see a parking plan for the EHUs. Likes the effort to reduce nonconforming uses. Also struggling with this project in the absence of a West Vail Master Plan. The Master Plan would help describe the appropriate density and bulk and mass for this site. I mproving circulation and safety along Chamonix could be an additional public benefit of this project. Kurz: Also concerned about this project going ahead of the West Vail Master Plan. However, in responding just to the project that is before the commission, Kurz echoes Kjesbo's comments. One could call the proposed "carrot" of the EHUs as a "quid pro quo." Important that sensitivity toward the surrounding neighborhood is shown. Also wants sun/shade analysis. Largely neutral on parking now but would like to see parking maximized. Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Hotel Renovation 2019), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel addition to add 79 accommodation units, convert 19 existing dwelling units to 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 unit EHU dormitory, remove office space, add conference space and build 16 unit employee housing apartment building, and related uses and improvements, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0048) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0046. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.3. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a hotel addition and an EHU apartment building, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0046) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0048. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.4. 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 an outdoor dining patio, located at 254 Bridge Street Unit C/Lot C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 19-0049) Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC North Bridge Venture Partners, represented by Resort Design Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall operate the outdoor patio in a manner generally consistent with the approved site plan dated 07/19/2019. Chairman Kurz: Moved this item to the front of the Main Agenda Planner Spence: Began by explaining the need for a CUP for an outdoor patio in Vail Village. This proposed outdoor patio is entirely within private property. Spence then went on to explain some of the proposed improvements. Public Works and Fire Department have both reviewed and found no issues. Tom Braun: Began by introducing his team members present at the meeting. During construction of Gorsuch, the unit below vacated, so the new proposal is for a new cafe on the street level. The CUP is only for the patio with outdoor seating and firepits. No food service will occur outside, patrons will have to order inside and bring items out to the patio. No Public Comment. Commissioner Kjesbo: No additional comment Commissioner Gillette: No additional comment Commissioner Perez: Asked about how far the patio extends. Planner Spence showed a diagram demonstrating the extent of the patio. Perez: Concerned about the amount of clutter in the corridor. The corridor is already narrow and ski racks also are set out in this area. The proposed patio will be put right in this area. Spence: Felt that the patio will be an overall improvement to the area over the ski racks. Commissioner Seibert: No additional comment Commissioner Lockman: No additional comment. John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density 5 min. Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, both in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 19-0050) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to January 13, 2020. Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Karen Perez moved to table to January 13, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.6. A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, 45 min. 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, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Erik Gates 1. Construction of the shoring wall and rock -fall berm shall be limited to the months of June to November, unless a consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife reveals a need to adjust this window. Planner Erik Gates recapped the process on how the application got to the current meeting. Third meeting before PEC. Master plan schedule, and process. Applications today are for the streets building expansion and the retaining wall. Both need CUP due to being in the General Use Zone District. Changes from last meeting are the comments from CPW on this application and the E I R submitted. Staff added another condition that the construction of the wall be limited to June to November. Another comment from CPW was to prohibit dogs, which is already a policy at the Public Works site and Buzzard Park units. Greg Hall introduced Rick Kahn the wildlife biologists. Streets building will be pushed off until 2021 due to schedule. Gives time to monitor the site this winter and next winter. If approved, the wall, berm, and utilities would hopefully be built next summer. Gillette — Can you not build the wall and do the streets building? Hall — Yes, but severely limits parking. Kahn — Professional wildlife biologist hired to consult on this project and Booth Heights for context. General comments, a lot of interests in the sheep right now. People are comparing it to Booth Heights, and there are differences and similarities. Both projects in overall winter range of S2 native herd. Herd is not doing well due to bad winters and hasn't picked back up to former levels. Very small winter range, as typical of sheep in high altitudes. Booth Creek area is typically ewes and rams. The town area is exclusively used by rams. Ewes are much less mobile and tied into steep areas to stay away from mountain lions. Winter range for ewes much more critical. Rams are more mobile, bigger, and less susceptible to change in landscape. Site is used intermittently, and 3-4 times in the last few years. Not every winter such as last year when there was a big snow layering. Groups segregate by sexes during the winter. Rams could be attracted to salt storage or something to attract them to the site. Site has not always been historically occupied by sheep. Less than ideal information since there are a lack of studies. This is not at all unusual. Made an observation during the process that the area of the rock -fall berm and solar that would be occupied and lost, occurs in a small narrow band of the sheep habitat. Not a significant loss. Biggest concern would be that this greens up earlier in the spring due to non-native grasses. Winter is a period where they starve and lose weight. They are attracted to that disturbed area with non-native grasses. Loss of area of disturbed area is not a big concern. Key is that the disturbed areas needs to be located near escape cover and they are. This site has had extensive human activity for 40-50 years. Not new area loss, but small disturbance of an already active site. The solar array extends to the west a couple hundred yards that is not heavily disturbed yet. No literature on the topic of solar array disturbance to sheep. Very narrow area that could have small impact. Losing native vegetation could be potentially problematic. Cumulative impacts unknown. With mitigation and CPW's recommended mitigation it can be managed to minimize impact. As it sits, with available information, impacts will be minimal and mitigatable. Perez — Do you think the proposed condition from staff is sufficient or is more required? Kahn — J une thru November makes a lot of sense. It depends on if the sheep are present. Gillette — How do we get to a collar study? Kahn — Money Gillette — How much? Kahn — For state-of-the-art collar study it could be $500,000. A lot of the habitat work would need to be on the USFS land. Habitat improvement would be better done by Booth Heights. There could still be some done on this site. Gillette — Of $500,000 how much is collar and how much is emergency funds? Kahn — $150,000 for collar and $100,000 for personnel. The rest would be money in the bank for reaction to what was discovered during that study. This one herd is not #1 on the books for CPW and they would need money to make something happen soon. Gillette — What kind of checks would you need for habitat work. Kahn — Three things, fertilization, fire, and hand trimming and setback of vegetation. I don't have figures, but you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to do all the sites, maybe $1 million. Gillette — On a yearly basis, what would be the most important? Kahn — Collar and some habitat would be best. Gillette — So $250,000 for collar and another $250,000 for habitat. Kahn — If you maintain the status quo and development you can expect the herd to continue to be affected. Gillette — So let's say $250,000 a year for the next 10 years, do you think this would affect this herd? Kahn — Yes, it would dramatically lower the risk of extirpation. Gillette - What's the number one thing you can do to increase herd numbers? Kahn — Limit disturbance, resetting habitat in winter range specifically and summer range. Not all of which is in the purview of Town of Vail. Gillette — So the plan to burn hasn't happened after it was planned for 20 years. Why didn't that happen? Kahn — I don't think the town was behind it because of the concern of fire. The Forest Service could do it if they needed to. It is the initiative of leaders at district level that needs to happen. Gillette — If the Town wants to be a lobbyist, how would they do that? Use staff, hire someone? Kahn — Citizenry has to consent moving forward. There are a variety of ways moving forward. Lockman — Is there a recommendation on the terraced retaining wall vs non - terraced wall. Does one have more benefits? Kahn — I think in the long term keeping the sheep out of habited area is the best option. Non -terraced wall does more of a job keeping them out. We don't want to see them on 1-70. Adding a fence is not a huge deal as they can get around it. Gillette — So no fence, correct? Kahn — No, it wouldn't do a lot, and you don't want to keep them out of the disturbed sites that could give them early spring greenery. Large fences not a solution to this problem. Kurz — We got a letter from CPW, should we hear them now or at public comment. Gillette — Let's bring CPW up so we can ask questions instead of during public comment. Duval — CPW. This is a remarkably different proposal from what you've heard before. This is a small review of a limited area. For me, I have to view it through a wholistic lens where we look at miles around for the effect. Limited habitat right now, that needs to be treated as a valuable and finite resource. Gillette —Any comments on the numbers? Duval — Those sound good, but mitigation is not a one and done deal. It is a concerted effort and needs to be done in perpetuity. In conjunction with habitat, contingency and collars, then a $500,000 starts to get you to that area. Gillette — What is the value of the collar study? What are we learning? Duval — It says whether the mitigation is working, and what habitat use looks like. Where are they congregating. We're operating on old information on where they are utilizing the landscape based on our best guesses. Gillette — We don't know the extent of the problem is what you're saying? Isn't the solution always doing mitigation? Duval — But where is the question. Do we focus in the middle or on the edges? Where are they actually using the landscape? Public Comment Larry Stewart, East Vail I just heard for the first time today that the building is not going to be built until 2021, so why are we approving that now? We have more time to do more observations between then. There is no time limit for when the streets building could get built. They could start tomorrow. One question you need to address is why are we approving the CUP today until we can study it since it won't be built until later? I want this to be built in the most effective way. There is a dearth of information on how the sheep are using the site. This points towards caution, since there is no do over. They are already stressed and compressed. I think fencing would be a good idea to keep the sheep out and the humans from entering the hills. What you want to accomplish here is to keep the human activities from the sheep. You could also require landscaped screening to keep them out. They don't like cover and would keep them out. Why isn't there a condition that no dogs are allowed on the site. That should be part of the approval since the masterplan and comments are not enforceable. I implore you not to look at this just as a variance on a retaining wall and building, but the larger impact on the herd. No room for error. This has to be gotten right. Tom Vucich, 4957 Juniper Lane You expressed at the last meeting that you wanted a more comprehensive view and thank you. The only difference is the CPW statement. "reads from CPW comments" You all touched on it two weeks ago about wanting a more comprehensive plan. It is time that you and the town put a specific number and timeline on this project and how to address the impacts to the herd. Patti Langmaid, 2940 Manns Ranch Road On the burn, one of the reasons that the neighbors were opposed was because there was an escaped forest service burn that burned down a couple houses in Colorado. I think now, we are more savvy and that with the right conditions a burn would be acceptable Blondie Vucich, East Vail Bill was unable to be here, so I wanted to read a couple sentences from the public comment he submitted **reads from letter**. Close public comment Open Commissioner Comments Lockman — Thanks CPW for memorandum. I'm struggling here on this one with all of the dialogue. I would implore our elected officials to do something on this issue. This board faces challenging decisions that impact wildlife. Whether that is putting specific funding towards it or making a plan. On the retaining wall, the variance for the non -terraced wall makes the most sense. If we look at the criteria of the application, I think public works has met all the items needed for approval. Seibert — I concur with the need for a more comprehensive plan. We need to get to a more proactive point, but not what is before us today. The vertical wall makes more sense to save hillside and doesn't tempt a sheep to come down. It's a small site, so they will get around a fence. I agree on the prohibition of dogs and possibly adding it as a condition. On timing, they need this approval so they can meet the window even if they aren't doing the whole building. Perez — I want to know where the mitigation plan is, and what the plan is. We have to treat the applicants the same, in particular criteria #2 **quotes criteria**. The Booth Height project had many conditions of approval related to the sheep herd, and this site is only 2 miles away from Booth Heights. I don't see how we are treating these sites with consistency. There is no real mitigation plan here. If we approve now, we aren't going there with a comprehensive view. I don't think this conforms today. Would vote against. Gillette —Agree with Perez 100%. We need this building to provide bus service and snow removal service. The mitigation effort should be part of this plan. We need to do some significant study and dedication half a million towards it. We need to lobby congress to get this stuff done, and we need to have this money in place, and we need to have Council fund this. Kristen where are we with this? Kristen Bertuglia — The Town had to get a strategic plan and divvy up what we could do on this. We did some cutting and stacking. We had a burn plan approved, but the presence of sheep delayed it. We've had several meetings with the Forest Service but heard that burning for wildlife was not supportive there. We continue to look at the option for a larger burn but cannot do that due to the burn in designated wilderness area. We've got $100,000 this year to do some effort. What we want to do is find what the best thing to do for these sheep. Gillette — What's next? Bertuglia — Rewrite the mitigation plan from the 90s to today's conditions. Hopefully in the ne)d couple months. Gillette — Greg, what do you need? If we separate the wall and building? Hall — Based on time limits, getting materials ready and making construction go quickly is why we need another year. We couldn't have everything done next year. No issues on dog prohibition. By waiting one more year we have more time for observation. For collaring there are a lot of costs that go in as well as staff. We are waiting for a comprehensive study to do some mitigation, instead of doing something that won't be as effective. I don't have the $250,000 budget to put towards something like this, as Town Council does. With regard to construction, get a contract, get final approval, we need that longer time period to get it done. Kurz — On dog rules, how are they being adhered to and controlled, what about recreation on the hill, have they done a ski jump that you are aware Of? Hall — Three-year leases with no pets, if we find one then they're gone. Limited approval for dogs when it comes to vet visits (for employee pet emergencies). As for a ski jump, there might have been, but I hadn't seen anything back there except one hiker. Gillette — Kristen, is the collar study part of your funding? Bertuglia — Depends on the mitigation plan. Gillette — Just so Council understands the importance of this stuff I suggest we break this up and get the wall and the berm approved and hold them hostage on the building. J ust to let them know that it is important to us, we'll hold them hostage on the one part. It adds to the importance of getting the long term plan done. Lockman — Does that affect your ability to operate Greg? Hall — Limits us to the timeline of the plan. Kjesbo — If we disturb habitat, we need to build it somewhere. We need a mitigation plan that is equal at the same time. I'd like to see the Forest Service be part of that, but we can't wait on them. We need it defined from council and staff what the end result on the public works area. If the town defines the final result of the plan, then we need to have an EIS started or under contract with this approval. I'd like a definition from the council what the final number of units would be approved in the masterplan. We need to control this and not do it piecemeal. Definitely no dogs. I don't think we're ready for a vote yet and I think we have time. Gillette — Kahn, do you value an E IS over E I R? Kahn — I don't know how an El R is defined here, but it just needs to be comprehensive. For an official EIS, feels that these studies can take upwards of 10 years to complete, by which time conditions on the site have often changed. Gillette — Greg if we don't vote today what is your schedule on this wall? Hall — Part of this is moving the project along, planning time is being taken away from us if delayed. Getting a plan together is less time than getting the construction plans and approvals for the building. Gillette — Less concerned with the actual mitigation than a commitment from council on actually doing it. Kjesbo — I'd be open to mitigation in other areas, if not here, in the case that we don't have USFS approval to do it on other town areas. Our constituents are concerned with the sheep, so we need to be. Gillette — I want to hold the Town of Vail to a higher standard. Let's hold this project and see if we can get Council to do something. We want to hear from the Town of Vail as the applicant whether they are committed to the herd. Perez — The other alternative path is that we say no, and Town Council calls it up to do what they want anyway. Gillette — W here are we with requiring the EIS in masterplans? We want an update from Kristen on the mitigation, and staff on the master planning process including an environmental portion. Spence — We can do that now and moving forward that all masterplans include an environmental study. Kjesbo — I'm fine with separating them and voting on the variance so they can move forward with design, but not construction. Spence — We'll add the conditions to the CUP that you are not going to vote on tonight, so it is cleaned up for the ne)d meeting. Kurz — This commission has some issues that we are not ok with as of now. We understand their time constraint. We are all ok with the motion on the variance as of today. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.7. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12- 45 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) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Erik Gates Karen Perez moved to table to January 13, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. November 25, 2019 PEC Results Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Seibert Absent: (1) Hopkins 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 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: ITEM/TOPIC: Swearing In New Member City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Election of Officers City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: December 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1 Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, from the Commercial Core 3 (CC3) District to the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0047) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19- Staff Report 0046 47 48 - DoubleTree Highline Worksession Staff Memorandum.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment A Attachment B. DoubleTree Narrative-min.pdf Attachment B Attachment C. Plan Set 1 of 3.pdf Attachment C 1 of 3 Attachment C. Plan Set 2 of 3.pdf Attachment C 2 of 3 Attachment C. Plan Set 3 of 3 fin.pdf Attachment C 3 of 3 Attachment D. Public Comment - Patricia Lauer - 12-3-19.pdf Attachment D Attachment E. Public Comment - Tania Boyd - 12-3-19.pdf Attachment E 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 2019 SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, a Zoning Code Amendment/Rezoning, pursuant to Section 12-3-7C1, Zone District Boundary Amendment, Vail town Code, and a Special Development District, pursuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel addition to add 79 accommodation units, convert 19 existing dwelling units to 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 unit EHU dormitory, remove office space, add conference space and build 16 unit employee housing apartment building, and related uses and improvements, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0046, 0047, 0048) Applicant: TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC represented by Mauriello Planning Group & Triumph Development Planner: Greg Roy I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC represented by Mauriello Planning Group & Triumph Development, is requesting a worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, a Zoning Code Amendment/Rezoning, pursuant to Section 12-3-7C1, Zone District Boundary Amendment, Vail town Code, and a Special Development District, pursuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel addition to add 79 accommodation units, convert 19 existing dwelling units to 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 unit EHU dormitory, remove office space, add conference space and build 16 unit employee housing apartment building, and related uses and improvements, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3. A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicants' narratives dated November 11, 2019 (Attachment B), -proposed plan set from Pierce Austin Architects dated November 5, 2019 (Attachment C), Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 12-3-19 (Attachment D), and Public Comment — Tania Boyd 12-3-19 (Attachment E). II. BACKGROUND In 1980 the hotel was built in the County and was annexed into the town per Ordinance 1, Series 1986. Over time there have been multiple application for small additions or exterior alterations. Most recently was the exterior alteration that allowed for restriping of the parking lot, pool upgrades, and exterior facade upgrades to the building in 2016. Hlghline - A Doubletree Hotel Major Exterior Alteration - PEC 19. 0046 Rezoning - PEC19-0047 Special Development District - PEC19-0048 +,tp 2211 North Frontage Road West ;.bY,;RxE., LV[ I. vale udD 0U itVJ)V r011iry a h it At ,� �► aw A . low 141 * •` ` —I— Feet m«� ..:: ww.�� 0 25 50 100 -'`_Lu; o see-oe embe zm'0 1OWfl Yf YA Town of Vail Page 2 III. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE 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. 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.- 1. indings: 1. Zone District Boundary Amendment.- a. mendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment.- (1) mendment: (1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives Town of Vail Page 3 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 zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents, and (3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives, and (4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole, and (5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features, and (6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and (7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate, and (8) Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. b. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and the town council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: (1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, and (2) That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas, and (3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and Town of Vail Page 4 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. ARTICLE J. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION -2 (PA -2) DISTRICT ARTICLE D. COMMERCIAL CORE 3 (CC3) DISTRICT ARTICLE A. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (SDD) DISTRICT Vail Land Use Plan (in part) 3. Commercial 3.1. The hotel bed base should be preserved and use more efficiently. 3.2. The Village and Lionshead areas the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. 3.3. Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4. Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. Chapter IV — Proposed Land Use 2. Key Goals 2.A.2 Commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 2.A.3 New hotels should continue to be located primarily in the Village and Lionshead areas. 5. "Preferred Plan" Land Use Pattern 5. B.4 Community Commercial: This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. Town of Vail Page 5 TABLE 9: PROPOSED LAND USE -"PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN" LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES PERCENT Lary Density Residential 698.8 20.8 Medium Density Residential 420.8 12.5 Hi h DensitV Residential 68.5 2.0 Hillside Residential 33.3 1.0 Village Master Plan 77.0 2.3 Tourist Commercial 15.0 .05 Resort Accommod a kion Services Transition Area 51.9 _ 11.4 1.6 0.3 Community Commercial 24.4 0.7 Community office 15.6 0.5 Park Open Space 255.9 1,022-9 7.6 30.5 Public and Semi-public 72.0 2.1 Ski Base Interstate 70 Right -of -Way 86.3 505.5 2.6 15.0 TOTAL 3,36.0- 100.0 This table also shows that there will be a deficit of 70,272 square feet or approximately 3.3 acres of land for commercial / retail uses. This may be accommodated through: 1) increasing intensities of use within the core areas, 2) adding commercial square footage within Lionshead through the relocation of the Gondola building and possible addition of commercial space to the parking structure. These are both options being discussed but are not yet quantified. These two options could then provide the additional 51,850 square feet of skier -related retail space, 3) addition of support retail outside of the core areas within the Community Office land use area, and, 4) increased intensity of use in the West Vail Community Commercial undeveloped area. These two options could be utilized to accommodate the 18,422 square foot shortfall of local related retail space. It was decided to rely on the marketplace to accommodate this additional retail demand through these types of options, rather than designating new commercial areas away from existing nodes, which would have been contrary to the desires expressed by the community at large. IV. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 2211 North Frontage Road West Legal Description: Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 Existing Zoning: Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Proposed Zoning: Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District Land Use Plan Designation: Community Commercial Current Land Use: Lodge Proposed Land Use: Lodge Geological Hazards: None V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Town of Vail Page 6 Existing Use North: Multi-family/Single- family South: 1-70 East: Commercial Zone District Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential N/A Commercial Core 3 (CC3) West: Commercial/Housing Commercial Core 3 (CC3) & Housing (H) VI. REVIEW CRITERIA For these applications the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance or consistency with the following: • Purpose of the PA -2 District; • Purpose of the SDD District; and • The factors for a zone district boundary amendment in 12-3-7.C.1.A. 1-8 of Vail Town Code; and • The proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and • The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and • The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Land Use plan Prior to a formal public hearing on this application, staff will present a full analysis of this review criterion. VII. ITEMS TO DISCUSS The applicant is proposing three separate applications. The first application is a Major Exterior Alteration to allow the construction of an addition to the hotel building including rooms and an expanded conference area and a separate Employee Housing Unit (EHU) apartment building. The proposed buildings would be to the north and the west of the current hotel building. They would be utilizing the full 48 feet of allowed height in the proposed PA -2 zone district. The parking for the hotel and the apartments is proposed to be part of the valet system. The second application is to rezone the property from the current Commercial Core 3 (CC3) to Public Accommodation — 2 (PA -2) zone district. This is necessitated because lodges are not an allowed use in the CC3 zone district. The Land Use plan refers to the best location for hotel and commercial growth in Goal 3. Commercial (pg 5). The third application is for a Special Development District (SDD) to allow for the applicant to deviate from the standards in the Town code. Specifically the applicant is Town of Vail Page 7 proposing to reduce parking from the required 250 spaces to 214 spaces. Of the spaces proposed 117 of those spaces are proposed to be valet parked with 75 valet spaces outside and 42 in the enclosed garage. The application currently only proposes 26.9% snow storage area, which is below the required 30%. The main items for discussion are listed below with specific points that the applicant would like the PEC to weigh in on. Zoning District CC3 PA -2 Building Height Flat Roof: 35 feet Sloped Roof: 38 feet Flat Roof: 45 feet Sloped Roof: 48 feet Site Coverage 40% Site Area 65% Site Area Landscaping 25% Site Area 30% Site Area Number of Permitted and Conditional Uses 74 11 Rezoning from CC3 to PA -2 a. Would an increase in height, increase in site coverage, decrease in the allowed uses, and restriction of commercial opportunities make sense in this area? b. Does the Land Use Plan support the change to the PA -2 zone district where commercial is severely limited? 2. Special Development District a. Does reducing the parking in this area make sense? b. Is the proposed valet parking system functional? c. Does a decrease in the minimum required snow storage seem function with consideration of the proposed parking arrangement? VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, staff has no recommendation at this time. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative, November 11, 2019 C. Plan Set, Pierce Austin Architects, November 5, 2019 D. Public Comment - Patricia Lauer - 12-3-19 E. Public Comment - Tania Boyd - 12-3-19 Town of Vail Page 8 ii O O -10 lLO L LO N O �x co d' W � 0 M 1 � y Q W a .� � CL0 ' coLL owo U CL .O ca � °ALO W p N O ff^�^ v, ii O O -10 lLO L LO N O �x H 41' h Iin e . A DoubleTree by Hilton Submitted to the Town of Vail: November 11, 2019 I VU I ICI Mauriello Planning Group Consultant Directory Developer/Owner Mark Mutkoski TNREF III Bravo Vail, LLC Yo True North Management Group, LLC 10 Bank Street, 12 Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Project Manager/Owner Representative Michael O'Connor Triump Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 970.688.5057 Planning and Entitlements Dominic Mauriello Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81657 970-376-3318 dominic@mpgvail.com Architect Bill Pierce and Kit Austin Pierce Austin Architects 1650 Fallridge Road, Suite C-1 Vail, CO 81657 970.476.6342 Landscape Architecture Dennis Anderson Dennis Anderson Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 3722, Eagle CO 81631 970.390.3745 Civil Engineering Matt Wadey, P. E. Alpine Engineering Inc. 34510 Highway 6, Unit A-9 Edwards, CO 81632 970.926.3373 Geology and Geo Hazards Julia Frazier, P.G. Skyline Geoscience jfrazier@skylinegeoscience.com 303.746.1813 Traffic Engineering Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE McDowell Engineering P.O. Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 kari@mcdowelleng.com 970.623.0788 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 2 Table of Contents Consultant Directory 2 Background 8 Review Process 10 Rezoning 10 Special Development District 12 Major Exterior Alteration 13 Zoning Analysis 14 Parking 16 Workforce Housing Plan 23 Criteria for Review: Rezoning 28 Criteria for Review: Special Development District 35 Criteria for Review: Major Exterior Alteration 42 Conclusion 44 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 3 Introduction Highline, a DoubleTree by Hilton (Highline hereafter), is requesting an application for rezoning to Public Accommodation 2 (PA2) and the establishment of a new Special Development District (SDD) for Highline to facilitate the construction of a new mixed-use building located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. West in Vail. The proposed project consists of an employee housing apartment building, limited service lodge units (LSLUs), accommodation units/hotel rooms (AUs), and an Employee Housing Unit (EHU) dorm space. As part of the application, the applicant is requesting a major exterior alteration in order to add the additional lodging and EHUs. In the interest of providing a much needed public benefit, the applicant is proposing the development of an employee housing apartment building that will include 16 units, providing a total of 40 bedrooms. This building is not required as part of the project, but is being proposed as a public benefit. The workforce housing requirement for the additional lodging space is being met with the addition of the EHU dorm space. The project furthers three key identified community goals: the provision of employee housing, the provision of live beds, and encouragement of in -fill development. New Underground Parking ~ - El Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 4 r The proposed project includes the following: 176 AUs with approximately 32,555 sq. ft. of net new GRFA (79 net new, one existing AU lost to circulation needs) 19 LSLUs with approximately 20,050 sq. ft. of GRFA (previously dwelling units) 12 employee housing bedrooms within a dormitory space with approximately 4,400 sq. ft. of floor area 16 employee housing units (2 and 3 bedroom units) with approximately 16,270 sq. ft. of floor area ^ 223 total parking spaces (56 net new parking spaces, 48 of which are enclosed) To facilitate the development of this project, the property is proposed to be rezoned from CC3 to PA2, and include a SDD. The SDD designation will apply to the entirety of the Highline property, including the pre-existing lodge and restaurant facilities. The only practical method to achieve the project as contemplated is a zoning change for the site to align with the historical use of the property as a lodge as well as an SDD for some relatively minor deviations. The required deviations are solely generated by the inclusion of the Employee Housing structure within the development project. If that structure were removed, no SDD would be necessary. Rezoning and SDD applications follow a similar path in that they are each recommended by the Planning and Environmental Commission and receive approval by the Town Council. For major exterior alteration applications, the Planning and Environmental Commission is the final review authority. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 5 Highline presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within the Town of Vail. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east and west and residential to the west (partially) and to the north. As an infill site, with a portion of the proposed development constructed upon an existing parking lot that currently serves the existing Highline and a previously disturbed portion of the site, there are minimal, if any, impacts to the natural environment. Public Benefits of the Project: Employee housing far in excess of requirements, all on-site and near the major employment center, addressing one of the documented critical needs of the Town (The proposal generates the need to house 9.5 employees, the project provides housing for approximately 102 employees, assuming two persons per bedroom) All EHUs are highly functional and livable dwellings within the employment center of Vail for single and/or double occupancy 16 Type 3 EHUs, not required as mitigation, are proposed as a benefit of the project Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 6 Redevelopment of an infill site in the Town of Vail as suggested by the Vail Land Use Plan Economic vitality and enhanced public and private revenues to Town as a result of new lodging facilities and locals housing Improving the Town's hotel bed base A future subdivision application will be processed for the property. This future application will provide for a total of two parcels. One to accommodate the hotel and all of its related uses, and another parcel for the employee housing structure. While the properties will be tied together as it relates zoning and development standards, creating a separate parcel for the employee housing building will facilitate its development potentially by a third party. This proposed subdivision concept is key and inherent in the proposed development of the site. The Type 3 EHU building may be developed in a subsequent phase after completion of the hotel expansion. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 7 Background The Highline site was originally built under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. In 1979, the newly constructed facility received a certificate of occupancy from Eagle County. It was then annexed to the Town of Vail as part of a larger annexation of the West Vail area by Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, approved on December 10, 1980. Per the statutory requirements, the newly annexed land was required to be zoned by the Town of Vail within 90 days of annexation, by March 10, 1981. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1981, was first read in on March 3, 1981. This ordinance created the Commercial Core III (hereinafter "CC3") zone district, under which this site was zoned. It appears the zone district was created hastily as the CC3 zoning district did not allow for hotels or dwelling units which were already developed on the property. From the inception, the CC3 zone district upon application to this site rendered. the existing hotel a nonconforming use. Over four P 'W years later, on August 15, 1985, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the original West Recent Drone Aerial of Highline Vail annexation because a rectangular tract owned by the BLM was between two contiguous tracts that were being annexed. This BLM land was improperly included in the proposed area to be annexed, and without this land, the proposed Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 8 annexation would be 'invalid for lack of the necessary one-sixth contiguity.' The Town of Vail moved quickly to again annex West Vail. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1986, re -annexed West Vail on January 29, 1986. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986, was first read in on March 18, 1986. There were no changes to the zoning for the site in this ordinance even though the hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominium units (19 dwelling units with 20 lock offs) on this property had existed for 7 years (the condominium units were added in 1983). This was likely an oversight since the hotel had been there for so long and because by that time the Town had adopted the Vail Land Use Plan which encouraged the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base, specifically in the West Vail area. Thus, since 1981, this site has operated as a nonconforming use and maintained its use as a lodge as it was first built in 1979. A nonconforming use cannot be expanded or modified except if changed to a permitted or conditional use even though the Town has been focused for the last 40 years at encouraging and expanding the hotel base. Today, the only uses on the site permitted by CC3 zoning are the commercial spaces (two restaurants and limited retail), which is key reason that a rezoning to PA2 is necessary to allow the hotel. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 9 Review Process Rezoning As discussed above, the existing lodge and a few related development standards do not conform with the provisions of the CC3 zoning on the property and therefore necessitates a change in zoning on the property. Some of the current issues with the CC3 zone district as applied to the Highline include the following: Use Hotel - The existing hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominiums (19 dwelling units with 20 lock -offs) are nonconforming uses. This means that the lodging use cannot be expanded. Building Height The height of the existing building is 52 feet (worst-case), though the maximum allowable building height for the CC3 zoning district is 35 feet. Density The CC3 zone district allows 12 dwelling units per acre, yet does not permit dwelling units. Because accommodation units are not allowed, there is no indication of how accommodation units are treated with regard to density. Parking_ in the Front Setback The front setback on this property is the North Frontage Road frontage. Parking is developed to the front property line and does not comply with this requirement however, the right-of-way has been nicely landscaped to provided an adequate buffer. The applicant examined a variety of potential approaches to redeveloping the the property in terms of the Town's development review processes. The existing CC3 zone district was compared with the PA, PA2, and HDMF (High Density Multiple Family) to understand which zone district most closely aligns with the existing development on the property and that proposed by the applicant. No one zone district perfectly aligns with existing or proposed conditions. To maintain the CC3 zoning on the property, that zone district would require significant amendments. These amendments, which would apply to the remainder of the parcels in the West Vail commercial area, may not be appropriate for all properties zoned CC3. Hotels and limited service lodge units would have to be added as permitted uses, the height allowance changed, as well as GRFA and density provisions modified. It was determined that the best avenue to facilitate the development is to rezone the property to PA2. There are several benefits of rezoning the property to PA2, including greater assurance that the property will remain as a hotel into the future. This provides protection that one of the Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 10 primary uses the Town seeks to support and encourage due to its ability to generate significant tax revenues to the Town and increase the overall vitality of the Town year round. The rezoning results in a property where all of the uses are conforming and comply with zoning. In addition, the allowable building height in PA2 of 48' more closely aligns with the existing hotel which has one area on the roof of the building at 52'. The proposed new buildings fully comply with the 48' height limit. The rezoning to PA2 resolves the flaw of having included this property in the CC3 zone district to begin with. The following nonconformities are resolved or reduced by rezoning to PA2: n Lodging and all other uses will now comply as permitted uses n Building height more closely reflects the height of the existing structure on the property with a height allowance of 48'. All new buildings will comply with 48' n Density issues will be resolved n GRFA issues will be resolved There will continue to be some development standards in the PA2 zone district where the existing site and proposed development does not fully comply, including the following: Parking in the front setback. Because this condition is pre-existing and is also true in CC3 zone district, and because the applicant is not making the condition any worse, the proposed redevelopment is not required to meet this standard. Requirement for 75% of all parking to be enclosed. Unlike the CC3 zone district, the PA2 zone district requires 75% of the parking to be enclosed. Today, all of the existing parking is unenclosed surface parking. The applicant is proposing to enclose 48 new proposed parking spaces with the proposed additions and actually reduce the amount of pavement associated with the surface parking areas. Through the use of a valet program, and being move efficient with the use of surface pavement, the applicant is proposing a net increase in the number of surface parking spaces while reducing the amount of pavement associated with surface parking. Overall, 22% percent of the parking onsite will be enclosed, however, comparing the existing parking requirement of 185 spaces (though only 169 spaces exist) with the proposed parking requirement of 214 spaces, there is only a net new requirement of 29 parking spaces or 45 spaces over what exists. The proposal is to add a total of 48 enclosed parking spaces and reorganize the existing surface parking areas. Therefore, the applicant believes that the proposed redevelopment complies with the 75% enclosure requirement based upon the net new impact of the proposal. Building height. The existing hotel building will continue to be nonconforming with respect to building height for the 52' existing hotel structure. All proposed buildings Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 11 comply with the 48' building height allowance and therefore the redevelopment complies with the building height requirements. A Special Development District is being sought to provide some relief from parking related standards documented below generated solely due to the inclusion of the EHU structure. The applicant believes that the public benefits offered by this project, outweigh the relatively minor relief and deviation being sought. The benefits proposed include: employee housing in excess of code requirements, increase in the amount of real hotel lodging provided within the Town, increase in the amount of conference space provided within the Town, and the overall aesthetic improvements being proposed. Special Development District The applicant is seeking to rezone the property to a PA2 so that it can more accurately function in compliance with the zoning district. However, the applicant is faced with some minor deviations largely generated due to the effort by the applicant to provide a public benefit, addressing the employee housing crisis, by creating additional employee housing within the Town of Vail. These deviations include parking rates, valet parking, and snow storage (see parking section for details on these deviations). The deviations being created are solely due to the inclusion of the employee housing structure containing 16 units. No SDD would be required if the employee housing structure were removed from the proposal. Deviations such as the proposed, are common among Special Development Districts, especially when trying to redevelop a property that was originally developed under Eagle County regulations in the 1980s. In this case, the deviations being sought are relatively minor in terms of impacts to the community at large. The proposed deviations have little impact upon the bulk and mass of structure (height or footprint) but relate more to operational aspects of the property. All of the deviations have to do with the unique circumstances found on this site and based upon how the property will be operated. There was a previous SDD granted on this property that was never implemented. Deviations from Underlying Zoning Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, provides the mechanism for deviating from the underlying zone district. It states: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 12 it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. Major Exterior Alteration The PA -2 Zone District requires a Major Exterior Alteration for the addition of dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, limited service lodge units, and the addition of 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area or common space. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 13 Zoning Analysis Location: 2211 N. Frontage Rd. West/ VAIL DAS SCHONE FIL 3 Block: A Lot: 1 THRU:- Lot: 3, Subdivision: VAIL DAS SCHONE FIL 3 Lot: 1 VAIL DAS SCHONE 1 PT OF TR C VAIL DAS SCHONE 1 Parcel Number: 210311415017 Lot Size: 3.95 acres / 172,047 sq. ft. Existing Zoning: Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Proposed Zoning: Public Accommodation 2 (PA2) Development Standard Existing (CC3) Lot Area 3.95 acres (rounded) 172,047 sq. ft. Lodging and Residential 97 AU Uses 19 DU Commercial Uses (gross sq. ft.) 1,520 sq. ft. hotel retail 6,955 sq. ft. restaurant 4,500 sq. ft. office/ commercial Conference (gross sq. ft.) 2,666 sq. ft. conference Parking 169 spaces Setbacks North - > 20 ft. East - > 20 ft. South - > 20 ft. West - > 20 ft. Height 52 ft. Density 12 units per acre allowed Noncompliant with CC3 19 DU 97 AU Total: 116 "units" Proposed (PA2) 3.95 acres (rounded) 172,047 sq. ft. 176 AU 19 LSLU 12 EHU Dorm Units 16 EHUs (apartments) 1,520 sq. ft. hotel retail 6,955 sq. ft. restaurant 0 sq. ft. office/commercial (converted to EHU Dorm) 6,616 sq. ft. conference 223 spaces North - 20 ft. East - > 20 ft. South - >20 ft. West - >20 ft. 52 ft. existing building 48 ft. new buildings Uses do not count as density per code 176 AU 19 LSLU 12 EHU Dorm rooms 16 EHU apartments/condos Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 14 Development Standard Existing (CC3) GRFA EHU Floor Area Site Coverage Landscape Area Internal Parking Landscaping (10% of surface parking area) Snow Storage (30% of surface parking area) 51,614 sq. ft. (30%) allowed 45,250 sq. ft. (26.3%) total 25,200 sq. ft. existing AUs 20,050 sq. ft. existing DUs Proposed (PA2) 258,070.5 sq. ft. (150%) allowed 77,805 sq. ft. total 32,555 sq. ft. net new AUs 25,200 sq. ft. AUs existing 20,050 sq. ft. LSLU converted DUs 0 sq. ft. 19,680 sq. ft. total 4,400 sq. ft. EHU Dorm 16,270 sq. ft. EHUs 68,818 sq. ft. (40%) allowed 111,830 sq. ft. (65%) allowed Existing 36,084 sq. ft. (21 %) Proposed 61,769 (36%) 43,012 sq. ft. (25%) required 64,785 sq. ft. (37.6%) existing Paved area = 72,194 sq. ft Internal Landscaping Required: 7,219.4 sq. ft. (10%) Internal Landscaping Existing: 6,564 sq. Ft. (9%) Paved Area: 72,194 sq. ft. Snow storage Required: 21,658.2 sq. ft. (30%) Snow storage Existing: 21,685 sq. ft. (30%) sq. ft. *EHUs do not count towards density or GRFA. 51,614.1 sq. ft. (30%) required 53,190 sq. ft. (30.9%) proposed Paved area = 61,769 sq. ft. proposed Internal Landscaping Required: 6,177 sq. ft. (10%) Internal Landscaping Proposed: 8,621 sq. ft. (13.9%) Paved area = 61,769 sq. ft. Snow storage Required: 18,530 sq. ft. (30%) Snow storage Proposed: 16,634 sq. ft. (26.9%) Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton is Parking Predicting the amount of parking that is needed for any use or development is a challenging endeavor. Parking regulations are rarely reflective of empirical data and usually developed by comparing one community to the next. Parking rates are influenced by the need to access a property by one's personal car, the availability of public transit, the availability of onsite private shuttles, airport shuttles, availability of taxis or Uber, and the ability to access other commercial offerings and services by foot. Highline is located in the West Vail core area, on the free Town of Vail bus system, and within easy pedestrian or bicycle access to many services. There are at least two areas of the Town Code that we believe are not reflective of parking need as applied to the Highline. Those are the parking requirements for conference space within a hotel and smaller retail venues that are located within a hotel. Conference Room Parking: The Town Code, as applied outside of the core commercial area, requires that parking for a conference room or meeting room located in a traditional hotel be calculated the same way parking is calculated for a freestanding conference center with no onsite lodging. Hotels use meeting room and conference room space to drive hotel occupancy, especially during periods of the year where hotel occupancy is lower. For instance, at the Highline, the existing conference space is converted to a recreation area for hotel guests during the peak winter season as there is no need to increase occupancy rates during this time. The conference space is used in the shoulder seasons and the summer to help fill rooms. The parking requirement outside of the core commercial parking area for a conference room is 1 parking space for each 120 sq. ft. of seating area. However, within the core area for a hotel with conference rooms, the parking requirement for the conference room space is 1 parking space for each 330 sq. ft. of seating area. The parking requirement in the core is 2.75 time lower than that of a conference facility within a hotel outside the core. Additionally, conference rooms within a fractional fee club located outside of the core area have a reduced parking requirement that mirrors a hotel within the core area (i.e., 2.75 times lower). As a result, if the Highline were a fractional fee club rather than a traditional hotel, the parking for meeting room space would be 2.75 times lower. There may have been a mistake in the Town Code with regard to the parking for conference space within a hotel outside of the core. The parking for conference space at the Highline should be reduced to be the same as that for a fractional fee club or a hotel within the core area. The Highline will park most of the conference facilities as guests at the hotel because they are guests already parked at the facility. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 16 Hotel Focused Retail Parking: The Highline includes several retail and restaurant uses within the hotel. Two of these uses are the Charter Sports ski rental shop (700 sq. ft.) and Simply Massage (820 sq. ft.). This spaces are largely used by the guests staying at the hotel, yet they are assessed parking at the same rate as they would be if they were a standalone retail facility. While the use of these facilities by outside guest is minimal, especially during the peak occupancy season, the parking is proposed to be reduced by only 50%. During slower seasons, Charter Sports tends to close and Simply Massage often tries to market to the general public. During these slower times of the year, the hotel is typically at substantially lower occupancy and there is an abundance of available parking onsite. It could be argued that the West Side Cafe and Market and the Casa Mexico facilities also get a percentage of their customers from the hotel guests that are already parked at the hotel. However, the applicant does not propose a reduction from the code requirements for these uses. Parking Summary: The table below shows the current Town Code parking requirement for each use compared to what is being proposed. The reductions being sought reduce the parking requirement by 36 parking spaces. The total parking being proposed onsite is 223 parking spaces with the total required parking as proposed with the parking adjustments of 214. Use Spaces required by Spaces Proposed with Town Code SDD Accomodation Unit 134.8 134.8 Limit Service Lodge Unit 13.3 13.3 Meeting Space (seating area) 55.13 20 Lobby Bar (Seating) 0.7 0.7 3rd Party Restaurant (Seating) 18.9 18.9 Spa - Simply Massage 2.73 1.4 Professional Office 0 0 Retail - Charter Sports 2.33 1.2 Dorm Apartment (one unit, 12 2.5 2.5 bedrooms) EHU 32 32 Total 262.39 224.8 Difference IN] 0 35.13 0 0 1.33 0 1.13 0 0 37.59 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 17 Use With Multi -Use Reduction of 5% Spaces required by Town Code 249.27 Spaces Proposed with SDD 213.56 Difference 35.71 The following table contains the proposed parking formulas for the Highline project. The rows highlighted in blue are the only areas where reductions from code are proposed: Use Units 176 Per Unit 0.4 Existing New SF Total SF SF 64,360 Per 1 000s Space Req. Accomodation Unit 1.0 134.8 Limit Service Lodge Unit 19 0.7 Meeting Space (seating area) 13.3 Meeting Space (seating area) 2,666 3,950 6,616 3.0 20.0 Lobby Bar (Seating) 80 0 80 8.3 0.7 3rd Party Restaurant (Seating) 2277 0 2277 8.3 18.9 Spa - Simply Massage 820 20 1.7 1.4 Professional Office 4500 0 0 - - Retail - Charter Sports 700 - 700 1.7 As 1.2 Dorm Apartment (one unit, 12 bedrooms) b 1 2.5 2.5 EHU 16 2.0 32.0 Tota 1 224.7 Multiple Use Reduction 5.00% 11.2 Total Required Parking 213.5 223.0 Parking provided The following tables provide the parking calculations of the proposed project and existing site per the current Town Code. Parking Calculation per Current Town Code - Proposed Hotel MMMb6,,��Units Per Unit Existing SF New SF Total SF • ••. • M=M==M= Limit Service Lodge Unit Meeting Space (seating area) Lobby Bar (Seating) Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 18 Parking Calculation per Current Town Code - Proposed Use Units Per Unit Existing NM SIF Hotel Per 1 000sf Spald Req. 3rd Party Restaurant (Seating) Space q Accomodation Units 2277 0 2277 8.3 18.9 Spa - Simply Massage 38.0 Meeting Space 820 - 820 3.3 2.7 Professional Office 80 0 4500 0 0 - - Retail - Charter Sports 2,277 0 700 - 700 3.3 2.3 Dorm Apartment (one unit, 12 bedrooms) 1 2.5 820 3.3 2.7 Professional Office 2.5 EHU 16 2.0 4500 4 18.0 Retail - Charter Sports 32.0 Total 700 - 700 3.3 2.3 Dorm Apartment (one unit, 12 bedrooms) 262.3 Multiple Use Reduction 0.0 5.00% 13.1 Total Required Parking 0.0 Required Parking 249.2 Parking provided 205.9 Multiple Use Reduction 223.0 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 19 Units •-0 Per Unitng r9VITIA91916- • - Per New SF Total SF 1000sf 64,360 1.0 2,666 2,666 8.3 Space q Accomodation Units 97 0.4 103.2 Dwelling Units 19 2 38.0 Meeting Space 22.1 Lobby Bar (Seating) 80 0 80 8.3 0.7 3rd Party Restaurant (Seating) 2,277 0 2277 8.3 18.9 Spa - Simply Massage 820 - 820 3.3 2.7 Professional Office 4,500 0 4500 4 18.0 Retail - Charter Sports 700 - 700 3.3 2.3 Dorm Apartment (one unit, 12 bedrooms) 0 0 0.0 EHU 0 0 0.0 Required Parking 205.9 Multiple Use Reduction 5% 10.3 Total Required Parking 195.6 Existing Parking provided 169.0 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 19 The following are the Town's formulas for determining parking requirements for properties outside of the Town's core areas of Lionshead and Vail Village, except as noted. We have provided these as an easy reference to the Town's parking requirements and to show the discrepancy of the lodging calculation that occurs for Accommodation Units (core versus noncore) versus Fraction Fee Club. Accommodation Unit: 0.4 space per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit Accommodation Unit in the Commercial Core: 0.7 space per accommodation unit. Hotels with conference facilities or meeting rooms 0.7 space per accommodation unit, plus 1.0 space per 330 square feet of seating floor area devoted to conference facilities or meeting rooms Fractional Fee Club Unit: 0.7 space per fractional fee club unit. Hotels with conference facilities or meeting rooms 0.7 space per fractional fee club unit, plus 1.0 space per 330 square feet of seating floor area devoted to conference facilities or meeting rooms Theaters, Meeting Rooms, Convention Facilities: 1 space per 120 square feet of seating floor area Limited Service Lodge Unit: 0.7 space per limited service lodge unit Employee Housing Units: If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces. If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 500 square feet or less: 1.5 spaces Retail, Personal Service, and Repair Shops. 1 parking space per each 300 sq. ft. of net floor area. Multiple -family dwellings (used for parking requirement for EHU Dorm): If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 500 square feet or less: 1.5 spaces; If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces; If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet Eating and Drinking Establishments. 1 parking space per 120 sq. ft. of seating floor area. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 20 Parking Related Deviations causing need for the SDD: The applicant is attempting to provide a public benefit to the Town of Vail, and Eagle County at large, by building additional EHU units on its property. In doing so, the applicant is using space that could otherwise be put toward parking and snow storage. If the Employee Housing building proposed were removed from the project, no deviations would be necessary and no SDD would be required. Because it would be a lost benefit to the community to not build the employee housing in this location, it is for this reason that the applicant is seeking the following deviations. Conference Parking: The current parking regulations allow a fractional fee club style hotel outside of the core areas to have its parking related to conference facilities reduced from 1 parking space for each 120 sq. ft. to 1 parking space for each 330 sq. ft. The same calculation is true within the core areas of Lionshead and Vail Village. Yet a regular hotel, outside of the core area, is not afforded the same relief as that of a fractional fee property. This is likely an error or oversight in the current parking regulations. The parking requirement for meeting rooms or conference rooms at 1 space for 120 sq. ft. is for a stand alone facility with no lodging onsite. It makes sense that a hotel with meeting room space, especially when the space is very limited total size, would primarily be occupied by people already staying and parked at the hotel. The primary reason a hotel provides meeting space is to increase occupancy of the hotel during slower periods of the year. Additionally, the hotel operator provides shuttle services from West Vail to the core areas of Lionshead and Vail Village which then requires less parking overall for the hotel. The applicant is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to account for this reduction to 1 parking space for each 330 sq. ft. of conference space. Parking for commercial and retail space: The existing and proposed hotel includes an 820 sq. ft. Simply Massage space and a 700 sq. ft. Charter Sports space. The Town's parking requirements do not provide any reduction in parking requirement for these types of retail/service facilities within a hotel. It is difficult to draft the code around having retail spaces that clearly generate traffic from off -premise, like the existing Westside Cafe and Market and Casa Mexico restaurants. In this case, based on the type of services and retail operations, the applicant is proposing the parking for these limited retail uses should be reduced by 50% to account for the fact that more than 50% of the business will come from consumers already parked at the hotel. While the project complies with code without this deviation, the applicant is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to account for this logical reduction. It could be argued that the restaurants, Westside Cafe and Market and Casa Mexico, also derive a portion of their Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 21 customers from the hotel and conference uses on the property. However, the appliance it not requesting such a reduction. Valet Parking: The code allows up to 50% of the required parking to be within a valet parking program. The proposed redevelopment project requires a total of 214 parking spaces and provides 223 total parking spaces onsite. There are 117 parking spaces proposed as valet parking spaces or 52.5% of the required parking. It can be argued that because there are 9 surplus parking spaces, and those surplus spaces can also be valet spaces in excess of the 50% limit, that the percentage is actually 50.4% of the required parking. The applicant is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to account for this minor deviation. Snow Storage: The code requires that an area equal to 30% of the surface parking areas be provided as snow storage. The proposed project provides approximately 26.9% of snow storage areas onsite. Were it not for the employee housing structure, there would be adequate snow storage onsite. The applicant proposes to manage the snow storage onsite by utilizing an area designated for valet parking to temporarily store snow until it can be removed from the property after a large storm. Similar successful approaches to snow removal occur in the remainder of the West Vail commercial area. The applicant is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to account for this minor deviation. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 22 Workforce Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. The proposed project exceeds both the total requirement and the onsite requirement for employee housing. In fact, in the interest of providing a much needed public benefit, the applicant is proposing the development of an employee housing apartment building that will include 16 units, providing a total of 40 bedrooms. This building is not required as part of the project, but is being proposed as a public benefit. The workforce housing requirement for the additional lodging space is being met with the addition of the EHU dorm space. The Employee Housing structure is intended to be developed on a separate parcel of land that will be subdivided from the remainder of the property, yet tied to the overall property for the purpose of applying zoning and development standards. This will facilitate its development by a third party entity while still being integral to the hotel campus. A. Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: Inclusionary zoning does not apply to this application as there are no new dwelling units or GRFA being proposed. In fact, 19 dwelling units are being removed and replaced with Limited Service Lodge Units. Therefore, the property will maintain an inclusionary employee housing credit of 2,005 sq. ft. of EHU floor area that can be used in the future, should dwelling units ever be proposed within the property. Commercial linkage applies to this project. Use Commercial Linkage Calculation Calculation 79 net new 0.6 employees per unit accommodation units 19 net new LSLUs Conference Space Removal of 4,500 sq. ft. office space Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 0.6 employees per unit 0.8 employee per 1,000 feet of net new floor area (3,950 new) 3.2 employees/1,000 sq.ft. Net employees generated Mitigation Rate Total Employees Generated 47.4 11.4 3.2 -14.4 47.6 20% 23 Use Calculation Total Employees Generated Total Commercial Linkage 9.5 employees to be housed Requirement The proposed project generates a net requirement of 9.5 employees to be housed. This will offset by the applicant's proposal of an EHU dormitory style housing to accommodate up to 17.6 employees. Thus, the proposal has a surplus of 8.1 employees that shall be carried forward as a credit against future employee generating proposals on the property. The applicant is also proposing to develop a 16 -unit employee housing apartment structure onsite. These units will allow the applicant to establish an employee housing bank pursuant to section 12-23-7 of the Town Code. 16 Unit EHU Bui B. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan has been provided with this submittal. The EHU dormitory style unit has a total square footage of 4,400 sq. ft. and Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 24 with 12 total units or bedrooms. The minimum square footage per person occupying the dormitory is 250 sq. ft., which therefore allows for a total of 17.6 employees. C. Lot Size: The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. D. Schedules: A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. E. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. Proposed Dormitory Layout F. Off Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. G. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. H. Written Narrative: A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 25 Applicant Analysis: Section 12-24-1: Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Inclusionary Zoning Chapter: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in the town of Vail provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such residential development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. In 2008, the Town of Vail established the Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which brought together all of the Town's goals on employee housing into a single plan. It provides the following: In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. " Based upon the community's work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) seeks to meet the expectations Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 26 established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community's workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and publicly initiated development projects. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan then outlines the various objectives and policies for implementing the plan. It provides a list of Town Initiatives, one of which is specifically applicable to this project: Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code, but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to "catch up" with existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town of Vail. As indicated in this submittal, the proposal complies with and furthers the purposes and goals of the Town's employee housing requirements and master plans. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 27 Criteria for Review: Rezoning Section 12-3-7: AMENDMENT, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a zone district boundary amendment. The following section includes the criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment 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; Applicant Analysis: The property is governed by the Vail Land Use Plan. Other applicable plans include the Vail 20120 Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan, all of which are described below: • Vail Land Use Plan The adopted map of the Vail Land Use Plan shows a designation of "Community Commercial" for the majority of the property. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS /-1 O Hillside Residential Transition Area Low Dews kl'Residential �Pu61ir15emFPrfidic Medium Hens ity Residential Ski ease High Density Residential P. 0 Resort Accommodations and Services Dpen Space Community Cffi. Not Designated Village Master Plan Ski Portal • :�'^; L—Head Redevelopment Master Plan Gore Geek - Community Commercial T— Boundary Per the Vail Land Use Plan of 1986, this area was designated to be Community Commercial. (See Vail Land Use Plan, Chapter VI - Proposed Land Use). This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short- term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1-70, with other support commercial and business services Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 28 included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses." (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 25) This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. " (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 28). The intention of the Preferred Land Use Plan was to "...reflect[s] a balancing of existing conditions, community opinion, opportunities and constraints, and projected growth demands. This property was likely included in an inappropriate zoning, CC3, without intention. At the time of the adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan, West Vail had just been re -annexed to the town. The facility pre -dated the annexation and zoning, and it appears that applying more appropriate zoning was overlooked and is now long over -due. The Vail Land Use Plan states that allowing accommodation units at 50 units per acre is appropriate. On this 3.95 acre site, that would allow for 197.5 accommodation units. The applicant is proposing 195 units, including the limited service lodge units. The proposal includes a zoning of Public Accommodation -2 District. The PA2 zone district allows lodges with multiple family dwellings, employee housing units, and commercial/office uses. The proposed amendment will make all of the uses conform with zoning. • Vail 20/20 Plan The Vail 20/20 Plan provides the following goals: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. The proposed zoning of PA2 and the proposed SDD helps to further the goal of the Town of Vail to provide deed -restricted housing for 30% of the workforce. This property creates an exciting opportunity to create new housing stock in an area that provides services and transportation within walking distance. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 29 • Employee Housing Strategic Plan The Employee Housing Strategic Plan outlines the Town of Vail's goals and policies to ensure employee housing. It provides the following objectives: •;• Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the community remains competitive in economic terms. •;• Increase and maintain deed -restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work. The proposed zoning will allow for the creation of new deed -restricted employee housing units within the Town of Vail, allowing Vail to remain economically competitive in attracting and maintaining a quality workforce. Applicant Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further four of Vail's critical goals: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive; maintaining and increasing the Town's lodging bed base to increase revenues and improve the vitality of the Town's economy; to increase occupancy and vitality in the shoulder seasons by providing new conference space; and promoting infill development within the Town. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and Applicant Analysis: The Highline site was originally built under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. In 1979, the newly constructed facility received a certificate of occupancy from Eagle County. It was then annexed to the Town of Vail as part of a larger annexation of the West Vail area by Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, approved on December 10, 1980. Per the statutory requirements, the newly annexed land was required to be zoned by the zoning district for the Town of Vail within 90 days of annexation, by March 10, 1981. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1981, was first read in on March 3, 1981. This ordinance created the CCC3 zone district, under which this site was zoned. It appears the zone district was created hastily as the CC3 zoning district did not allow for hotels or dwelling units where were already developed on the property. From the inception, the CC3 zone district upon application to this site rendered the existing hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominiums (19 dwelling units with 20 lock -offs) as nonconforming uses. Over four years later, on August 15, 1985, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the original West Vail annexation because a rectangular tract owned by the BLM was between two contiguous tracts that were being annexed. This BLM land was improperly included in the proposed area to be annexed, and without this land, the Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 30 proposed annexation would be 'invalid for lack of the necessary one-sixth contiguity.' The Town of Vail moved quickly to again annex West Vail. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1986, re -annexed West Vail on January 29, 1986. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986, was first read in on March 18, 1986. There were no changes to the zoning for the site in this ordinance even though the hotel and condominium units on this property had existed for 7 years. We believe that this was an incredible oversight since the hotel have been there already for so long and because by that time the Town had adopted the Vail Land Use Plan which encouraged the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base. This property sits on the edge between the West Vail Commercial Center and multi- family residential properties. The West Vail Commercial Center consists of commercial uses designed to meet the needs of locals and guests alike. Just like the existing hotel, the proposed hotel and employee housing will continue to be compatible and complimentary to the other uses within the area. Given the location and transitional point between commercial and residential, a hotel and workforce housing such as this provide the obvious transition and naturally fit in the environment. The proposed rezoning of the property to Public Accommodation 2 along with the proposed SDD will allow the site to be conforming and thus allow the property to enjoy conforming status and allow for the proposed expansion of the hotel. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; Applicant Analysis: This property sits on the edge between the West Vail Commercial Center and multi- family residential properties. The West Vail Commercial Center consists of commercial uses designed to meet the needs of locals and guests alike. When moving between commercial zoning and residential zoning, it is important to consider a transition that provides a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among the existing land uses. Just like the existing hotel, the proposed hotel and employee housing will provide such a transition and will continue to be compatible and complimentary to the other uses within the area. Given the location and adjacency of two zone districts types (commercial and residential), a hotel and workforce housing such as this provide an obvious transition and present a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship between these land uses. The proposal to rezone the property to PA2 furthers three major development objectives: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 31 n Provision of employee housing n Encourage the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base n Encourage the development of conference facilities to address generation of revenues during the slower shoulder seasons As a result, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Applicant Analysis: The proposed zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community by allowing a hotel to be expanded within the limits of its development site and provide for workforce housing. The proposal is close to existing services and transportation, while simultaneously providing needed lodging to encourage overnight visitors. Employee housing is key to ensuring that the Town of Vail remain economically viable and competitive, while not having impacts to environmentally sensitive lands. This proposed rezoning does not constitute spot zoning, as the PA2 zone district helps to further these community goals and is consistent with the Town land use plan and other guiding documents. As a result, the proposed amendment serves the best interest of the community. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Applicant Analysis: The proposed zone district amendment proposes to rezone a property currently zoned as CC3 zone district to PA2 zone district. The site is currently largely developed and any environmental impacts the may have occurred did so decades ago. As evidenced in the EIR provided from the project, there is limited to no impacts on water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, or other desirable natural features. Because the entirety of the site is already used as a lodge with commercial space, there should be no new impact to the natural environment and complies with this criterion. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 32 Applicant Analysis: Section 12-7J-1 provides the purpose of the Public Accommodation -2 zone district is: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) The Highline site was originally developed as a lodge facility with multiple -family dwellings as well as commercial and retail uses, and received a Certificate of Occupancy from Eagle County in 1979. Based on the background of the site and the annexation and zoning of West Vail to the Town of Vail, it appears that the current zoning designation, CC3, is inappropriate zoning for the property. CC3 has never allowed for a lodge facility and thus was never appropriate zoning for the site. The facility pre -dated the annexation and zoning, and it appears that applying more appropriate zoning was overlooked and is now long over -due. Vail's Land Use Plan recognized and encourage the development of lodging facilities in this area of the Town. Furthermore, the addition of the PA2 zoning exhibits the Town of Vail's intention of providing lodging and residential accommodations in the valley. Not only does this project accomplish that intent, but it also fits perfectly within the definition of the PA2 zoning. As a result, the proposed zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the PA2 zone district. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate; and Applicant Analysis: The Highline site first fell under the CC3 zone district in 1981 after the property was originally annexed to the Town of Vail. Prior to this annexation and subsequent zone designation, the property had already been developed as a lodge facility and had received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1979. The property was then re -annexed to the Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 33 Town of Vail in 1986 and immediately thereafter was re -zoned as CC3. Just months later, the Town of Vail issued the Vail Land Use Plan, with a proposed designation of Community Commercial from the Highline site. Per the Vail Land Use Plan, and the subsequent Vail 20/20 Plan and Employee Housing Strategic Plan, the intentions and the goals for the Town of Vail are to encourage lodging facilities for overnight visitors as well as to provide much-needed employee housing in the Vail Valley. The PA2 zoning district allocation will allow for the Highline site to be redeveloped to allow for additional lodging beds while also providing the community need of employee housing. The CC3 zoning district has never been appropriate for this site, and appropriate zoning designation is long over -due. Conditions have always been ripe for this property to be rezoned to PA2 and what is proposed is consistent with the direction given in the Vail Land Use Plan. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Applicant Analysis: Any other factors can be addressed as necessary. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 34 Criteria for Review: Special Development District Section 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a Special Development District. The following section includes the criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Analysis: The architecture is consistent with the surrounding architecture and the Town's design guidelines applicable to areas outside of the core areas. The concept is to use natural materials, such as stone, wood composite siding, and metal panel or stucco, to create a project that is responsive to the existing hotel and the surrounding neighborhood. This design creates architectural interest by providing a variety of characteristics throughout the new uses on the site. The project seeks to increase the Town's lodging and employee housing bed base while helping to screen or reduce the visual impact of the existing surface parking areas from neighboring properties. The property is on the edge of the West Vail Commercial Core, which consists of large structures and several three-story buildings. The maximum height of the proposed buildings is 48 ft., which complies with the PA2 zoning maximum height restriction of 48 ft. and less than the 52 ft. of the existing hotel. Additionally, the maximum height is approximately 4 feet lower than the existing lodge building. Furthermore, the new hotel tower is sized in relation to the current hotel tower. This project will provide a visual and sound buffer zone to the neighbors to the north of the property from the 1-70 traffic and the commercial areas with the residential building that faces the residential neighbors to the north. The applicant has been intentional in protecting the mountain views across the valley for the neighboring residents to the north. Furthermore, the proposed hotel and EHUs are completing the existing lodging block rather than Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 35 seeking out new development opportunities on what is currently non-developed open space. Significant surface parking lots are a characteristic of the immediate neighborhood, which is not a very efficient use of land. While surface parking will remain on the property, the project is proposing to enclose a significant amount of the parking below the proposed new wing of the building. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Analysis: Highline is adjacent to the 1-70 and North Frontage Road corridor to the south of the property. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east, commercial to the west, and residential to the west and to the north. The Vail Land Use Plan expressed a desire to concentrate commercial uses in designated locations. The Highline provides lodging to overnight guests, while the EHU units provide the desirable transition from Commercial uses to Residential uses (which are to the north and to the west of the property). The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north and west and the commercial uses to the east and the west. Pursuant to the PA2 zoning Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 36 and the Town of Vail's policies and goals around encouraging hotel beds and employee housing, the proposed density of the project is zero. The proposed EHU structure is similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in the area. As a result, Highline is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criterion. The SDD is only needed to address technical issues related to parking and snow storage. Therefore the impacts to the neighbors or the community at large is limited. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Analysis: A parking analysis was provided in a previous section of the submittal. As that analysis provided, the entire project is not only in compliance with the parking requirements of Chapter 10, except for the parking required for the meeting room facilities which has been addressed herein. The project complies with the loading requirements found in Chapter 10. The application is therefore in compliance with this requirement. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Analysis: The property is governed by the Vail Land Use Plan. Other applicable plans include the Vail 20/20 Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan. • Vail Land Use Plan The adopted map of the Vail Land Use Plan shows a designation of "Community Commercial" for the property. � r__ I F � � LN �'Zk�, + f-yxxn,�.,rns �� .<r*.l'.T.'Y'�r �� ..c��•�'!'A '• ����.Jn.YrnoVr r y LAND USE DESIGNATIONS O Hillside Residential Tra nsiticn A- L— Qe-ty Res idec[ial Medium Oens ity Res idential Pu61irl Sem FPublk: Ski Base High fknsity Residential Park 0 Resort Accommedations and Services Community Office Open Space Net Designated Master Plan Ski Portal _i Head Retl­lapment Master PaanGore ee Gk - Community Commere ii VTown Beundary .neo..- •'! �'A . Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 37 Per the Vail Land Use Plan of 1986, this area was proposed to be Community Commercial. (See Vail Land Use Plan, Chapter VI - Proposed Land Use). This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short- term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1 -up, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses." (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 25) This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. " (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 28). The intention of the Preferred Land Use Plan was to "...reflect[s] a balancing of existing conditions, community opinion, opportunities and constraints, and projected growth demands. The Vail Land Use Plan states that allowing accommodation units at 50 units per acre is appropriate. On this 3.95 acre site, that would allow for 197.5 accommodation units. The applicant is proposing 195 units, including the limited service lodge units. The proposal includes a zoning of Public Accommodation -2 District. The PA2 zone district allows lodges with multiple family dwellings, included employee housing units, and commercial/office uses. The proposed amendment will make all of the uses conform with zoning and consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. • Vail 20/20 Plan The Vail 20/20 Plan provides the following goals: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 38 The proposed zoning of Housing on the buildable area of the site helps to further the goal of the Town of Vail to provide deed -restricted housing for 30% of the workforce. This property creates an exciting opportunity to create new housing stock. • Employee Housing Strategic Plan The Employee Housing Strategic Plan outlines the Town of Vail's goals and policies to ensure employee housing. It provides the following objectives: ^ Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the community remains competitive in economic terms. ^ Increase and maintain deed -restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work. The proposed zoning will allow for the creation of new deed -restricted employee housing units within the Town of Vail, allowing Vail to remain economically competitive in attracting and maintaining a quality workforce. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further one of Vail's critical needs: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive. 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Analysis: There are two known geologic hazards that affect the property: debris flow and rockfall. A Geological Report was prepared for this project. The report concludes that the hazards are low severity due the existing development north of the property but has provided some recommended mitigation for the structures on the property. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Analysis: The property is currently developed with an existing lodge and with restaurants located onsite. There are no natural features remaining on this portion of the property since its initial development in the 1970s, nor any natural vegetation existing on the site other than what has been planted. The proposed project is sited Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 39 above existing surface parking and other previously disturbed areas. As a result, there is little disturbance to any natural features on the site. The site plan and the building have been developed to not only be responsive and compatible with the existing buildings on the site, but also consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood. The building design specifically moves the project forward by meeting current design guidelines. Open Space: The site is located within the West Vail Commercial hub with intensive commercial uses and very limited open space. The town is surrounded by - �~ numerous open space areas which this site does T �_ not directly impact. cp Landsape Plan: The landscape plan (shown at right), prepared by Dennis Anderson, has been included with the submittal. The plan provides for appropriate treatment of open areas. The SDD produces a functional development plan which is sensitive to the existing landscaping and neighborhood. As a result, the proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. J t f 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Analysis: The proposed redevelopment maintains the same vehicular circulation system as exists on the property today, with the exception that four parallel parking spaces are proposed on the subject property but adjacent to Chamonix Lane. These parking spaces are proposed to be reserved for the residents of the employee housing units. The pedestrian circulation system is largely to same as exists today on the property with Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 40 the notable exception that a new sidewalk and stair connection is provided from the hotel parking area to Chamonix Lane and the existing Town of Vail bus stop. A traffic report has been provided by McDowell Engineering addressing the impacts of the proposed redevelopment on traffic conditions in the area. The conclusions of this report are favorable recommending only that the South Frontage Road be re -striped to provide for a left turn into the site at its east access point. The proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Analysis: The landscape plan was developed by Dennis Anderson Assoc. Inc. with an eye towards functionality, use of native species, and maximizing the areas best suited for planting. The PA2 zone district requires 30% of the total site area be landscaping, which would be 51,614 sq. ft. The proposed project meets this requirement There are no natural features to preserve in this area where the proposed building is being located as the area was previously disturb from development that occurred in the 1970s. As a result, the proposed landscape plan is consistent with this criterion. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Analysis: The improvements and addition to the hotel, as well as the addition of the Dorm EHUs, are to be completed in one phase. The EHU apartment building may be done as a separate phase that would be built after the new hotel is completed. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 41 Criteria for Review: Major Exterior Alteration Section 12-7J-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a Major Exterior Alteration in the Public Accommodation - 2 Zone District. This section states: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. The following section includes the above criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. The proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-7J-1: PURPOSE provides the following purpose statement for the PA -2 zone district, stating: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. The Highline site was originally developed as a lodge facility with multiple -family dwellings as well as commercial and retail uses. The current zoning, CC3 has never allowed for a lodge facility and thus was never appropriate zoning for the site. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 42 The proposed project includes the following: 176 AUs with approximately 32,555 sq. ft. of net new GRFA (79 net new, one existing AU lost to circulation needs) 19 LSLUs with approximately 20,050 sq. ft. of GRFA (previously dwelling units) 12 employee housing bedrooms within a dormitory space with approximately 4,400 sq. ft. of floor area 16 employee housing units (2 and 3 bedroom units) with approximately 16,270 sq. ft. of floor area The proposed program increases the number of accommodation units by 79 and limited service lodge units by 19. This complies with the purposes of the PA -2 Zone District, which encourages the provision of these uses for sites located outside of Vail Village and Lionshead. 2. The proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. Applicant Analysis: Highline is adjacent to the 1-70 and North Frontage Road corridor to the south of the property. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east, commercial to the west, and residential to the west and to the north. The Vail Land Use Plan expressed a desire to concentrate commercial uses in designated locations. The Highline provides lodging to overnight guests, while the EHU units provide the desirable transition from Commercial uses to Residential uses (which are to the north and to the west of the property). The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north and west and the commercial uses to the east and the west. Pursuant to the PA2 zoning and the Town of Vail's policies and goals around encouraging hotel beds and employee housing, the proposed density of the project is zero. The proposed EHU structure is similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in the area. Furthermore, vehicular traffic to the hotel and the EHU apartment building is focussed at the current entrances off the north frontage road, and therefore do no negatively impact the neighborhood. As a result, Highline is compatible with the surrounding uses and will not have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 43 This review of this criterion has been addressed in both the Criteria for Review of the Rezoning and the Special Development District. As indicated in these sections, the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further four of Vail's critical goals: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive; maintaining and increasing the Town's lodging bed base to increase revenues and improve the vitality of the Town's economy; to increase occupancy and vitality in the shoulder seasons by providing new conference space; and promoting infill development within the Town. Conclusion Highline presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within the Town of Vail. It provides a smooth transition between commercial use and residential use. The proposed project achieves four key community goals: the provision of employee housing, the provision of live beds, the development of conference facilities, and encouragement of in- fill development. The 16 Type 3 EHUs are not required as mitigation, but are proposed as a public benefit of the project. Furthermore, the project is part of an already existing lodge, resulting in continuity of already established uses for the site. The proposed project consist of employee housing units, limited service lodge units, hotel rooms, and EHU dorm space. It will also create a surplus of parking spaces. As part of this application, Highline is asking to clean up zoning inconsistencies by rezoning the site to PA2, which is reflective of the existing and future desired use of the property. For the reasons stated above, Highline respectfully requests approval of the applications for Major Exterior Alteration, Rezoning to PA2, and the SDD. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 44 C96 L -,,q"N ]salad 2 ZgMOGVHW00�IVn 6ovj baa aF CV a o M GH 30V1NOHJ N L 2 .v 6' sa cn �s X �3iOH 3NIWDIH Q o� - - s a LL LL u 0 U- C7 LL W W J N J N W J W > J W L>L I (� LL W 0 LL J O Z N J Q Z N r o r H o oC II iii Z II N CDD M - W r N M W r ~ M V72 � r O � D ° a LL Lai � (� U - Ir ('� Lai Ir J Ir Ir JJ W J 9 W N J J iii � J W W W J J W 0 > W J Z W LL J 0 J Z WL L H , C, Z 0 Z_ -_ W N = r JO SQ LL X Q II N LL a II WX H II W J- fA 2EJ W _ LL N W O M ('j LL M H N r r Z N r N CD Ncl,w n 0 n C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 ao� LssLs oavaoo iron ¢ o m = M Oki 3Otl1NOki3 N LLZZLIP o O MtnI310H 3NIIHJIH °22 - a Q I 0 C 0C) 0 0 CTC) O 0 0C) O 0 OC) V J W Q > LL W � J (j Z O w H N O o a Q O o a W LL O N IL O rn c O IL a LL Ir O O N M C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LssLs oavao�oo iron ¢ o a 6 M Oki 3Otl1NOki3 N LLZZ a C7 O Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH r II °o 0 LL N Ln M a a LL (n cm J W LU W J N.0 x C? LU r Q Q U Cl) O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 co L99L80GV8WOO�IVA 6ovj baa o O a= M Oki 30tl1NOkid N L LZZ �6�s r O Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °22 1 Q OI woa= 000� �ooa oa 000w oa oaao 000w og 0 LU O 0- 0 O a Q Q LLJ H z o wa Q dLLn waaii O o o000 0 � X000 \ _ x �v LU s \\ �\ \ z o \ v v w� °_ \ r 0 C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 Z L99L80GV8 �OO�Itln 6ovj baa �r O g a b M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L LZZ Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °22 Q ° z ao== ooao �o�os 0000 0000� �0�00 o J z Q d W U) 0 d d Q Q _ W H / C i z Q o J O d LO W II H U) r O ¢ao=a o=ag wwww— � �0�00 i Y d z s. LU W U) Q o LO \ W II C)r � �O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd LS9L8OOtlkiO�OO�ron °¢ g a= M Oki 3Otl1NOkid N LLdd O �6 sa w w O Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °22° 2 Q J C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 ' L99L80GV8WOO�Itln 6ovj baa Lu V5 r a= M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L LZZ �6�s s m z O Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH f o o �-Z �� - ��� _ LUL ,C f Q l — - Q o Q o LU LO C') r C r O O LU J U) j ✓ `� \- � cr w \ w 1 N cn i Q I� /!Q j Z = — -� _ -j�j= Z LU 0 LU 0 LO LO 2 = 2 = C')r U r O O v 3 Z EU O ° O ° cor °22°0 c = Q ° z �Nb�k�NoWb N� z Q= J C d C LL N 0 °r 996L -+egwnN 1001wd L99L8 0GV8W00 iron a M Oki 30VINOkid N LLZZ o I310H 3NIIHJIH Mtn v 3 Z EU O ° O ° cor °22°0 c = Q ° z �Nb�k�NoWb N� z Q= J C d C LL N 0 °r C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 € L99L80GV8 �OO�IVA 6ovj �a ao Z'S M Oki 3Otl1NOki3 N L LZZ �6�sLIP O z O MtnI310H 3NIIHJIH r 0220) O" Q x O z 2 3 6ovj yam rw O X o r 022°o w = Q o ¢� ¢� NJ 9 o = _ � I = I I I _ � I I I V z U) x LL + I I J W LL J _ I p I z _ H � p r I I ` O E961 -+egwnN We1ad LssLs oatlao�oo iron a o M Oa 3`Jtl1NOad N L LZZ Mtn I310H 3NII HJIH 2 3 6ovj yam rw O X o r 022°o w = Q o ¢� ¢� NJ 9 o = _ � I = I I I _ � I I I V z U) x LL + I I J W LL J _ I p I z _ H � p r I I ` O E961 -+egwnN We1ad LssLs oatlao�oo iron a o M Oa 3`Jtl1NOad N L LZZ Mtn I310H 3NII 2 3 6ovj �a rg r r Mtn 0220 a Q o 18 0 w� I I NOI1 tl"1/I�HI�/NOI1�N/Ij-3Hd Z I I a I C yi iiia � I I O O I Wnli CLL 2 I LL LL ❑LL F I 2 ¢ LL YN I I I 3 1 I ICO CO CO2E 2E 2E 1 LU J Lu J Win Ow Q r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 I I r 1 AA rlIlrlllrll Q _ lr I r l I 1 (O LU LU -- O CO Q Wm _----- , D W N O IL O IL LL E961 -+egwnN We�ad LL a LL LL J co co co �ssLs oatlao�oo iron M Oa 3`Jtl1NOa� N L LZZ o Q In N In N o W 0 O 0 M �310H 3NI�HJIH O 2 3 6ovj �a rg r r Mtn 0220 a Q o 18 0 w� I I NOI1 tl"1/I�HI�/NOI1�N/Ij-3Hd Z I I a I C yi iiia � I I O O I Wnli CLL 2 I LL LL ❑LL F I 2 ¢ LL YN I I I 3 1 I ICO CO CO2E 2E 2E 1 LU J Lu J Win Ow Q r 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 I I r 1 AA rlIlrlllrll Q _ lr I r l I 1 (O LU LU -- O CO Q Wm _----- , D W N O IL O IL LL LL LL LL LL LL J co co co co co Q In N In N o W 0 O 0 M O N N M O N � Q O O O O N N N W m� w0 zm Y� m Y� 0 - Yg � Ir LU - U �O LL LLO Z� o m O °J U � M N J J J J J w w w w o J J J J F C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 ° Jz N L99L8 0GV8 BOO iron 6w � w O r e= M GH 30tl1NOUd N L LZZ o�6�s p o r Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH I O I I i i o I i ❑ II IF -a./ 1 C? o � � — 1 Oa I I 0 O q To 71'N 11 I I 0r O I I O I N �J ❑ r I ❑ LL � O I - I 0 O C, qq O rz u rz N LP UU 4 1 1 N N Llrz ❑ W OJ -Y O ❑ -T 1 arc 3 O V 1 0 J N 1 - - I1 1 l 1 _ Oco co co co 0❑ 1 �i N p 1 N J W ° ❑ __��_ > O w ` J O q O I ❑ y\ � 1 N m EO / (O � H 0 _ N -----I 0 o ve o ,as o ,asp LULU p CO .o .86 W N M N O IL O IL LL LL LL LL LL LL J U U U U U Q N N W O M O N N M O N � � it it it it N N N W W W � m� Zm m WO Y� YQ qz � 8 DY DY LU — 0 LU U �O LL ° Z � LL � m O °J U � M N J J J J J w w w w o J J J J F Z 0 p 5 Q W U) O IL O cc IL C96L -,,q"N ]saladLis 2 ° JZ M 19918 OGVHWOO �IVA 6w w O r e= M Qa 30V1NOHJ N l lEZ p o r HHHHHM�3iOH 3NI-lHJIH °22 ¢ Q V LL LL LL LL LLLL J '1 1, 1 1 I U U U U0 Q J In N In N o W 0 O 0 M W 1 � J p N N M O 1 � o i 1 Q N � J Q 2E 2E 2E Q 2E / /1 0 0 0 O N N N W m� Zm m 0 8 U O � Tm oa or or or W - O 2 LU U LU C,O LL LU LL O Z � uo m O U � M N J J J J J w w w w o J J J J F 110tE .0-.39 1 .0-.36 .0-26 N M � I I '1 1, 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 - I Cl) 1 � J W W 1 � J Z 1 � o i 1 Q r Q r / /1 Z O p 5 Q W N O IL O cc IL C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L99L8 0GV8 BOO iron 6w � w O ELr e= M GH 30tl1NOUd N L LZZ Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH LL /- I I 1 LL LL LL LL LL J LU U U U U U Q n N n N o W 0 O 0 M h h N O O O J � N N M � O O N � J Q 2E 2E 2E 2E 0 0 0 O N N N W wororoY- o 8 - U O � Tm oa or or or W - LU U Lu C, OLU LL LL O Z � uo m O °J U � M N J J J J J w w w w o J J J J F /- I I 1 1 1 1 � LU — J 1 I Z .0-26 N M � I I 1 1 1 1 � LU — J 1 I Z � I � J � \ 1 Q � O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LU u) O L99L8 0GV8WOo iron 6ovj ba aCO g e 6 M GH 30VINOUd N L LZZ �6�s O O r Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH J J Q x W ?) ~O U)o z x LU o wz O Q � 0 z Q W 2 J OW 0 6Q 2QQ H O U Om z 0� - pxm D m � W Qz Z� Wxm g z u'Q Ow 0 I >~O Q Jx �� H m wU vm Z/lE m 00 J 9Z J/ 0 z Y W CO r O LP Q O Q v p Ln 0 O J T WC? II o Q N (V O ..9/E 9" l u8/ l E".9 0 .E 0.8 u9"Z 0.8 ..4/l6-�ti ..0-.9 uZ/lE ��41E1-�91 N (V (V m �J \ice V \ O N V _ � I I v ch T r> o m v W W o CO CO z z 0 L1> (V O O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L99L80GV8WOO�IVA 6ovj baa ° N g e= M GH 30tl1NOUd N L LZZ UJMtn r J I310H 3NIIHJIH °22 Q z� m= Q� cn?z d W W Q 00 U) J Z Q u0 -10C O.SZ u0 -d LLJ C? J r Q � Z Z_W Y m C? m O L v Q J 1 o i O W II m Q N 2 Ir LLJ 0,b D° Ozo C) w zcn QWW OJ U)0 z CO m W z O OQ a� z z o�w o J oC O� x W— Q c� 0 oc o = cai> Z IrW Q U W xGE Ua co z Ir co W Y Q W LZ o 0o� >�� >� wU C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 Q T O� «tea JQ VJ L99Ls0GV8WOOiron 6w baa > N g a= M Oki 30VINOkid N L LZZ O �6 M w MtnI310H 3NIIHJIH °�-o - w� Q J r II 73 w O x � v ULU Y LU o 0 W 0 Q J Q Z LU El W ® WO ElX < r W Q I I Q II uuuuuu Q �0- O z Z J J W W 0 LUQ J W m Q z� Z L WU)�0O U 0 In p U)�o o m Q N O W N x x x J W0 0 O a W W W Z cc O N � d d d o LU N N a r r r 0 a W Cr W J J Q ~ U) U) = z m WO (S0X_ U M Ir N Ir Z 11 0C apQ8 ow, moc�-W O UUQX cc 57< j�JO UQLLI LU LU 3: 11Q (}W JQpx 01 11 (n 2E W N (L U) o 00 EI L Eo z Q J d N T oa N M O J W LT T > W J O U _ x O W r I I � Q _ L1i CO I� W O <Ll Lj� M O NO 2 W W N O a O cc IL C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LS9L80GV8WOO�Itln 6ovj Baa ww r > M e= M GH 30tl1NOUd N L LZZ �6�s UJ w r Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH°22 ui Q W Z .91 r W o Z W J Z OAC W Y-- -� LU IL O N CO cc ¢-- w IL �,, W N co z 'I �b m � i z D LL 73 U)O oo c� ODo Z w m N N LLJ I J I W I J I � C I = W II oc II � O LL W O M M CO O m O N OCO o CO F CO F CO F CO F F a a a a z Y Q d M N r J J J J J w w w w Q w w w w O W Z .91 r W o Z W J Z OAC W Y-- -� LU IL O N CO cc ¢-- w IL �,, W N co z 'I �b m � i z D LL 73 U)O oo c� ODo Z w m N N LLJ I J I W I J I � C I = W II oc II � O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 M �ssLs oavao�oo iron 6ovj 8➢¢ J w N > M a= M Oa 30VINOa3 N L LZZ �6�s UJ w r Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH°22 wJ Q z wz w J Z J Z HJ � W Y W Y IL co IL co 00[ Q w o0[ Q w IL w to a w 0 - o - z - o - z LAI LI, 77 ® z © z — ElCO CO CO CO CO — — ❑ — LL o rn o Cl) CO CO CO CO � LU J O J O w11 l w u 2 W LU r O O N0 Occ w w w w IL W (O M M O zw�zzzz Amo>>>> Z Y Q d � M N r J J J J J w w w w Q O J J J J � C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 o/ a o M L99L80GV8WOOiron 6w baa oz M g e= M GH 30tl1NOUd N L LZZ Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °���, w Q r OoO RJ FEI 0 —70,00 Ir ©� W M z Q J d z O = r W II H W oM O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 o/ a o ...4 L99L80GV8WOOiron 6w baa oz co g e= M GH 30tl1NOUd N L LZZ Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °���, w Q 1 000 ®® Oo D O o Ir p W coN z J d z O 2 r W II H � p M O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LU C LO 9 L99L8 OGV8W00 �IVA 6 J �a cor O a= M Oki 30tl1NOki� N LLdd �6� Na a 0 N irZ Q Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH 2201Z. O ' — — I —wm ¢3� � WO g m =1¢111-111-x'$111 x g a —III—III=III=III—III=11 x 11/11111 T TIT IIII T T T� =T T T IIII 111111 T IIII w T �=111=111111= LL II111111 —I V I1 I$III 11I1 1=1 I' IIIIIIIIII111 miII'1IIII 1111�1111111111111111�11111111 —III—III—I I I� 1 11111 Ei i 111-1 III I' =====IIIPIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� II111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� IIIIIIII _111111 111111111 111 I�II111= =111 1$I1I1I111=11' 1111111111111111111111111111111 1-1=1 11=1 11=1�=1 I I I I IIIIIIIII IIITIIIIITIIIIIIIIIIITI IIIIIPIIII 1111111 11111+1111111 11111 1111/111 II 1111111111111111 111 I I I�I I I=1 11=1 I I�I 11=1 I I—I I'1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I— ' III I=IIIIIIII= =111 1$I1I1I111=11' 111111�1111111111111111�11111111 =1=III=III=III=111 111111 11111111111111111111111 0 0 0 DDI 00 D 111 IIIIi11T11i11T11i11111i11T1� 1111 ITI1111T11i11T11i ITIIi11� 11�ITIIi11T11i11T11�ITIIi111 1=111= =111=111=11' I II111111 T 1111111 T 11T11�ITII T 111 �ITIITI1111TIITII�Ii11TI ---------------- 1111=ITi=1Ti=111=1Ti� 1i�11i ITI1111T11i11T11i ITIITII� ' MITI---1-- �IITIIi�1�IT11i11T11i11T11�IT11i111 ' -111-1 T�1=ITi 1 i 111THI i 1ITi=1TIIi1 11111 1 I MITI-===ITi-_I I = 1-1 i�1�11-111-1i1�1i1-11 ' = 1TI=11TIITIIi11T11T111I1111T1 II—IIIlII ——-- 1 111 T 1111111=1 =1 -111=1 11- _I iIITIhIII II 4-7,9/6¢ IIII 1111111 III T _ =111 T-1TI-1TI+1TI-1i = o I I I I 111111 T ITI 11=1 T I=1 T I=111=1 T I- � =1i11i11i�1�1i11i11i11i11i11�1i11i111 °C Ti-ITI=ITIIi1ITIIi1ITI=I 11T1 o ---- 1TI1111IIIIIII=III=IIIIIII=II z Ti11i11T TT11IIi T o _I T II1T1i1-I1-I1-Ii1-11� o - ---IT _IIIEIII Ill- 111111IIIIIIII TIS 1111IIIIII�11�IT11111111111111T11�IT11 11 Q r T TIi T T $i T > w — — T J I Y�T IIII IIII III M-11 VILL r _2 ---------------- 1111 �����=111=111=111=111=T� o=l O 00 Qoa � o �zz 0 0 xw o00 ow �ws�� �,mgg xg 3J33m z3oo m3 waoF oo3��3HHz�Nog ��3g33'arcrcwornm"°SSggJ�22 a�a� 000ioo�oo�wwo� ooiioi a���3 C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LU C L99L80GV8 �Oo�ron 6ovj baa co O a= M Oki 30VINOki3 N L LZZy 6 s a N Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °22 a Q o o o� w --_ - - - o�m J,w Wzo aaiilll aiiil elm —111—III—Ilf�ll—IIIA' a —1III IIITIII IIITIII ILII ITI gHE E 1 1 III—III—III— 111 g Y =III=III =11 IF 11-11 — 1 �o E 11111 1111111 ElIIIIIIII IIIIII� =111 IIIIII� III=11 11111111111 =111 0 0 11 II 111111 =111 D 0 �it111111111T1 1IITI�ITIIIII 111111 =1T+IT=1 I I IITIII�I 111111 Hill ITI 1i111111111i1111 ITI 111111 111IIITIIIII i111I i 11T1� EfITIIi11i11111i11 iT1IT11111i =111111=1 i 111111111111111111 D D El I Ili, I ITI-I i 11TH i 111 Ill- 111111 1 111ITI� _ _ =111 11111II111IIi11il11IIII1� =1T111I1111Ii-1i I — I I II I II i 111111111111 =111+111=11 ITIITIII�I 11T111 w 1i1ITI �ITII I IIT Ii1 111 Ii1m __ 1 i 111Th o I III �I III Ii 111 �i 1111 111 D D 11—Ii111 Iilli1i11i 11 1 i 11+111-11� IIi11T111i11i � III1111i11i11I11 III i 11111111111 i 1� 111II111IIi11il11IIII1� ITII � I1111Ii=1 i11i1111i U) — Q 11 w z 0 IIIIII� o 0 — — Q 0 0 z o o= > n LU m LU r O 0 0 spa m ��� � o 0 � xw 622 �� �� o00 ow �ws��xg 3J33m m3 ua z3oo ��3g33'�'rc of oo3��3HHg°owoo'�°�°egg ¢"oomv�i�SSggJ�22 a�a� w�w3ww����¢¢��S w°»���� 000ioo�000wwo� oo xoi ads �3 C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L L99Ls0GV8WOoiron 6w baa co O a= M Oki 30tl1NOkid N LLdd �6� Na a 0 N Mtn -0-1-1--i-0, OS r� Q I310H 3NIIHJIH 220,, z V,=1mW. �=1m o o o o olp W, to a �'h a z a �¢'------------- L-------a� ---- W. -- �- 111.1111 III � 0 111`''111 Y ° g VIII l� ——[ II� 4'719 64 III 71 =I [ ° IIS IISXW i IF III = ill � =11 0 !_ U) —II z 4Tii Q - !ioo QT T111 111111111 -1 i1 wr w 00 ¢oa s g 10 aa� � w>� ��� xw Fwrcrc� gg xg z3oo¢ m3 waoF oo3��3HHz°owoo'-°°°"°5 �w3 g33'arcrc'nooSSggJ�22a�a� w �w3ww��ww w���� 000ioo, ooiioi 00�wwo� a���3 C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 �y� LU W L99L8 OOV8W00 SIVA 6ovj baa o O a= M 08 30tl1NOUd N L LZZ y 6 s a o w Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °220,, - O� QN o -W o, o w o �m wo gIIIII IIII g Y Il —11 lllllllll TIITI III— IhIII==== MT WM 111111 III III III (IIII =III IIII IIII 111111 =III IIII IIII 111111 =III IIII IIII 11 11_011 6 A I I=I I I=I 11—III V IIIIIII II IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i i = = h =III=III=III= III 11111hIVIII—= _—_ IIII�11II _ _ ll I I =III-1 V-1-1 Ej� EjI . IIII " < 11=1�= 111111=III=III=III= �- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII=III=III=III= :;' III II IIIIIII II III I I I—I 11-1 11—II I—I I I _= IIIIIIhIIIIIIIIII== _-_ I I IIII I_IIII I I VIII I I—I V I I I I�I V I I I IIII I_IIII I I I IIII I_IIII I I VIII 1_11111 II I =1 I FFI I I=I 16=III-- 1=1 1=1 = II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII —IIIIII�IIIIIIIII'lllllllll—= -I IIIIIIIIIIIII-IIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII _ _ =11111 IhIIIIIII=III=III=III= _=_ 1111111=III=III=III=III II II IIIIIIIII _=_=__ =1 I I IIII I_IIII I I VIII I�I II I II II IIIIIII II IIIIIIIIII I_IIII I I I IIII I_IIII I I VIII 1_11111 II I EjIII -=111111=116=III=III=III=III —=1I II IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_= _ _ _ =111111=III'-111111—= ' IIIIIIIIIIIIII— —IIIIIII 111111—III—III — III�III=IIII—III—III IIIIIIIIII _ = _ X111=III=III=III= =1I II III I IIIII I_IIII 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II I III ( I I I I I I I I I I-1 11-1 I I VIIIhIVIII—= _—_ IIII (_IIII I I (IIII I I—I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII (_IIII I I I IIII (_IIII I I (IIII 1_11111 II I AII II II I I I--1 I ISI 11=1 I V=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ =111111=III'—III= _ _ == V I I I II I II I I I I I�I I I I I I I I I IIII (_IIII I I I IIII 1_11111 I II II I ___ _ =111111=III=III=III= -_-IIIIIIII_IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIII==- __ —III—I I IIII VI I IIII I III I III I III VI IIII =I o IIIIIII =IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII =111111=III'—III= —III—III—III- 111111111111— —IIIIIII—III_III_III —=1 III 1=1 11=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 _ 111111=III=III=III= --I II I II II IIIIIIII Ili 111 l l l l l ll�l l l 11 11 11 l l l 11 11 11 l l l 11 11 111 l 11 11 l o I IIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIII (_IIII I I I IIII (_IIII I I (IIII I�I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII (_IIII I I I IIII (_IIII I I (IIII 1_11111 I I El Ej� ISI-1 -111 Q IIIIIIIII III III - _IIIIIII II _III w I�IIIIIIIIII—=111111=III'—III= _ =111 II III III 00 __ — — =III=III=III=III=III=� _IIII IIII 1_11111 IIII _IIII IIII IIII II o o I IIII (_IIII IIII (_IIII (IIII IIIVI IIII (_IIII IIII (_IIII II z I 111111=III=IIIIIII=IIII=III=III=III=1110 0 I I I I III I I I II-IIIIIII I�I I I II ( I I I I IITII 11-111-111-111II 11-11III11-111-111-111--j III III-III I -1 II-III-III-III-III w T Q =1 I hI 11=1 11=1 I I� 11= I� I I I III III I I I � o0 Qoa s g w w 3z: ��v>i v>i m �yy o 0 �g o ;� � Soo ow wrcs�� mgg xg za33� m3 °¢0�0o3��3HHo°ow ooz°°°"°5 ��3g33'�aio �y SSgg J�22 a�a� w3ww�ww�rcrcw�gww w�»n�rn� 000ioo'owoo'owwwo� ­2 3: C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 = TT VJ WLssLsoavaoo�ron 6ovj baa g6. o�= M Oa 30VINOa3 N LLZZ 6 sa O O �s = Q Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °22 w W g YO wm Q7 QT Q7 QT QT QT old WIC WIC WIC WIC ZIP �> o l ml I=—III Ilii l — ww 0 0 IIII ���III III ra III � V =_=1 I ISI 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I � � =-1I II II I I I II II I II I IIIIIIIII I I I I II I I I I I I I I ___ ==II II II I I I II (IIII II II II —=1IIIIIIIIIII11111= — IIIIII—III- - =1 I1=1 I I—I 11=111=11 =1 I I 0 { ❑D rl lill _ IIIIIIIII III -III II III II III — El0 —III—III—III=1111 IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HE 111 11 Hill =IIIIII —II =1I IIIIIIIII111111= II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII 111111 I— _=- ==IIIIIIII I III IIIIIIII I =IIIIIIIII IIIIII= El �0 IIII=(IIII _-I I I I I I�_I I I IITII I II I II IIIIIIIII II 01111 (IIIIII (IIII I III II I I (IIII l (IIII I II I II I IIII l IIIIII I 111111=III=III=III DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11=11IllllllllllliIIIIII ==fl1I ( I I I I I I II I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I III I I I I� I III ( I I I I I I I � I I I i ===IIIIIIIII (IIIIII (IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII-- -_ =—=II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -__ --1I II IIIIIIIIII — IIIIIIII IIIIII — — IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII (IIIIII — — - _ —IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - 00 IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII =IIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIII 00 == IIII II III 111111 � _ IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII PE=I= IIIIII—III III III—IIIIIIII =III=111111=III=1�=III _=11111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111 (IIIIII ❑ =-1I II IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII II I II I II I IIIIIIIIII I I =I I=11111 =I _ _ — = x =1I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII x 0 II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII--=— pr _——__ z I=III==IIIIIIIIII�IIIII x � w — I I I I I I � � Qoa o0 s s oar _ oLLLL ws s��Soo ow _ wrcs�� �,mgg 5g 3J33m m3 °¢0�0o3��3HHo°ow 8�3g33'a��'noow oo°°°"°5 SSgg;�'z'za�a� 000ioo'owoo'owwwo�gooiioi w3ww�J J�n__J�3 °ggwo �� a���3 C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 u 3 Lu € L99L8 0GV8WOO iron 6w g a b M Oki 30tl1NOkid N L Ldd 7d w r �s c Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH1 w W gwm ole W -W 11111- ❑ 0 =III -11111 VII- , f -- — — 111IIIIIIII III— - _ _ =III❑III= -_=11111111 V I I I 41 MAI ---111111---111 - 1111- U) o ❑= _❑= w r 1111III111111111111 u 0 0 0' 0 1111111 11 = \ w r O ❑Illlllllllllllllll���lll�lll�� ❑I I_II 1111 VII 111111111_11111 I I_II II =111111= -I- II I -I I I II Il 11111111111111111111 VII I LI 1111111 I II 1111111 1111/1111 111111 II X111= — 11/11111 1111 1 ==11111111111 II-III - _ U) o ❑III I II I III Q r — - - w u D zo 0 0 0 0 0 w r I I I I I I � � o0 Qoa s s oar _ oLLLL ws _ s��Soo ow wrcs�� �,mgg 5g 3J33m m3 °¢0�0o3��3HHo°ow ooz°°5 ��3g33'�'�a �'�'o�nr SSgg J�22 a0a� ww w3ww�w w 00 .�rcw�gww wJ»�n�rn F 000ioo'owoo'owwwo� ooiioi��� � C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 = F T L99L80GV8WOo�ron 6ovj baa T g a= M Oki 30tl1NOkid N L LZZ v d Q Mtn I310H 3NIIHJIH °���, w w 00 00 W g w' w' �3 JmI c III � 1111 it ill — IIII III '' iL -11 -1 'i'i1 I I'ii1" I I II I I'i'i'i1 i 2E:1 miH 0 ❑=1i1=1i1= III=1�=111=1I a a ' 'IIIIi1ii IIIIIIIIIii P 111111=III 11111 o I I I i 1I1'i'�I V I I I Ii1- �❑� 'Ii1" Ii11i1== 11'H I 111== I=I 11= H ii 11111 '11 �Ii11111i 0 dE]I. IIIIII11i1= -o J' 'IIII�IIi11i I I I IIiT1, IT �o _= or Cl) T LU 00 ¢oa s s 0 0 �zz M- 'w ow w �m� moo 5g 3�33� m3 waoF oo3��3HHz°owoo�°v°egg z3oo Nrc rc'aornm"°SS ��'z 'z a�a� c��3g33 w�w3ww��������gwwggw 000ioo�oo�wwo� ooiioi °������ a���3 C96L -,,q"N ]salad 2 19918OGVHWOO�IVn 6ovj baa o O g a= M GH 30V1NOHJ N l lE2 -13iOH 3NI-lHJIH °22 Q It R i i C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 ° co L99L80GV8WOO�IVA 6ovj baa o O g a= M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L LZZ �6�s a r MtnI310H 3NIIHJIH °22 Q C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LO L99L80GV8WOO�IVA 6ovj baa o O g a= M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L LZZ �6�s a r MtnI310H 3NIIHJIH °22 Q E961 egwnN l wd 2 v 3 L99L8O(NUMOO�Itln 6ovj baa o O g a= M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L LZZLis I I310H 3NIIHJIH °22 Q ......M Nb d NI4d J �dx 'ON1 ONIdMNION3 xxx oN eor W O OQd�O�0.7 �-11dnxxx 03N. 2V NOISNVdXB E3adiE snoo �Nld�bIN SNOISIA3d ONa3N s a la 4 I ` ` 3 II R'3 li ilk i� !14'���'�� ££ it ''I '� i� •1 \ i vk— hZ •� ' i '��';Y• � ;,�' � � Via. _ ' `�;� `� � � oras' ��� •�� �✓� �� 8R0 � S301V JO 311S -11VOI J01SIH DKK 'SNI'°JNRi33Nl`JN3 sss oN e W oadJo-100 `1I1Vn KKK 03NMtl =C,4 NOISMddXB aauia-isnoa �Nld�d vv 2 a Ire ��IIII / I A� V A f 1V\ _ Il tll I 1 IIIVI V �`\ z Illbl�'I i111i�11 IZI V���``�\"��I, All ,IAI-Ngd,d N V -1 d )�i n it n '�NI°JNRi33Nl`JN3 %%% oN ° W O oadro-00 -idn KKK °'NIV =� NOISMddX@ Emau ianoa *** °3�'s C96L eqwnN 10OWd 1 9S LLJ L99L8 0GV8WOO �IVA > 6 M GH 30VINOU3 N L LZZ IEIiOH 3NIIH!DIH Mtn O LL 0 Z D LU LU LU 2 0 H4 0 s r -H oo CD LU >7-q L ui ui 1,6 UJ UJ 0 D 0 00 z 0 C) <0 LU < z -17 2 X o r 6 0 ea z O ��6�s w O Mtn 02200 7 W H W W 2 U) U W 8 0 4 - 1 0 z W 3 y 3 a O m - E961 -+egwnN We�ad �ssLs oatlao�oo iron a o M Oa 3`Jtl1NOa� N L LZZ �310H 3NI�HJIH 14 14 �11 14 14 41 14 14 14 14 14 WZWZWZ -f - �� ww � o 0 ~ rOF4 yo " -��� wg �o>Id�� � �a�a z a � gFwB baa ww a�� �w� �a �� z��� zaa>�-'z0000��'ow ggzWo3 � oho ;g Fggg 22LL�11188�w����o"o��_ oy �000aa���aaaaa� oowwww�t�5 �� orco Z-00-0 oa��000000 °z <w 00 oyo o LLLLLLLL��ww000����wziiii0000iii � �� - 5 s oAaning g�sia a Bu3 �rn��� OOVt10100 'A1NnoO 31OV3 'IIVA AO NMOL JNR133NIDN C ON ONITJ 3NOHOS SVC 11VA aNV m O l 'ON ONllll 3NOH0S SVC IIVA 10 NOISAICGnS38 V g 6 .m o J ul ,;unoW �a}u mw wR, m _ o 011 INA CAVH8 III AAHW db'W 01HdVHE)0d01 as �s�ge i s G ,`T�/ �� �� ��✓//�/ / / / X / / a ka h�J 41,---------- N ------ Baa 4� v7 r \ t z 71 lL�e oyoa b 2 Q ° ASN �\ ' r 15 PILL i a Q Z O U & Y.. Zsx .F§ eke ups _� s �_� 65a LL Z 0 a E° °�ossa- °N ala Q Q LL r 0a�a3 agegg :e&=sv ss E`g`8�a f>&ioa Qi. o fl4 ea# �,� 1 F C m lLl L :M)Zco 0 s�.�MT 11- i V z o E e . E �g3a_ g � a Ph tax LL ca W `� 0 LL aim eAaa'saa$ V ass ifll 5f sxp ��€?ax ��a€eas Nz€ta': gko a.: acs° os°3 P. Rg O Y :03 ry?�e Q QQ �a�yro Greg Roy From: Matt Gennett Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:13 AM To: Greg Roy Subject: FW: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel FYI and for the file. Thanks. -----Original Message ----- From: Suzanne Silverthorn <SSilverthorn@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:46 AM To: plauer@sisna.com; Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>; PEC <PEC@vailgov.com> Cc: Matt Gennett <MGennett@vailgov.com> Subject: RE: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel PEC & Town Council members, please see public comment below. Suzanne Silverthorn, APR Communications Director Town Manager's Office 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.479.2115 Cell: 970.471.1361 vailgov.com -----Original Message ----- From: info@vailgov.com <info@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:28 AM To: Info <Info@vailgov.com> Subject: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel Hi, My husband, Jay Lauer, and I are homeowners at 2269 Chamonix Ln, Apt. 4, Vail CO 81657. We are traveling internationally until the middle of December. We received notification from one of our neighbors about the proposed expansion of the DoubleTree hotel at 2211 North Frontage Road West. We are definitely not in favor of this high density development and granting approval for variences on section 12-6D-8 or 12-15-3. Is there a way to communicate to the town council at the Dec 9th meeting that we are not in favor of this development since we are not able to attend the Dec 9th meeting? 1 Thanks for your help and I will wait to hear back. Patricia Lauer Submitted By: Name:: Patricia Lauer Telephone:: 3032298575 Email:: plauer@sisna.com Submitted From: https://www.vailgov.com/contact Greg Roy From: tania boyd <scubakiwi2@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:20 PM To: Greg Roy Cc: MICHAEL SPIERS; Jacqueline Nickel; Jim Pyke; Jay Lauer; kstandage@exclusivevailrentals.com Subject: Double Tree Expansion Dear Greg, Brandywine Trace Condominium owners at 2249 Chamonix Lane will be directly impacted by the proposed expansion of the Double Tree Hotel in West Vail. Our building is directly behind the hotel and we are opposed to the rezoning of the property which would allow the developer to exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA. This proposed development would significantly impact our property's view and the attractiveness of our neighborhood. The zoning that is currently in place protects developers from cramming in buildings and parking lots with disregard to the surrounding beauty of our valley. I believe the Town put this regulation in place to ensure we do not fall victim to over development and detract from the scenic landscape surrounding us. This is what makes Vail a desirable place to live for all of us locals who have been fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy a home and live here. The sheer scale of the project is daunting. The remodel that they undertook had numerous problems and lasted more than two years. During that time we were subjected to constant construction and noise. Brandywine is very concerned that now it has been finally completed we are going to be subject to this all over again. As the President of the HOA I wanted to submit our disapproval as I will not be able to attend the December 9th meeting. Regards Tania Boyd Brandywine Trace Condominium Association President City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: December 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Hotel Renovation 2019), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel addition to add 79 accommodation units, convert 19 existing dwelling units to 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 unit EHU dormitory, remove office space, add conference space and build 16 unit employee housing apartment building, and related uses and improvements, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0048) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0046. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: December 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a hotel addition and an EHU apartment building, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0046) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0048. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: December 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of an outdoor dining patio, located at 254 Bridge Street Unit C/Lot C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0049) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name PEC19-0049 Staff Report. Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Applicants Narrative.pdf Attachment C. Site Plan 07-17-2019.pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Applicant Narrative Attachment C. Site Plan 07/17/2019 0) TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 7B-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for an outdoor patio, located at 254 Bridge Street Unit C (fka The Hill Building), Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0049) Applicant: Gorsuch Ltd. represented by Tom Frye (Resort Design Architects) Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Gorsuch Ltd. represented by Tom Frye, has requested the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-7B-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for an outdoor patio. The Vail Town Code refers to outdoor dining/seating as "Outdoor Patio" in reference to permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core 1 (CC1) 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, with conditions, of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. REQUEST The applicant is proposing an outdoor patio for outdoor dining for the Vail Ski Cafe which will operate out of the former Ski Haus space in the Hill Building. The outdoor seating area is approximately 400 square feet in size and will accommodate seating in addition to fire pits on the west side of the building. The final design for the railing and street furniture will be reviewed subsequent to the Conditional Use request by the Design Review Board (DRB). The location of the proposed outdoor patio has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. The applicant is proposing a barrier system (fence) consisting or rough timbers affixed to moveable metal plates. Through the DRB process, the applicant will be encouraged to utilize set -in-place sleeves that prevent the barriers from repositioning. No changes to the existing paver surface are proposed. A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicant's narrative (Attachment B) and site plan (Attachment C) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The Hill Building was constructed in 1963 and was one of the first developments in Vail Village. The Vail Blanche Hill Ski Shop, Vail's first ski shop, was one of the original uses of the building. The building has undergone a significant renovation in recent years. The basement of the building is used for a ski locker/ski concierge while the first floor will house the cafe and retail operation. The upper floors contain one residence and one apartment. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the Hill Building parcel is located within the Commercial Core 1 (CC1) District. As such, the development and operation of outdoor patios are regulated by the provisions of the CC -1 District. Pursuant to the provisions of the CC1 District, the development and operation of outdoor patios require the approval and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes the following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 Zoning Regulations Section 12-78 Commercial Core 1 (CCI) District (in part) 12-78-1: PURPOSE: The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. Town of Vail Page 2 12-7B-7: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS.- A. ODIFICATIONS: A. Subject To Review: The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). 12-7B-20: VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN PLAN.- A. LAN: A. Adoption: The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations are adopted for the purposes of maintaining and preserving the character and vitality of the Vail Village (CCI) and to guide the future alteration, change and improvement in CCI district. Copies of the Vail Village design guide plan and design considerations shall be on file in the department of community development. Vail Land Use Plan (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth/ Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Town of Vail Page 3 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 3. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core/ Lionshead 4.1. Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) Vail Village Master Plan (in part) The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan, it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on an aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each of the stated objectives. The applicable stated goals, objectives and action steps of the Vail Village Master Plan are as follows.- GOAL ollows: GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY, REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITYAND IDENTITY. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - Town of Vail Page 4 AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY ASA WHOLE. Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed-use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. Policy 2.2.1: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Policy 2.4.2: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE Policy 3.1.1: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Objective 3.3: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. Policy 3.3.2: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. V. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Town of Vail Commercial Core 1 District Village Master Plan Mixed Use Page 5 VI SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District Commercial Core 1 District Ski Base Recreation 2 District Commercial Core 1 District Commercial Core 1 District Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit or Development Plan application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff Analysis: The proposed outdoor patio will provide liveliness through outdoor dining; an identified development objective of the Town intended to increase activity in the commercial cores. The proposed outdoor patio will provide an enhancement to the space that adds energy and vitality to the streetscape, consistent with Development Objective 3.3, cited above in Section III of this report. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff Analysis: The proposed outdoor patio will have no negative effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities and schools. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff Analysis: The at -grade outdoor patio located entirely on private property will have no effect on pedestrian movement or safety in the area. There is no vehicular access in this area and the application has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Town of Vail Page 6 Land Use Designation North: Village Master Plan South: Village Master Plan East: Village Master Plan West: Village Master Plan VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District Commercial Core 1 District Ski Base Recreation 2 District Commercial Core 1 District Commercial Core 1 District Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit or Development Plan application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff Analysis: The proposed outdoor patio will provide liveliness through outdoor dining; an identified development objective of the Town intended to increase activity in the commercial cores. The proposed outdoor patio will provide an enhancement to the space that adds energy and vitality to the streetscape, consistent with Development Objective 3.3, cited above in Section III of this report. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff Analysis: The proposed outdoor patio will have no negative effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities and schools. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff Analysis: The at -grade outdoor patio located entirely on private property will have no effect on pedestrian movement or safety in the area. There is no vehicular access in this area and the application has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Town of Vail Page 6 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff Analysis: Staff finds the proposed outdoor patio will have a positive effect upon the character of the area, furthering the outdoor dining culture that has been established within Vail Village. The outdoor patio will add liveliness, activity and interest in the area. The proposal includes a decorative railing design, a variety of seating options and fire pits that will add visual interest. The location on private property will have no negative impacts on the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Analysis: An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12-12, Vail Town Code; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-7B-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for an outdoor patio, , located at 254 Bridge Street Unit C (fka The Hill Building), Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0049) Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-7B-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses, First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for an outdoor patio, , located at 254 Bridge Street Unit C (fka The Hill Town of Vail Page 7 Building), Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto with the following conditions.- 1. onditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall operate the outdoor patio in a manner generally consistent with the approved site plan dated 07/19/2019. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these Conditional Use Permits requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections Vll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated December 9, 2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The Conditional Use Permit is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the CCI District,- 2. istrict, 2. The proposed Conditional Use Permits and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit complies with the applicable provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permit, Vail Town Code." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative C. Site Plan, 07/17/2019 Town of Vail Page 8 N ' o O LL � U � V W w� � ww— E � CL •� LO ym� o �L N m h c L � O J w ca o U 0 U ,y O J N ' o Conditional Use Permit Vail Ski Cafe/Hill Building Introduction The purpose of this report is to summarize a proposed Conditional Use Permit for an "Outdoor patio". This application is submitted on behalf of Gorsuch Ltd. The Gorsuch's will be operating the Vail Ski Cafe on the ground floor of the Hill Building, a key element of which is an outdoor patio proposed for the west side of the building. Information provided herein includes background on the Hill Building, a summary of the proposed outdoor patio, and an evaluation of how the proposal complies with applicable Conditional Use Permit review criteria. Other information provided under separate cover include a site plan of the proposed patio, site survey, title report, adjacent propertyowners list and other related material. Background on the Hill Building The Hill Building has played a long and important role in the history of Vail. Blanche Hill owned the propertyfor approximately 50 years and it was the site of one of the first developments in Vail Village. The original building was a relatively small structure designed by Fitz Hugh Scott. The building epitomized the alpine style evident in many of Vail's original buildings. Vail Blanche Hill Ski Shop, at the time Vail's first ski shop, was one of the original uses in the building. The building was also Blanche Hill's personal residence. Many additions to the building were made over the years and these additions were not always kind to the clean, simple, alpine architecture of Scott's original building. Over time the building began to lack in coherency. New owners of the building are nearing completion of a major renovation to the building. The design approach forth is renovation was twofold; to heal the building and its public surroundings by restoring clarity to the building's architecture, and to acknowledge the evolution and design character of Vail Village. In deference tothe Hill Building's significance and history, the basic forma nd massing of the building was retained, and the design focused on expressing the traditional European alpine model on which Vail Village is based. The "new" Hi I I Building has brought afresh life to a legacy building that will enhance the experience of Vail Village for years to come. The building's ground level commercial tenant vacated this space earlier this year. The new commercial tenant is Gorsuch Ltd. Founded in the mountains over 50 years ago, Gorsuch is known for its family tradition of providing the finest in ski, fashion and home. It is exceedingly appropriate that Vail's premier, long- time retailer is now operating the commercial space within Vail Village's iconic Hill Building. Proposed Outdoor Patio The proposed patio will provide outdoor seating for the Vail Ski Cafe. The Vail Ski Cafe will provide food and beverages via counter service, including beer and wine. Patrons will "seat themselves" at the patio, which will be furnished with seating, comfy blankets and fire pits to greet guests for a morning coffee or at the end of the day for apres-ski shopping. The space will be designed to encourage one to linger. This "retail -driven hospitality" concept is intended to provide a place for people to meet, rest, and regroup as they enjoy their day at Vail. This location at the base of Vail Mountain is ideally situated for the Vail Ski Cafe. The outdoor potiowill be defined by rough timbers affixed to moveable metal plates. Gorsuch's Ski Cof ein Voil will hove o character and feel similar to their cafe in Aspen ONE VAIL PNCE ONE VAIL PNCE PNL1 SII '! Fi 17777 iTlli'ISiIITI �E 1IL emmlNG — GORSNCH SKI CAFE r I ^ a�Ll l I I DETAIL - °.EATNi AFEA F£iJ"�E n ROCR PLAN - 9GWEIJALP °JCI CONCIEf� I Preliminary layout of the proposed Vail Ski Caf epatiaan the westsideaf the Hill Building. ONE VAIL PLACE SITE /G-IM/LANDS PE NAx SEIBERT CIRCLE FOUNTAIN Hill Building Renovations to Vail Ski Cafe 311 BRIDGE STREET PAIL WOULD -57 391874"4 1DE-22'25"W RESORT DESIGN AA CRITECTS r �o8 .: oumccR �nrlr� meati A6.2a Proposed outdoor patio in context with the entire building and the surrounding neighborhood. I►1 FROf95fD ReviewCriteria The following considerations are to be considered in evaluating the merits of a proposed conditional use permit: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Response The town has a number of development objectives that encourage outdoor patios, uses and activities that add to the quality of the pedestrian experience in Vail Village. The Vail Ski Cafe patio will add interest and activity to an existing pedestrian corridor. While this corridor provides an important link to Vail Mountain, it is uninspiring, lacking in animation and activity. The proposed outdoor patio will provide a place for people to gather, creating activity and interest. This corridorwill be significantly enhanced by this patio. ■ The proposed potio will add activity and interest to thestreet. 2. The effectof the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Response The proposed outdoor patio will have no negative effectson the considerations listed above. 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. Response The patio extends just 7' from the building. This leaves ample room for pedestrian flow through this area. 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. Response The proposed patio is located on what is now a fairly "dead" corridor. The plaza at the base of Vail Mountain is an active place, as are Eaton Plaza and the Siebert Circle fountain area. Nearby patios at the Red Lion and Vendetta's are very popular, vibrant places. The Vail Ski Cafe will serve to "fill in" the gap between these spaces by adding interest and activity to this corridor. I DNH211N3 ________ - - - Etll 65 ', i6 ', bs, Eq v_ I� h wN a e O n 100-6Z-Z90-MZ:NdV ZS919 opeJOlOD'IieA'1aaJ)S aSPP9 VSZ GJ2D PIS P12A _ Q a a Q pnsiog I DNH211N3 ________ - - - Etll 65 ', i6 ', bs, Eq v_ I� h wN a e a �o a Q r: r rl m 21 4 I sl �I 5s o s Z Js � o o � _ m � 0 _ r 0 � . i w I z v � ® o LV Z n Fin 1maul 0®� a �o City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: December 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors within six vertical feet of the lowest level of a structure, both in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to January 13, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: December 9, 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) ATTACHMFKITC- File Name PEC19-0041 Public Works Variance Staff Memo 12.9.19.pdf [Attachment Al Vicinity Map.pdf [Attachment Bl PW Variance Narrative.pdf [Attachment Cl PEC19-0041 Applicant Plans.pdf [Attachment Dl PW Variance Photos.pdf [Attachment El Public Works Geologic Hazards Report + Addendum.pdf [Attachment Fl EIR Vail Public Works.pdf [Attachment Gl CPW Comment Letter 2019.12.03.pdf [Attachment Hl Public Comments Prior to 11.25.19.0 [Attachment Il Public Comments Recieved Prior 12.5.19.pdf Description Staff Memorandum [Attachment A] Vicinity Map [Attachment B] Applicant Narrative [Attachment C] Applicant Plans [Attachment D] PW Photos [Attachment E] Geologic Hazards Report [Attachment F] Environmental Impact Report [Attachment G] Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife [Attachment H] Public Comments Prior to 11.25.19 [Attachment 1] Public Comments Recieved by 12.5.19 WAV1191IAT1:114 Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 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: Erik Gates 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 the constructing of 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 proposed Streets Department building and bus barn and extends East to the end of the existing Public Works 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 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 while 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. During the August 26 planning and environmental commission meeting, the Commission requested the applicant provide a representation of the proposed retaining wall if it were designed to strictly comply with the provisions of the Code. A figure of the proposed and strictly conforming wall is shown below: byh 05— 1SECTION —F m ........... . ------ --------- -------- A., tiya� s,F� n 51TE SECTION —F — 5TIFFEI7 1I 11 In October 2019 an Environmental Report by Rick Kahn was submitted on behalf of the town for this proposal. This report was given to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for comments, which were received by the Town in early December 2019. These CPW comments can be found in Attachment G of this memorandum. 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. 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 3 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 CTION: 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) 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. 0 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) 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: 5 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. 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 M (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) V. 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 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: USFS and Eagle County None South: 1-70 None East: USFS None West: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space VII. REVIEW CRITERIA 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. The Buzzard Park housing development is located within approximately 100 feet of the eastern edge of the shoring wall and is used exclusively by Town and Public Works employees. Both the wall and housing were identified in the 2019 Master Plan Update and it is not anticipated that the construction of the wall nor the additional outdoor storage will have a significant impact on the residents of Buzzard Park. The location of the wall as proposed is screened from the interstate and from S. Frontage Road. A strictly conforming wall would result in additional 10 vertical feet of retaining wall and would no longer be screened from the interstate. 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. 7 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 20 — 25 horizontal feet of site disturbance and habitat loss along the length of the wall. 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. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Environmental Impact Report was conducted by Rick Kahn on behalf of the Town for this site and the proposed improvements identified by phase 1 of the Public Works Master Plan. The report is attached to this memorandum. In this report it was identified that a group of approximately 15 bighorn sheep rams could be impacted by the elimination of about one acre of potential foraging area resulting from construction impacts. Construction activities were identified to likely have the most severe impact on sheep during March — May each year. Bighorn sheep Iambs and 0 ewes were not observed on this site. Mule deer and elk were also observed transitioning through the area north of the Public Works site. Mitigation methods identified in this report are stated to be applicable to sheep, deer, and elk alike. The Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife has also provided its comments on the EIR and this proposal. These comments are attached as well. These comments highlighted the presence of deer, elk, and bighorn sheep, and focused primarily on the S-2 bighorn sheep herd. The CPW comments echoed many of the recommendations present in the EIR, such as reseeding the north hillside and timing construction activity so as to have the lowest impact on the sheep herd. The comments heavily stressed the need for continued monitoring of the S-2 herd to provide more holistic management. As the existing winter range changes due to development, mitigation efforts, and climate change, it is possible that wildlife activity increases on or adjacent to the public works site. The site is currently used for Public Works functions and this retaining wall variance 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 43,100 square feet of previously disturbed land which may be used by sheep for foraging. However, 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 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 this variance, with conditions, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance, with conditions, 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), subject to the following condition: 1 Construction of the shoring wall and rockfall berm shall be limited to the months of June to November, unless a consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife reveals a need to adjust this window." 9 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, 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 November 25, 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 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 D. Site Photos E. Geologic Hazards Report, H -P Kumar, November 6, 2018 F. Environmental Impact Report, Rick Kahn, October 2019 G. Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Matt Yamashita, December 2, 2019 H. Public Comments Prior to November 25, 2019 I. Public Comments as of December 4, 2019 10 C: L- 0 i W T 0) W N N E Q N n U >O U O O E Y (D Q M 'O L M 0 O O m N CD 0 cu � � U N d 00 ❑ ❑ O 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 same 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. 0 0000 o0 0 0 L991,9 00 'I I VA 3AINOA3MVA TVA 60£6 sAsoM oiiand z o�� s m IIVA IO NMOL U � v K Q rn i o o ri Q UC7 m W Z = Z X avme W Q W fn W as �=oW om ww 0 0000 i �LL L99 W 00 'l I VA 3nIN0 A3llVA l IVn 6006 mom iMand Il M=111111 1 .o • z w am o �x o��LL L9919 00 'l I VA 3nIa0 A3MvA IIVA 60E1 SMSOM 3118nd IIVA IO NMOL millill z z . _ o wZ w m o • cr m � x m z oo�000 L99W 00'-11Vn w SASOM O118nd s m = LL IIVA =10 NMO-L U _ _ > a ■■11 � Nou�naisNo�aoiioN SNOUODS SSOHO IWV ONWOHS O N0 I1HN10a00011HM0NW0HS ivw ne �Mo�a E � NllaVw NllaVl/�JI'll's an rte �b�sau ivw .aeo�oW �aro,d U smom oriend 11VA esso arow aa—N a°r / fl f t� / --r /v iM rr r 4�nhrrri��v�`v\� %grl�rri}w���h� it err/`iy/r 1�i i� kt l � r aw s) ii; ii %lireWR `\�,��N��ii�l,�iii�#;,%o'G� �� �ooaA�w�C.k\�:wd �i �i i7 iii ri� A 1 I 0��.A Az�Ii ," t;�� i v/ly"�iili�r �irr�i �j n r/ulir �m nirrin'rr i q�lirhlhrrA i brei i IArylr�r9 >` lllr l l 111f /I r a Q�\iiuo`��9�r�°r�ruilr'� n �� ��'� d __-•,i�iii� iiia viii hilii�i a di ; i '\ npli�uhui P d o � 0 1u1 �d�rrArpi iiiiilN uii�iiiigi i hi p i 1i s ��i��ii��niYI,\Jriiuq rinnl'ruq;��I— 4-ri; mr `i� nnaPi"If �i i i i rrr HIS I 3 �i� III I I A erAlu ; WI � Il iii o+oo i l�rhnn r i r/orn l � rrMu rihir rIPlr °ji��lrb digipii iii udi n n ,ii il'� d�'iiiw�h q n�ii�ur '+D�r Mini iry h inr �qh�r � r� � � ili�iii i Pul � w 9diipodi'iilni i� o,G n inil�u i�u I ` i t � �� �� t, r � it pi�y �;rliihlihiligil i �r�tgiuh« i° i i � 1; � mr/bluer I I n u /�i' � ii�p�,- ljnrrq�nr�Jrj iii rpr�uf�ii°ring" an�0� � i m�f ��nilr/pilrgi�ibu j,r, �/�r�!��%u r�fi�i\irrf ri%r\iii i n��'•. i�%rigid �� ✓ rirrrlir�il4irrtrhr i i9 jr�rrr�4iiv`9 �/ lrivijrdr�pr o i� �'. i p� rrgli rlr iiii�\��i i oriAAi°/i!i es � i � i lin roil 4lifs s iifnp Oren -4 %`/4gi/it It ql� i h i i d im it it r deli^ dri a ni n > w \3 a w 0 \o no� I\p \p\nX \�r�or rrrm spit � prr4 n u� �rrr wvvwoAv �r3r r rp�lh aUr�rr �A2y�w\vvvw � v� ovvo � ° wv\vv � u rnPrrrrr « h� �y\wd p, AvrrrvJ� `EP �rr�rrrrgOr r``rw �r`r1 ni rid' q r��`�in�nil��rAm16 ��rrrVrrrrop rps�o rrrq ii, bz��lino ni�ioug0ir e\rvvv��irergrrv�z w, iil,3,°s ni � i in ii rr,Agr�rr� nr a �uiili m i d i niliu� iii�ihilgiP iij'liiiiiil111 1W°�� pvvVvvhwvgo�wA� 0 w o Amo M iii rid w a r�rpd 6 I z o� P-a\rsve�.o�e .as0' "„0M ' "d �;� - �owvwu°�r :No�woo1 °N11111 NOUOnHiSNOJ idOJ lON 311jolld'1H XHW 71tlM ONWOHS IN n�osoartim� asotio ae NOLLVNIGdO0011HM ONNOHS Tyrwr�aa,ou� cul war��l,d mse �Mo�a E NI1HVw NLL21 NAZ-J an rte �blsaa rvw .aeo�oW �aro,d U Smom oriend 11VA w°N wa a =°ssl oN esso arow ,aa—N asr flo / j ��rr� lrnGs,OnigJlNr�4��lrlri rir I�IId 11� � � __ t! � ( ��?� I Ilrl�li �1 dIIPI w k i I III II ii/4rrr rr lim6a�oi�inid�ll� �I� uImIIM�i�poll i � I i I �I�A\,� ii�V r� rlr�rl ria �� i lel o o r rrid n m l ro 6 r rrr � A, �� .< r raw OQr i'ii I ,�(pi(r�lrrr/rirvf/irr:� �� �:I li�ll�l ��oQ�jll�l'Irr rArlrll= I�il(niilill I /�rri���rr � p ,ate _- `l a\� � �Ill��lli� �a II I II " z I I rll lul(Ir�dl,m � ` Ilhrl cw�o r`b� �Il�illh��r �� ISIII rrr r r � � i s l � r� rlllllllllno 1Vlnlllellln�rnl Iw r 1.m ® -_' - y r�lhgq �€� ro��rrw Ill��ul oar qgrinllilrrl/r r �� i �r ��V �iiyq r�Qo I i Illl —>` I �wYo� ii — mw I p plu' r �I qql d III OWN 9llh(lull u^ f a �il4igl Q� s_ jsl hill �r����. II,-,"'I�lilli'llril��luililullglllul II`I`irjls� i �r` i Ilq �r�� A ,;;!alll�iild��lA'pi lllillug lu ullllllgllhl 11 l ie �r:� o Illl��ll� ,null II l JI II i � IPIa �Illplllul I l rlr� i I �� x1111' 3 `� r iiiil�iillll111i\I1111111111� "Ii4I,\\ �. � rAvr llnllll 1u111pbn11 11 111 hhllll4l l ' ' � = lila rr �11 "I I r r1lPQ ll 1 I Al n � 111 � III 1 �' I Ilf 1 lnuormnu 1I u( \rillle � rr,1 1 � � 1111 I I I llr l Ih pc, I l 1 I I a II� ill I � / erllu 1 111 _ I Illur IMrr1r(rl 111 uv,ullo 1 11. l l 11 p1l 1 1 1 1 rax m hlll Ir )r /allll III I my Illlmq�l g1/lllm tri Irlr I 11 1 � y �� 1 z I I I I II �� 1111I1u111 � l r1Mu r l 11 Pl1m fpr r0/pr � � �. � � � 111114 III 1 11I� I Il�'n 1 �- 1 rlllalilulll I �I�I I fr1 n 1 x111 Ic r)< 11 1 I� I w l l 1 rlu �1 1 1111 111 dli9ulll°r1 �'� A 1� III �� p16 11 0 � III I I I ry 1n1 ul( I r. 1. 11 1 1 IUlu11 I � I u ` lr ` h pu Pu w Ilpnlllallnl II i II1lhllu lill I ` 1 t ` lA r r}✓ 1�111u111�IIl�=il�ullu(11up111111 4dlh' Imilll ` 1 r 1e ' 111I1j r � Illllq ° lu dull I 1 � r r l lr iiri r �'S'ri1)S&a;°Imililul��iil it II n°h°1(110 i I 111' 1�l 1(ilQ1u rG t� �?/irrd� (ini��liii�%r IiiliEj�l4��iv�ly" g26° i er i, � �l�n �i -drrr r/ r rrr¢ I mr 'r � �r%r�i�r%iir nll�ilrgi✓iu trrr ai iiiijq / � i ll �' r ���I��rii%,r/r%rril°ai✓l rlpii ;rurigl I I� �. ,'' ;, rp��/ii,u� iii'lirr r�rir�lfrrfl�ri�ii i ���'• 3 - n ri jjr�i/ism, ll �rr r riiii/i rii%i�� r i��l�lirrilirrrilu I a �� r o � r/rrir io mirrirr. ii vly rrri iel�lu >%� �� I � �.. /r 1(1 r1(4rr rr v/ir rriA %drrrr� � �� ' I Vr. I lin rrr rfr 9 s I � 1jh'11 nl d lln�q rrr/�sr .,r z / I I�, "11 h � Mrd iad/x1161 n1r'r�rtz II I #� I II iilllJilnul �41ri(ill �Ilu I, 11111 �I 9s ��� � 11 ��.'� 1111 I� gblplwll `01. m I II 111111 � ry r . I� 1x111( ItilJ�ilbi�lr. 11P1fi�rll All Ins � 1 a I� r 111 II 1�ip1�i�Apg1rl��Jnr1 \@ J\r� r ' r 60 " \ A \ rr Aerr A� r°A Q A� Vr�prr p� Ar�rr� i� rA s:c \ J��VA rr r rp �R°,r,4r �\�� � r\r\\�W°\rrr�.lro, o� r A Q�rrr \ ppp r rrr�rrl r\ r Ar, m o sore ,,.,p°V r\l#' mrwoAr dol o� rVrp�lrr�rsllrlr�rl r� rrr QQ�s'\llam;�rua) Ju\�y' `BN a/m;�1ar a aa� to. \lots \\ rny0\oa•�za,rrrr A ,rr�•�yll��alllmir o��a ���r�r"°�ioos err rrrrJ��rrr�o��t11 rr a gil�l,�arrrrArrr\lrA rrrrArrrrAJrm/rA"aawl�l r 1111 lllallowil�illnn�,'I, �llr1\1rrrOl olw orl1 141 hd111`�a°till°llA�, " JQrr`1rA1r��ol rrlw�o rr111 �� 101 1pli°Ia n111m��11oJ1,`I ,rrrrr�rrelgll��z ulll I Il 1111 1111 � I n In I 1 �V�r�Vr�r`n�`r�` r��lrlz,llllllllllll liA�lll lil i illlllllul�l l�luilll�llilliil�ll l�l�'� i �r r `r \,r,hrrrrr�rrrrrrroLL�d4u1r11111 I pl��ll'pnrygluodlhr °a�Arr� ill rll ulliilrl�liisl��ll��i���srAli \zrar��tr r a��hhrpor�Ar rh`o� ,rpr\rrir\ r lA4rrllll�lli�rlrl�10�rr� ar��r�ro�r\r��rro�\�:�rrA�r�rr�pOa��yr.rrro �ymrr�prrrr�r �rrr\rrrrr�r�or\�"c- p�\2rr�rl l r r rrd�rrr\\\ro Av r\��r�\�\g\ur� m'. l rgln w9 1 1w1g1 w � z 1 � 11dg11 LL m o � I hg11u oil z 11 I 1I Ills oww 1 1�11i11 l 11 ii = � l 11111, ah6� ¢ rr l rill � r� 11111 r r��ll r <�r Son � o � 1 0 , � V ar o mr `1 ti lor r IN jl rrr i �,��alor•� � �n i__�—,I(1pr---�1 , %o v 41 11 4i/l rs r ,a�so0 I'd - �owv �r� :No�rdoo, �N�Mddo 10110111111100 2101 ION NOU33S 8 ONIOV210 IIVM llv1NOOi N n�osoartimo7 aooti�o ae NOLLVNI(Id000 �WAA-nVdNoo i „rlwl�aa,ou� qui im���i�d ,Vw Sg NIli1Vw NIl21Vl/�J� iVw rte �b�saa ,Vw .aeo�oW �aro�d U Smom oriond 11VA —N a ass' -N esso a,ow awnN aor F1 —'\3..e\....a.=o„ =,.oM =��4�d �Nw��N�� No�� D NN�—O . ��llliiu!,II • �II VIII —'\3..e\....a.=o„ =,.oM =��4�d �Nw��N�� No�� D NN�—O 011 14 A 4 V Tr 1(+AKWW&A=dat03,h)C.- Geotechnical and Materials Engineers 5020 County Road 154 and Environmental Scientists Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: (970) 945-7988 fax: (970) 945-8454 �— email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com An Employee wed Company www.kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado November 11, 2019 Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Attn: Mark Donaldson P. O. Box 5300 Avon, Colorado 81620 markdA,,vmda.com WMEMNSEUMM Subject: Addendum to Geologic Hazards Review, Proposed Town of Vail Public Works Facility Development, 1309 Elkhorn Drive, Vail, Colorado Gentlemen: As requested by Chris Juergens of Victor Mark Donaldson Architects (VMDA), Kumar & Associates, Inc. has reviewed the proposed grading plan and rockfall hazard mitigation wall design by Martin/Martin, and conducted additional analysis of modeled impact energies along the proposed rockfall hazard mitigation wall. The services were done supplemental to our agreement for professional services to you, dated September 26, 2018, Proposal No. P7-18-713. We previously conducted a Geologic Hazards Review for the proposed development and presented our findings in a report dated November 6, 2018, Project No. 18-7-606, and a subsoil study for foundation design for the proposed development, report dated August 7, 2019, Project No. 18-7-606.01. We have reviewed the proposed preliminary grading plan and rockfall mitigation wall design by Martin/Martin dated::November 9, 2019, Job No. MCI 8.0933. The proposed rockfall hazard mitigation wall with a height of 7 feet and a 6 -foot -wide Swale on the uphill side in the location shown on their plan, sheet C 101 should adequately meet our design recommendations to mitigate the rockfall and debris flow hazard at the subject site. The recommendations presented in our subsoil study dated August 7, 2019, Project No. 16-7-606.01 can be used for the design of the proposed rockfall mitigation wall foundations. We should review the final grading and rockfall mitigation wall plans once they have been developed. The modeled potential rockfall impact energies along the length of the proposed wall are shown on Figure 1. These energies are based on the CRSP results presented in our previous report, the gradient of the natural slope above the wall, and the proximity of the wall to the potential rockfall source area. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Victor Mark Donaldson Architects November 11, 20191 Page 2 Sincerely, Kumar & Associates, Inc. �'�� � P -- Robert L. Duran, E. I. Reviewed by: Steven L. attachmen apact Energies cc: VMDA — Chris Juergen (chrisj(&,vmda.com Town of Vail — Greg Hall (ghall@,vailgov.com Martin/Martin — Mason Talkington (Intalkington(&martimnartin.com) Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 18-7-606 use West " 420,000 ft—Ib l �) 14 C-- i� 390,000 ft—Ib I.� c + 5' 330,000 ft—Ib ;r I y 7 + 1<« 260,000 ft—lb Terminate wall and tie into existing debris flow berm + o� i I l �f s� Not to scare East 18-7-606 Kumar & Associates Potential Rockfall Impact Energies Fig. 1 H -R KUMAR Geotechnical Engineering [ Engineering Geology Materials Testing I Environmental 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945-7988 Fax: (970) 945-8454 Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Silverthorne, Colorado GEOLOGIC HAZARDS REVIEW PROPOSED TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY DEVELOPMENT 1309 ELKHORN DRIVE, VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 18-7-606 NOVEMBER 6, 2018 PREPARED FOR: VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS ATTN: MARK DONALDSON P.O. BOX 5300 AVON, COLORADO 81657 markd(a-),vmda.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY........................................................................................ 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................... 1 SITECONDITIONS...................................................................................................................- 1 PROJECTAREA GEOLOGY.................................................................................................... 2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT..................................................................................- 3 RECOGNITION..................................................................................................................... - 4 IDENTIFICATION................................................................................................................. - 4 EVALUATION........................................................................................................................ 4 RockfallSource Zone........................................................................................................... 5 RockfallPaths...................................................................................................................... 5 RockfallRunout Zone..........................................................................................................- 6 CRSPMODELING................................................................................................................ - 6 ModelInput Information...................................................................................................... 7 Model Output Information................................................................................................... 7 ROCKFALL RISK EVALUATION...................................................................................... - 8 ROCKFALL MITIGATION CONCEPTS.................................................................................- 8 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................... 10 LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................- 10 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 11- FIGURE 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 I 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 ditch/berm feature does not appear to be maintained. The ditch/berm structure is currently relatively free of debris. Scattered rocks of up to 2'/z feet in diameter are present along the entire ditch/berm. PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY The main geologic features in the project area are shown on Figure 3. This map is based on regional mapping by Kellogg and Others (2003) published by the United States Geological Survey. The project site lies along the axis of the Laramide-age north -south trending Spraddle Creek Fold. Formation rock in the area consists of the Pennsylvanian -age Minturn Formation middle member (Pmm), the Robinson Limestone Member (Pmr), and the lower member (Pml). The lower member consists of arkosic conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale that is pinkish - gray to grayish -brown. The Robinson Limestone Member is a fossiliferous medium to thick bedded marine limestone interbedded with light tan arkosic pebbly sandstones, siltstones, and shales. The middle member consists of arkosic conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale that is pinkish -gray to grayish -brown. The bedding dip of the formation rock in the vicinity of the Project No. 18-7-606 -3 - project site is variable and ranges from around 20 to 25 degrees toward the east to 40 to 60 degrees toward the west (Kellogg and Others, 2003). Surficial deposits in the area include upper Pleistocene -age Pinedale glacial till (Qtp), middle Pleistocene -age Bull Lake glacial till (Qtb), and recent landslide deposits (Qlsy). The Pinedale glacial till consists of sub -angular to sub -rounded gneiss cobbles and boulders in a light tan sandy matrix that is unsorted and unstratified. The Bull Lake glacial till consists of material similar to that of the Pinedale till but also contains sandstone, conglomerate, or limestone cobbles and boulders derived from the Minturn Formation. The recent landslide deposits consist of debris deposited by recent landslides that is unstratified and unsorted. The landslide to the northeast of the project site is active and is a deep rotational slide with shallow soil slumping near the surface (Kellogg and Others, 2003). Kellogg and Others (2003) also state that rockfall is a geologic hazard in portions of the quadrangle, especially in areas below steep slopes and cliffs formed by the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation. The recognized rockfall deposits described by Kellogg and Others (2003) can be observed on this site. The slopes above the property where these processes initiate have measured slope angles ranging from 60 to 100 percent. Heavy rains at this location can be accompanied by rockfall. Rockfall deposits were observed adjacent to and on the property. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT Geologic hazards potentially impacting the project site consist of rockfall, debris flow and potentially unstable slopes. Rockfall from the outcrops above the site on the valley side appears to be moderate to high risk. There is a small debris basin and associated channel upslope of the east part of the proposed development, north of the existing berm. The existing berm/channel outlets along the western edge of the existing Public Works office building. The potential for unstable slopes appears to be low to moderate and mainly at the existing cut slope to the north of the existing parking/roadway area. We should review the grading plans for the project once they Project No. 18-7-606 have been developed and perform additional stability and rockfall analyses as needed for the areas of proposed new development RECOGNITION There is evidence of a rockfall hazard at the property. This hazard involves loose rocks along the slope rising above the property to the north and fractured blocks of Minturn Formation exposed in cliff faces and ridges above the site. Evidence of the extent of the hazard within the property may have been obscured by the existing development. We reviewed historic aerial photographs of the property dating back to 1999, the oldest aerial photographs readily available for the site. Several rocks were found in the area along the existing berm and un -maintained two -track road to the north of the existing cut slope. These rocks ranged in size from around 1 to 4 feet in all dimensions and mainly consisted of angular limestones and sandstones of the Minturn Formation. IDENTIFICATION The majority of the rockfall evident adjacent to the property comes from rolling and bounding loose rock. The initiation force may be a combination of loss of support for the loose rock due to precipitation events, freeze thaw cycles, chemical weathering (disintegration of the rock mass), and plant and animal influences. Wind also may be a contributing factor. Other rockfall may result from planer or toppling failures within the large rock masses with open fractures. Based upon the apparent erosion of soil supporting loose rock during heavy rainfall, destabilization of the loose rock could occur during times of high precipitation. EVALUATION Evaluation of the project site for rockfall included field observations, terrain analysis, aerial photograph interpretation, and rockfall simulation modeling using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (Crsp3D version 2012.12.12.23.37). The evaluation focused on three zones defined within the area. These included: 1. Rockfall Source Zone 2. Rockfall Paths 3. Rockfall Runout Zone Project No. 18-7-606 -5- A map showing potential rockfall hazard areas is presented in Figure 2. The potential hazard consists of a rockfall source zone, a rockfall runout zone, and an area of potential rockfall paths between the source zone and the runout zone. The project site is located in the potential runout zone as shown on Figure 1. Rockfall Source Zone The majority of rocks presently posing a hazard to the proposed development are located at the rock outcrop located approximately 560 feet up the slope and along the ridge to the northwest of the proposed development area about 400 to 1000 feet up the slope. The source zones are primarily intact sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone that exhibit varying degrees of weathering and fractures. There are loose rocks littering the slope below the outcrops that have rolled to their present location. In our opinion, most of these lower, loose rocks do not pose a significant rockfall hazard. This is due to their lower location on the slope. It is unlikely that these lower, loose rocks will develop significant kinetic energy should they roll down the slope. The exception to this is the loose rocks in the vicinity of the outcrops that can be dislodged and are higher up on the slope. There is one very large boulder above the middle of the proposed development at around elevation 8,436 feet that appears currently stable. Rockfall Paths The mechanism of rockfall at this location involves rolling, toppling, and/or sliding of loose rock from the source zone. Once moving, the rock rolls and bounces through the rockfall path zone until it stops in the rockfall runout zone. The rockfall path zone above the proposed development area extends from the base of the slope to the ridge and outcrop above. Rocks roll, topple, and/or slide varying distances from the source zone. Some rocks are stopped in the source zone after initial movement. Other rocks stop varying distances down the slope. The rocks that stop movement in the source zone and on the slope lose speed and kinetic energy through contact with the ground surface, other rocks, vegetation, or a combination of these. It is likely that some rocks have rolled and bounced through the rockfall path zone, impacting the flatter ground at the base of the slope. We are unaware of direct evidence that rocks have Project No. 18-7-606 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 PROJECT y • SITE E . -M s Awt'I. f'•lih 1'. l -_ .fJ � �' ,y r • �I� &y.d.I • i y '. Y le a 4 r • y 1p �' �. id'Vii. ,• (OttP 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 To: Greg Hall, Town of Vail From: Rick Kahn Wildlife Consultant Re: Wildlife Impacts to Vail Work Center Master Plan for Town of Vail (TOV) Colorado (Solar array and Public Works site expansion) October 2019 Rick Kahn- Qualifications- I have been a professional wildlife biologist for over 40 years. I have a B.S. degree in Wildlife Biology and a Masters in Wildlife Science. I spent 32 years with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDW) in many capacities including: District Wildlife Manager 10 years, Statewide Big Game manager 4 years, Wildlife Management Supervisor 15 years and Terrestrial Section Manager for 3 years. During my tenure with CDW I worked on many bighorn sheep projects including trap and transplant, disease monitoring and testing, development on statewide policies and presenting regulations and policies to the Wildlife Commission, Executive leadership and the Colorado legislature. I was a co-author on the Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan 2009-2019 and represented CDW on the Western Association of Wildlife Agencies Bighorn Sheep Working Group. After retirement from CDW I spent 7 years with the National Park Service as a system wide wildlife biologist and worked on bighorn and Dall sheep issues across the western United States and Alaska and represented NPS on the Bighorn Sheep Working Group. As both a CDW and NPS employee I was involved in numerous land use issues and either directly wrote comments or had employees under my direction write comments on impacts to wildlife from many entities including private developers. I am familiar with the various aspects of wildlife mitigation and have been involved in both management and research efforts to determine the effectiveness of various mitigation techniques. My Masters of Science work looked at the impacts of pinyon/juniper chaining on mule deer and small mammals. At the present time I am the owner and principal wildlife biologist for RHK Consulting LLC and formerly worked with the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society providing technical assistance. Executive Summary - The Town of Vail has submitted a request for a Permit to expand and modify their Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive in Vail. This report details the potential wildlife impacts of this expansion on the adjacent big game habitat and specific impacts to a group of bighorn sheep rams that have used the area primarily during winter and spring. The TOV project has the potential to impact a group of ram bighorn sheep that have used the site and adjacent areas of USFS land sporadically in the past decade. In 2019 a group of —15 sheep used the site from around March- May. Construction will result in approximately 1-1.25 acres of potential foraging area being eliminated and there is concern that construction impacts will be negative if conducted at times when sheep are in the area and constrained by snow that limits movements. Mitigations are recommended that restrict construction to certain times of the year, that require grass planting of key species to mitigate losses, that limit access to the area for recreation, that restrict the use of dogs and recommend further monitoring of bighorn sheep and other wildlife. Project Description- The Town of Vail (TOV) has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for demolition of an existing building, construction of a new building, the construction of a retaining wall and a rock fall berm, expanded storage space for vehicles and construction of a solar array at its existing work center at 1289 Elkhorn Drive in Vail, Colorado. The total expansion is approximately 59,000 square feet of space. There are other projects outlined in the Master Plan however this analysis only related to the specific projects mentioned above. All other developments, including working on the existing housing area should require additional analyses. The analysis will focus primarily on the impacts to a group of bighorn sheep rams that have used this general area including TOV lands and adjacent United States Forest Service lands as part of the their winter and spring habitat use areas. Techniques I reviewed the information sent to me by the TOV including the site plans, permitting request and other appropriate documents. I did a site visit on 30 September with Greg Hall which included looking at existing facilities, looking at proposed sites for development and meeting with various other staff and contractors. In addition, I have been retained by the TOV to provide comments and analysis on another development in the Booth Creek area to the east and during that investigation I spent over 40 hours researching and investigation impacts to this same herd of bighorn sheep on the Booth Creek area about 2-3 miles away. I also interviewed a number of Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff regarding this project including retired individuals with site specific knowledge of this herd and area. Wildlife Background Data- This evaluation will focus almost entirely on bighorn sheep in the vicinity of the Public Works buildings and adjacent lands with the following exception: This area is also used by mule deer and elk primarily as a migration corridor and for transitional range. Neither of these species has spent a significant amount of time on the adjacent areas for the past 5-10 years or longer. This is corroborated by former Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager Bill Andre and by sightings made by staff at the Work Center. The reason for this is not totally clear, however both mule deer and in particular elk populations have declined dramatically in this game management unit (GMU) over the past 10 years. In addition, it should be mentioned that the entire upper Eagle Valley has seen explosive growth and development over the past 40 years and a dramatic increase in the overall human footprint. This has undoubtedly had negative cumulative impacts on local big game populations. Mitigations recommended for bighorn sheep are also consistent and applicable for both mule deer and elk. If the present trend changes and either mule deer or elk establish either fawning/calving areas or use the area for winter use then the TOV should consider further analysis to better understand local impacts of the full development of the Master Plan. Bighorn Sheep Bighorn sheep use the local area and are part of a local herd designated by CPW as the Gore —Eagles Nest herd (S-2). This herd utilizes a wide area of summer range primarily in the Gore -Eagles Nest Wilderness north and east of Vail on Forest Service lands and winters almost exclusively along the north side of Interstate 70 from the Booth Creek area west to this site due north of the TOV Work Center. Colorado Parks and Wildlife have mapped bighorn sheep ranges including critical winter ranges in this area and the development area are within the mapped winter range. However, it should be noted that this designation was developed over 20 years ago and it is possible that winter range has changed in that time period. While the designations are still important, changes in land use in the general area may have resulted in a contraction of the overall winter ranges. Under ideal circumstances this information should be updated and the best information is obtained via the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) collars on an appropriate sample of bighorn sheep from the resident herd over a multi-year period in order to determine specific seasonal uses of habitat. Bighorn sheep in Colorado have undergone significant population declines since pre -settlement times. Though there was no specific evidence on how many bighorns were present in Colorado at settlement, there were anecdotal accounts which state they were common and widely distributed across the state (George 2009). There are estimates of at least 200,000 bighorn sheep in Colorado in the mid 1800's. At the present time the overall population is about 6,800 animals which is about 3-5% of the pre - settlement estimate. The statewide trend is slightly downward over the past 5 years. The present estimate of the S-2 sheep herd is — 50-65 animals which is down from an estimate of —100 animals in the mid 2000's. This is an important native herd with only one supplemental transplant of bighorns from the Tarryall herd in the late 1940's. From the mid 1980's through the mid 2000's this was one of the largest bighorn sheep herds in the northwest % of Colorado. It has traditionally provided a small number of rams for hunting opportunity and is one of the most important in the state for wildlife viewing given their wintering range adjacent to Interstate 70 and the high amount of winter traffic coming to the Vail Valley and areas to the west. Thus this is a herd of very high importance both locally and statewide. As mentioned earlier, this herd has declined in the mid 2000's anywhere from 35-50%. The reasons are not known, however it is thought that the severe winter conditions of 2007-2008 may have contributed to an all age die off and there has not been recovery in the ensuing decade. At the present time pneumonia related disease is the most critical factor impacting Colorado's bighorn sheep herds, however in certain situations human related impacts on the winter ranges, when sheep movements are constrained and forage is limited, is also a contributing factor to poor population performance. The area adjacent to the TOV site is US Forest Service land and is in not grazed by domestic livestock. It is used exclusively by bands of bighorn sheep rams. Ewes and Iambs have not been noted on the site for over 10 years and rarely if ever prior to that time. The ram band, which had a high count of 15 animals, was present in the winter and spring of 2019 from approximately March through late May. Since 2008 rams have been noted in the general area for at about 3-5 years or about 30-5-40% of the time. However, there has not been a standardized count in that specific area and these are just general observations, so in some years sheep may have used the area and were not noted and may have just used the area for a short period of time. This group of rams has used the south facing hillside just north of the Public Works facility and on occasion has been sighted in and around the TOV lands. Small groups of bighorns have been noted in the area just north of Interstate 70 to the west of the facility on occasions and there are observations of rams moving through the facility in an attempt to move further south towards the Interstate. It is speculated that the rams have been drawn towards the Interstate and the facility to get salt which is used on the Interstate and also stored at the facility. The area adjacent to the TOV site is typical mountain shrub community with native grasses, shrubs, including snowberry and serviceberry and scattered conifers and aspen. There is a small strip of disturbed land adjacent to the power line that separated TOV property from the adjacent USFS lands. Bighorns have been seen utilizing this area on a regular basis particularly around green up in the spring but it is speculative to make statements as to the critical nature of these areas for bighorn sheep in the area. This area has non-native grasses including wheat grass and smooth brome and these species are very attractive to bighorn sheep early in the spring as they tend to green up faster than native grasses and provide key nutrition in the post winter period. The area has only limited amount of bighorn sheep escape cover (steep rocky slopes, with greater than 10% aspect, that provide escape areas from primarily mountain lion predation). This is most likely the reason that the area is only utilized by rams and not ewes and Iambs. Rams are less likely to be victims of lion predation due to their larger body size and horns which can be used for defensive purposes. (George 2009, Schnoeneker 2005) There are two rocky outcrops in the immediate area, the one to the east is larger and provides more escape cover. There are more rocky ledges to the east towards Booth Creek which provide better escape cover and thus that is where the ewe/Iamb groups are found. Due to the sporadic nature of bighorn sheep sightings in this area over the past decade and the lack of any formal studies on this sheep herd in general in the past 25 years it is difficult to fully understand how the proposed developments will impact these specific animals or other groups if they chose to use this general area in the future. While there are certainly cumulative impacts to development and at some point development and habitat loss leads to negative population responses, this work site area has been intensively used for over 40 years. The area has lots of people and vehicle traffic and the specific ram band that used the area in 2019 appeared to be somewhat habituated to this level of disturbance. However, it is not clear what further increased levels would do to their use or what impacts disturbance might have on future groups of bighorns that may choose to use the habitat. Project Details and Mitigation The project areas that are covered by this paper include the following actions taken by the TOV: Instillation of a rock fall berm to be constructed in the area just south of the existing power line near the north end of the TOV property. 4 Instillation of a solar array below the berm extending along the north end of the property from the east side to the west. Construction of a new building and a lower retaining wall in the northwest area of the Public Works site, including demolition of the existing structure and a retaining wall built into the existing hill to stabilize the north side of the site. These actions are to be done in 1-4 years of permit approval. Rock Fall Berm- The rock fall berm is to be constructed on the north end of the TOV property just north of the work center complex. This will result in the removal of .16-.24 acres of existing habitat which has been used by bighorn sheep. As mentioned earlier, this area was used primarily in early spring as the site contained non-native grasses which greened up early and provided some early season foraging. This area has been adjacent to a significant amount of human activity for an extended period of time (>40 years). The proposed berm will have both positive and negative impacts on bighorn sheep. The negative impacts are the loss of a small amount of habitat that provides forage at a critical time. The potential positive impacts is that the berm may provide a barrier to bighorns moving towards 1-70 and may be helpful in minimizing both highway mortality and keeping the bighorns away from attractive nuisances in the work area such as salt storage areas. It is recommended that the berm be built in such a way as to allow bighorn sheep some potential footholds to scramble over the barrier in the event they need to get over. However, I do not recommend adding a specific area in the berm that could allow for easier bighorn sheep or other wildlife access such as a gap in the berm. The thought here is that wildlife and bighorns in particular do not really need to access the areas to the south for specific needs such as forage or for movement. If this is needed there are other areas to the west and east that could potentially allow wildlife access. The loss of these acres of foraging habitat could be mitigated in the following manner; the disturbed site immediately north of the berm should be seeded to a wildlife grass mixture which should include some cool season grasses which would green up early in the spring and provide some forage at that key time. If this area is on Forest Service land the TOV should work with FS to do suitable habitat enhancement in this area to provide better forage. This could include fertilization of the existing vegetation or interseeding with a wildlife friendly seed mixture which would benefit bighorn sheep and other ungulates. Solar array- The solar array has a larger footprint on the land than does the berm or new building as great as 4.5 acres if totally built out. Wildlife impacts of ground mounted solar arrays have not been extensively studies so there is little research available on specific impacts and none on bighorn sheep. Since the solar array is linear and extends along the entire edge of the property during construction it will have an impact on potentially a larger area. One idea for the TOV to consider is to roof mount as much as possible portions of the solar array on the new structure and other buildings which would minimize the overall footprint. If this is not practical, then TOV should try and enhance the areas around the solar array by planting a wildlife grass mixture so that the disturbed sites do not result in noxious weeds and also provide and area for bighorn sheep foraging and help to mitigate the loss of habitat. New building and lower retaining wall- It is not anticipated that construction of the new building will result in any long term impacts of bighorn sheep in the area. The lower retaining wall needed to stabilize the slope for the new ground level building will result in .84 acres of habitat lost. This is almost exclusively non-native grasses which bighorn do utilize particularly in early spring as they tend to green up faster than native vegetation. This loss could be mitigated by planting a wildlife friendly grass seed mixture with some brome grass in it along the disturbed site of the solar array and other adjacent TOV areas as mentioned above. Timing- The timing of the proposed construction for all three actions is critical. Every effort should be made to avoid major construction during times when the sheep are present. This has been from March — May during the past couple of years. TOV and CPW should monitor for sheep presence prior to and during construction phases and be prepared to either stop certain actions such as blasting or major heavy equipment work and modify other work so that bighorn sheep are not forced to leave the area. This is particularly critical during areas of heavy snow depth when bighorn movements are constrained. Construction during summer and fall time periods should be optimum based on recent bighorn observations. Recreation- The TOV should make every effort to minimize recreation and access to adjacent FS lands from TOV property during winter and early spring time periods when bighorns are present and when snow has constrained movements. This should include not only the public (no plan for new public access) and to employees. Dog use should be prohibited at any time when bighorns are present and as a general rule during winter and early spring. Forest Service Land- The TOV is involved with the FS to look at habitat improvement for bighorn sheep in the Booth Creek area. While this site is of lower overall importance if there are resources available that do not take away from the Booth Creek site then the TOV should work with FS to improve the adjacent areas for bighorns. This could include; fertilization of the grass and shrub communities, modification of any decadent stands of mountain shrubs, use of controlled burns, and seeding with grass mixtures along the property lines if any areas are disturbed. Overall this is the most beneficial for bighorns and will have the most positive impacts as these areas are closest to the escape cover and will keep sheep away from the Work Site and interstate. Monitoring As mentioned earlier, these recommendations are based on the existing information on bighorn sheep observations and not on specific wildlife inventory or research. At a minimum it is recommended that the TOV use a systematic monitoring system to acquire information on bighorn sheep use in the area adjacent to the Work Site from fall of 2019 and on as the project moves forward. This should be coordinated with CPW. This could be TOV employees getting some very basic training, developing some standardized data collection forms and glassing the areas in a systematic fashion a couple of times/week. This would allow the TOV and CPW to get a better idea of when the bighorns show up, how long they stay and ideally what the conditions are (snow depth, green up etc) that might be tied to their stay on this general site. While rudimentary, this information is extremely valuable if collected over time and provides insight into both potential disturbance and impacts and value of mitigation. A more robust sampling system could be developed if the TOV was interested. Comparison with other projects Given the timing of this project and the concern expressed locally by other developments that could potentially impact this bighorn sheep herd I have added some differences between this project and the project in the Booth Creek area proposed by Triumph Development. The bighorn sheep impacted by TOV project to date are only males. Male are typically less impacted by both predation and by human disturbance. They also tend to move around more and have less site fidelity than do ewe/Iamb groups. The overall footprint of the project that this paper has analyzed is less than the overall impact at Booth Creek. As mentioned earlier, further analyses are needed to determine impacts of other phases of the Master Plan build out. The adjacent winter range is of lower quality due to the lack of escape cover when compared to the Booth Creek area. This area has less overall use, not every year, and has been more transient in nature. The Booth Creek area is the core winter range and is occupied annually. COLORADO v Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Area 8 - NW Region 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2969 1 F 970.947.2936 Town of Vail December 2, 2019 Erik Gates, Town Planner Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO. 81657 Dear Mr. Gates, Thank you forth e opportunity to provide comments on PEC19-0041 and PEC19-0039 regarding the Town of Vail (TOV) Public Works facility master plan. Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) has a statutory responsibility to manage all wildlife species in Colorado. This responsibility is embraced and fulfilled through CPW's mission to perpetuate the wildlife resources of Colorado and to provide sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire future generations. One way we fulfill this mission is to respond to requests for comments on wildlife impact reports, land use actions, and consultations through public-private partnerships. CPW has reviewed the applicant's materials to include staff memos, master plan, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These comments pertain only to the proposed elements of the master plan addressed in the Town of Vail's EIR and current application. Furthermore, our comments do not yet address anticipated impacts related to any residential buildout of the Public Works facility/Buzzard Park. We offer the following comments for your consideration: General Comments: • The Public Works facility and subsequent site for any additional buildout of any portion of the Public Works' Master Plan exists within or immediately adjacent to a variety of sensitive wildlife habitats. Of highest concern are impacts to the S-2 (Gore -Eagle's Nest) bighorn sheep herd. Specifically, the project site lies within or in close proximity to bighorn sheep winter range, bighorn sheep severe winter range and bighorn sheep winter concentration range. Additionally, the Public Works area overlaps with elk winter range and mule deer summer range. This particular area, running from just west of the Public Works facility and extending east to the Booth Creek Cliffs is the only remaining bighorn sheep winter range in the Gore Valley. • The S-2 sheep herd is an endemic/native herd, which reached historical numbers of roughly 100 individuals. As of CPW's 2019 census surveys, the herd likely numbers in the low 50s. Disease outbreak, habitat loss and human impacts continue to be the largest threats to the existence of the S-2 herd. • The Public Works site has seen a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance and impacts over the last several decades. Habituation and tolerance of human activity by this sheep herd is likely in response to the limited available winter range. While this survival response may allow for continued use of impacted habitat, there are also negative repercussions to habituation. Long - term effects of habituation can be total abandonment of migration routes and continuous use 1.c Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair ra 1876 and subsequent degradation of critical winter habitat. Consequences from these negative effects can be a decline in the overall population of the herd. Furthermore, it is unclear what effect cumulative impacts from the proposed Public Works facility expansion, adjacent developments in the Booth Creek Cliffs area, and increasing human recreation will have on the S-2 herd. • Of particular note, the sheep that winter on and adjacent to the Public Works facility are almost exclusively rams. All individuals recorded during 2019 winter census surveys in the vicinity of the Public Works facility were rams. • The habitat surrounding the public works site has historically been used by the ram band of the S-2 herd. While rams are typically more tolerant of disturbance, more pioneering in nature, and impacts to the male portion of a population are typically less detrimental than impacts to the female portion, there is such little available winter range, such that, all bighorn sheep winter range in the Gore Valley carries a significant value for the S-2 herd. • The Town of Vail in partnership with CPW is in the process of implementing habitat treatments in targeted areas of the S-2 herd's winter range. One goal of these treatments is to restore and enhance habitat connectivity from the east to the west. The western portion of the winter range is characterized by less escape terrain and a higher density of fuels relative to the Booth Creek Cliffs area. Converting habitat or improving access to habitat that was previously unusable or undesirable may lead to eventual use of areas closer to the Public Works facility by the ewes and Iambs within the herd. While this is speculative, it should be noted because continued buildout of parcels to the east and west and increases in disturbance of sheep winter range may result in behavioral changes and habitat selection that is unanticipated and is inconsistent with the objectives of TOV habitat treatments. Mitigation and Recommendations: • North Shoring Wall: The applicant is pursuing a variance for construction of a maximum of 22' retaining wall, along with the expansion of the northern area of the Public Works site for future storage use. According to the applicant's narrative, this expansion and wall construction will result in the direct loss of .84 acres of bighorn sheep winter range. It is recommended --in conjunction with TOV efforts to the east --areas of winter range on TOV property and adjacent to the Public Works site be identified for enhancement. CPW concurs with suggestions within the EIR for seeding with a wildlife friendly seed mixture on the hillside north of the Public Works site. Additionally, a regime of fertilizing that approximates 100lbs of Nitrogen per acre at a ratio of 1.5 to 2.0 acres fertilized for every acre of disturbance is recommended. Fertilization should occur every 3 years. CPW further recommends that the timing for wall construction and earthmoving be restricted to when bighorn sheep are not occupying their winter range. This construction window is typically during summer and early fall months from roughly June to November. Rockfall Berm/Retaining Wall: The retaining wall, which seemingly ties into the northwest shoring wall, for which the variance is being requested, and is independently addressed in the EIR, will result in the direct loss of .16-.24 acres of bighorn sheep winter range. Mitigation measures pertaining to the northwestern expansion and wall construction also apply to any habitat loss incurred by the remainder of the northern wall. Timing of construction remains the same as previously stated. Demolition of existing infrastructure and construction internal to the existing Public Works facility footprint: It is not anticipated that the demolition of existing structures or the 1.c Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair ra 1876 construction of the new streets building will result in any direct loss of habitat. However, given the increase in human activity and auditory disturbance associated with new construction or demolition, it is recommended that the construction time window is adhered to. • Solar Panel Array: While the applicant's narrative and submission materials do not address the proposed solar array construction, the EIR does. As noted and assessed in the EIR, the solar array construction will result in the direct loss of approximately 4.5 acres of bighorn sheep winter range. The EIR correctly notes that there is little research to show impacts of solar panel arrays on wildlife species, in particular, bighorn sheep. Additionally, without sufficient research it is difficult to know what long-term impacts, beyond direct loss of habitat, this solar array will have on wildlife. As such, CPW recommends that every effort be made to minimize the footprint of solar construction on sheep winter range. Rooftop solar or covered parking solar are potentially good options to utilize previously developed areas. The nearby Ford Park parking areas might present a good opportunity for this. Additionally, CPW concurs with the EIR recommendations for enhancing foraging areas around any solar arrays on winter range. Previously discussed seeding and fertilizing can also apply to any lands impacted by this buildout. Again, the aforementioned construction time windows should be strongly considered. • Restrictions on Access/Recreation: CPW concurs with the EIR's recommendation of restricting human access to surrounding sheep winter range and restricting uses that may radiate onto federal lands. Prohibition of dogs on this parcel will also help to minimize stressors to the herd. • Collaboration: CPW further emphasizes the need for continued work with TOV, USFS and other relevant stakeholders to pursue long-term projects for the benefit and recovery of the S-2 sheep herd. This includes collaborative projects with the USFS and TOV for vegetation treatments, prescribed fire and seasonal closures. Mitigation requires continued maintenance, long-term commitment, and even then, there is no guarantee that impacts will be offset or negated. This being said, the mitigation efforts for impacts incurred by the actions specific to this application should be consistent and work in harmony with mitigation efforts to the east. Additionally, if faced with monetary or logistical constraints, mitigation work involving the Booth Heights development should not be foregone for mitigation work involving the Public Works site. That is to say, the area currently used by ewes and Iambs should be prioritized. However, this is subject to change as environmental conditions will change, and subsequent mitigation efforts should reflect this. Closing Comments: Analyzing a multitude of impacts with a more holistic approach is becoming increasingly necessary for proposed developments in the Gore Valley. Locally, developable land is limited and a variety of wildlife species are imperiled. Therefore, anticipated impacts from this proposal should be viewed comprehensively with other factors that will influence the same species and herds. Additionally, future phases of the Public Works Master Plan may generate significantly greater impacts than discussed herein. p4' c0� Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair ra 1876 Sincerely, Matt Yamashita, Area Wildlife Manager cc: Devin Duval, District Wildlife Manager File pF _ COLO Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * 1876 VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION August 31, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: TOV Public Works facility/Retaining Wall variance request Dear Chairman and Commission Members: We write to urge that the PEC deny the Town's request for a variance to build a new retaining wall at the Public Works facility (Phase I of the larger plans to redevelop the entire facility) until the Town submits an Environmental Impact Study with appropriate mitigation measures for the potential harm to the bighorn sheep rams which winter in the area adjacent to and above the facility. As the Commission is aware from proceedings before it over the past several months, that area is the prime winter foraging range for the rams of the East Vail bighorn sheep herd (rams forage separately from ewes and lambs except for the spring mating season), and wildlife experts hired by the Town, as well as CPW, have all recommended that there be a comprehensive plan for sheep survival that includes the Public Works facility redevelopment. And yet, the Town of Vail has stated that it only intends to provide an EIS if it elects to build a solar farm on the hillside above the project even though its application for the retaining wall variance concedes that 36,500 sq. ft. of winter range will be lost due to the fact that the wall will serve to expand the site. Strangely, the application states the retaining wall "is necessary ... in order to reduce the impact on bighorn sheep winter range. " Not explained is how taking away winter range will reduce the impact on the rams. And the variance request ignores the impact on the rams from the construction of that wall (i.e., the excavation and heavy equipment that will be necessary to build the wall), especially if that construction were to take place during the winter period as is the present plan. Beyond that, the rest of the development, which is a massive project, has the potential for even greater disruption of the sheep, even without a solar farm. The Town is not exempt from Code requirements, and those requirements cannot be avoided by piecemeal requests that fail to acknowledge the scope and impact of the entire project or the harm to wildlife. If this were a private developer, the absence of an EIS would be a huge red flag. For those reasons, the VHA urges that the variance request and any other request concerning the Public Works facility should be denied until an EIS and appropriate mitigation plan has been submitted. Providing an EIS should not take inordinate time since much of the work would seem to have already been done in connection with the Booth Heights development. But even if it does, that should be beside the point. The Town has known for some time that the East Vail bighorn sheep herd is in a precarious position and that the bighorn sheep rams winter in the area adjacent and above this facility. There is no excuse for ignoring those facts and getting this right is much more important than rushing headlong into building the retaining wall. The VHA would also urge that in developing a mitigation plan for the bighorn sheep, the Town of Vail should heed the advice of the wildlife experts that it is of "high importance" to do at least the following: 1. Schedule all construction to avoid the most obtrusive disturbance (site clearing, excavation, use of heavy equipment, installation of utilities) from November 15 — June 1. In terms of Phase I and the retaining wall, that would mean that no construction should start before June 1, 2020. 2. Reduce construction related disturbance by providing construction screening around the entire project. Permanent landscape screening should be required as part of the overall project improvements, and the entire project should be enclosed with permanent eight - foot tall cyclone fencing that will prohibit access to bighorn sheep foraging areas. 3. Bighorn sheep foraging areas should be enhanced which should include removal of any jackstraw logs, trimming of shrubs and undergrowth and thinning of woodland areas to provide more open space for sheep foraging. (Sheep will not forage in forested terrain because of predator danger). A controlled burn would be most effective at clearing and rejuvenating but may not be acceptable to the surrounding community. If a controlled burn is not possible, logs and trimmings should be stacked and burned in place, and the open space foraging areas should then be fertilized. Fertilization should be repeated three years later and burned and/or fertilized areas should be periodically treated with herbicide to prevent native vegetation from being replaced by cheat grass or other noxious weeds. 4. There should be permanent closures of foraging areas with appropriate monitoring and enforcement. There should be zero tolerance for violations by construction personnel, Town employees and their family members and/or guests with immediate termination for any violations. Additionally, there should be no dogs allowed at the Public Works facility, by any construction personnel, workers or residents and family members and/or guests. 5. There should be a GPS collar movement study of the entire herd to provide base -line data about the sheep's movement and use of the area to better inform future mitigation efforts. It should involve at least 10 to 12 sheep, including at least 3 rams. The movements of the sheep should be tracked over at least a two-year period, and the resulting data should be periodically posted to a publically accessible website. Very truly your J i Lamon ecutive Director Vail Homeowners Association Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vha(i�vail.net Web Site: www.vaithomeowners.com VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION November 24, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: TOV Public Works facility/Variance and Conditional Use requests Dear Chairman and Commission Members: We write to urge the Commission to postpone consideration of or to deny the requests for a variance and conditional use permit for the TOV Public Works facility. We do so for several reasons: 1. When this matter was last before the Commission, the public was promised a full EIS about the impact of the development on the East Vail bighorn sheep rams. As you know, the property immediately adjacent to the site on the north and east sides is the winter range of the rams, and the health and ultimate survival of the East Vail herd is directly dependent on the health and wellbeing of those rams. It is without question that this development will negatively impact the rams, resulting in the direct loss of up to 6 acres of habitat and the indirect loss of much more from the "zone of impact" due to construction and the eventual increased activity at the site. Yet, no EIS has been submitted. The requests are accompanied by a "report" which was written to make it look like an EIS, but that report in essence states only that little is known about the rams because they have not been studied (even though the TOV has been planning this project for years), and it only lists some things the TOV "could" do. A proper and full EIS would identify all negative impacts on the sheep and propose specific measures that should be taken to eliminate or mitigate them. To make matters worse, Town staff did not recommend a single step to protect the sheep. 2. The applications and supporting documents were only made public on Friday afternoon, leaving no time for the public to learn of them, much less study them. And these applications are being presented on a holiday week when many members of the public are either absent or otherwise occupied even though the health and wellbeing of the East Vail herd is a matter of extreme concern to a large segment of the Vail community. 3. There is no mitigation plan to protect the sheep. There is no question that the proposed expansion, even just that proposed in Phase I is going to result in significant habitat loss for the bighorn sheep, yet the only thing stated by Public Works is that the mitigation work at the Booth Heights site (yet to be determined) will "offset" the losses at the Public Works site. That statement reveals a fundamental failure to understand the sheep. The Public Works area is ram habitat; it is the ewes and lambs that use the Booth Heights area. Rams stay apart from the ewes for all of the winter. They only come together during spring mating. Therefore, whatever is ultimately done at the Booth Heights area will have no benefit for the rams and will not offset the loss of habitat due to the Public Works expansion. That is the reason why the applications do not contain any mitigation for the loss of ram habitat. 4. Currently, the PEC only has 6 members, and the vacancy will not be filled for a couple of weeks. Until then, there will not be a full complement to consider the applications. The Town may argue that a full and proper EIS can be postponed until later stages of the project are brought forth, but the "report" goes into other aspects of the project --a rock fall berm and solar farm—which suggests that those items will be coming soon. More importantly, a "head -in - sand" approach to the total impact of this project is a recipe for disaster. The protection of the ram population is critical. There is no need to rush this through since construction cannot start until the spring at the earliest. The Vail Homeowners Association, therefore, urges that these applications be either postponed or denied and that no further consideration be entertained until a full and proper EIS has been submitted. Very truly yours, Jim Lamont, Executive Director Vail Homeowners Association Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vha(&vail.net Web Site: www.vailhomeowners.com. VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION November 25, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: TOV Public Works facility/Variance and Conditional Use requests Dear Chairman and Commission Members: We apologize for having to send a second letter about the Public Works requests for a variance and conditional use permit, but having only seen these proposals Friday afternoon, we are scrambling to analyze and respond to them. As we have gotten into analyzing the applications, we found that the applications raise a host of questions that must be answered before appropriate conditions of approval and necessary mitigation steps can be formulated. Those questions are 1. How many more employees will be working at the site when it is completed? We know the facility is being massively expanded—the size of the maintenance building will increase by about 300 percent --but there is no disclosure of the number of additional employees that will be working there and no evaluation of what that means in terms of human activity that might impact the sheep. 2. What other Town functions will be placed at the site? The application refers to other operations being shifted to the site, but it doesn't disclose what those are. During the discussions of the new Civic Area plans, it was stated that certain Fire and Police functions would be moved to the Public Works site, maybe even other activities. What will those operations be, how many additional people on the site will that entail and what will that mean in terms of impacts on the sheep? 3. How many new additional housing units are to be built at the site? Initial plans called for 100+ units. Is that still the plan? How many new residents will be living there and what will that mean in terms of impacts on the sheep? 4. How much additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic will be generated by all of the above? And what will be the impact of that additional traffic on the sheep? To date, no traffic or internal circulation studies have been submitted. 5. How much additional sheep habitat will be lost due to the construction of the rock fall barrier? There is a planned massive rock fall barrier uphill of the retaining wall along the entire north side of the project. To build that barrier, a huge cut is planned uphill from the barrier. That is going to result in more habitat loss. What is the amount of that loss? 6. How long is construction of the entire project going to take? In other words, over how many winters will the sheep be disturbed by construction activity? What will be done to protect the sheep from that activity? 7. What will be the "zone of impact" from both construction activity and later use activity at the site? The biologist reports puts the direct loss of habitat at upwards of 6 acres, but how much additional indirect loss of habitat is going to happen due to human activity at the site? 8. What is the plan for the solar farm? It was part of the original plans and is discussed in the biologist's report, but it is not shown on the plans. Where will it be located and how much additional habitat will be lost? 9. What will be the total impact of the full project on the sheep? So far, that has not been quantified, but it is clear that there will be an impact, causing the "double squeeze" scenario (from the west by the Public Works project and from the east by Booth Heights) that the CPW said could result in the extermination of the sheep. 10. Will any specific mitigation steps be taken to protect the sheep? So far, not a single item has been proposed to be required. 11. Does the increased traffic from vehicles entering or exiting the site, both during construction and later from the people living and working there, create a public safety issue at the adjoining Frontage Road intersection? The road to/from the site is already somewhat of a blind corner due to the position of sloping berms supporting the interstate. Do there need to be turn lanes, merge lanes and/or a traffic light or traffic circle at that intersection? So far, no traffic analyses of the intersection have been submitted. 12. What is the vehicle and pedestrian traffic capacity of the I-70 underpass? That underpass is the narrowest of all underpasses in Vail; it seems that it is already insufficient for the vehicle and pedestrian traffic that presently use it. Will the underpass have to be widened or otherwise improved? 13. Will there need to be bus stops for the expanded facility? It would seem that will be necessary, so how will they be accommodated at the intersection? What needs to be done to ensure pedestrian safety in crossing Frontage Road? Until these questions, and probably others that we haven't yet thought of, have been answered, appropriate conditions of approval and necessary mitigation steps cannot be formalized. These questions also underscore why a full and proper EIS, as well as other studies, are needed and why these projects are not yet ready for consideration by the PEC. These plans are presented as "Phase L" Obviously, there are other phases to this overall project, and they entail potentially more impacts on the bighorn sheep. As we stated yesterday, the Town may argue that a full and proper EIS can be postponed until later stages of the project are brought forth and that, in the interim, these parts of the project can and should be approved. But the Public Works Department shouldn't be allowed to piecemeal the project and ignore the scope and impact of the entire project or its harm to wildlife. The protection of the ram population is too critical. If this were a private developer, the absence of an EIS would be a huge red flag. These questions should be addressed now, not later, and a full and proper EIS, as well as other necessary studies, should be required. Until these questions have been answered and a full and proper EIS and the other studies have been presented, the Vail Homeowners Association urges that consideration of these applications be postponed. Looking ahead, even though the Town staff has not recommended any protective measures for the sheep, as we urged back in August, at a bare minimum, the following should be required to protect the sheep: 1. All construction should be scheduled to avoid the most obtrusive disturbance (site clearing, excavation, use of heavy equipment, installation of utilities) from November 15 — June 1. In terms of the retaining wall and the first building, that would mean that no construction should start before June 1, 2020. 2. Appropriate and effective fencing and screening should be required. During construction, impacts from construction related disturbance should be reduced by providing construction screening around the entire project. Permanent landscape screening on the north and east sides should be required (which should be planted as soon as possible), and the entire project should be enclosed with permanent eight foot tall cyclone fencing that will prohibit access to bighorn sheep foraging areas. 3. Bighorn sheep foraging areas should be enhanced which should include removal of any jackstraw logs, trimming of shrubs and undergrowth and thinning of woodland areas to provide more open space for sheep foraging. A controlled burn would be most effective at clearing and rejuvenating, but if a controlled burn is not possible, logs and trimmings should be stacked and burned in place, and the open space foraging areas should then be fertilized. Fertilization should be repeated three years later and burned and/or fertilized areas should be periodically treated with herbicide to prevent native vegetation from being replaced by cheat grass or other noxious weeds. 4. There should be permanent closures of foraging areas with appropriate monitoring and enforcement. There should be zero tolerance for violations by construction personnel, Town employees and their family members and/or guests with immediate termination for any violations. Additionally, there should be no dogs allowed at the Public Works facility by any construction personnel, workers or residents and family members and/or guests. 5. There should be a GPS collar movement study of the entire herd to provide base -line data about the sheep's movement and use of the area to better inform future mitigation efforts. It should involve at least 10 to 12 sheep, including at least 3 rams. The movements of the sheep should be tracked over at least a two-year period, and the resulting data should be periodically posted to a publicly accessible website. Even more steps may be necessary once we have the benefit of a full and proper EIS and the other necessary studies. Very truly yours, Ji amont, Executive Director Vail Homeowners Association Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vha(a)vail.net Web Site: www.vailhomeowners.com. From: Susan Bristol To: PEC; IettersCubvaildailv.com Subject: URGENT - RE: November 25 PEC meeting - Public Works Proposal Date: Saturday, November 23, 2019 11:40:08 AM TO: PEC@VAILGOV.COM, LETTERSaVAILDAILY.COM LETTER TO VAIL PEC — 22 NOVEMBER 2019 RE: NOVEMBER 25TH 2019 MEETING To the six remaining members of the PEC, Regarding the Expansion of Public Works Facility on the agenda for Nov. 25th 2019, I would strongly suggest that it would be advisable to postpone/table the proposal until the full Board of seven members is again assembled. In light of a renewed community interest in full transparency and legitimacy of Board decisions and the fact that no construction could begin until Spring 2020, why not wait until a meeting when the full Board is voting? Furthermore, the larger scope of the project is not addressed in the proposal. With 100 housing units, a rock -fall berm, a solar farm and multiple buildings in the future Town of Vail Public Works plan, a formal EIS assessment should be required by the Town itself. The simplified opinion of one biologist does not address The Elephant In The Room, the mitigation required to preserve the adjoining winter forage land of our herd of Bighorn Sheep Rams. Why does this proposal, only announced on a Friday prior to the PEC meeting on Monday and without a full Board in place smack of intentional concealment from the public and the community? Respectfully, Susan Bristol — 1652 Matterhorn Circle, Vail — susan.bristol@gmail.com From: Sally Rose To: PEC Subject: November 25, 2019 Meeting Date: Saturday, November 23, 2019 5:10:29 PM Dear PEC Members, My husband, Byron Rose, and I will be out of town on November 25, 2019. Were we in town, we would attend this meeting. Please imagine that two more people are in attendance. I am especially concerned about this meeting in light of the fact that there seem to be, in the wings, plans for housing, a solar farm and perhaps other structures. I don't think planning for extensive construction in the same area should be done piecemeal. We would like to have a fuller picture of what the future may hold. Respectfully, Sally Rose From: Lynn Gottlieb To: PEC Subject: Review of the Town Public Works Facility Date: Sunday, November 24, 2019 12:22:38 PM Dear Members of the PEC Today one of the agenda items to be considered is a request from the Town Public Works Facility. The town, the PEC, the citizens have been through a months long divisive process over the Booth Heights proposal which is still not resolved. How the Bighorn herd is going to be preserved is still to be studied and decided. No one knows what amount of land is needed for their habitat. Development of the Vail Public Works site is part of all these decisions. Given the above considerations I hope the PEC will table this issue until the new member is seated. It is vitally important at this juncture that the process be transparent, well studied and all parties needs be considered A comprehensive solution is better than a piecemeal one but takes and deserves time. Please table this issue!! Sincerely, Lynn C Gottlieb Sent from my iPhone From: Susan Bristol To: PEC Subject: Apology Date: Monday, November 25, 2019 4:49:26 PM 25 November 2019 To Members of PEC Board, (bec e,vailgov.com I would like to apologize for the somewhat strident letter I sent to the Board in response to a public "call to arms" Friday regarding a Town of Vail development at the Public Works center. After attendance at every long meeting (seven or so) regarding Bighorn Heights, I obviously erroneously concluded that another development proposal akin to that process was afoot. After the meeting today I spoke with Brian and Ludwig and learned that the Master Plan for Public Works had been addressed six or so months ago. I was unaware of that proposal or even the Master Plan discussion involving housing, solar bank and other habitat -changing additions to the site. By habitat -changing, I mean effects on the homeland of Vail's Bighorn Sheep, an iconic element in our environment since before Vail became Vail in the eyes of many citizens. One point that I made in my letter -- that the public perception of the Planning and Environmental Commission has been eroded through the Booth Heights process, is unfortunate. In the case of the Booth Heights process, it appeared that the developer had carte blanche to set parameters, most likely in conjunction with Vail Resorts, even given the confidential agreements between the two. I grant that the Booth Heights process was a difficult thing for the Commission to handle gracefully. We the community trust our Council, PEC and DRB, among others, to represent our best and highest goals for the Town and the community. And it appeared that Vail Resorts had the greatest gain, along with the developer, without having to extend themselves to consider community concerns and proposed alternatives without the backing of the PEC. This may be erroneous, however a large segment of the community seemed to perceive this to be the case. In the meeting today, regarding a piece of land owned by the Town of Vail, the process included an across -the -Board concern for our environment. All Board Members expressed their concerns that the process include EIR and/or EIS embracing the long-term Master Plan for the land. Members also indicated that the Town Council should be responsible for changing the code to include those environmental considerations. This constructive long-term vision is encouraging. A resident since 1970, I think it vital that our commissions and boards are clearly perceived to represent our best and highest goals in place since the `70s. I am embarrassed that my letter sent in haste on November 23 might have appeared to question that the PEC might be missing those concerns. I respect the time and study board members give to the community through an entire year. I simply urge that an effort be made to keep the community appraised of environmental issues before us, perhaps with large articles in the Vail Daily. Simplistic and theoretically unnecessary perhaps, but a community outreach that might yield positive results. Again, I apologize for my letter that might have been seen as casting aspersions on the process of the PEC! We are all members of the Vail family in the end, embraced by a wonderful valley. Respectfully, Susan Bristol — 1652 Matterhorn Circle, Vail CO — susan.bristol@gmail.com From: Blondie Vucich To: PEC Subject: Public Works Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:24:18 PM Dear Commissioners, As you may already know, a Bighorn ram was struck by a truck this morning on I-70 and killed. Last year we heard from wildlife biologist, Rick Thompson who noted no sheep have gone onto 1- 70. And he also stated that the Bighorn herd never ventured on to the parcel slated for development. We now see them there almost daily. This is what piece meal study accomplishes .... nothing. The entire corridor from Spraddle Creek east through Booth Heights should be subject to an Environmental Impact Study. This area is in flux and undergoing massive changes and the master plan is outdated and void of an EIS. Booth Heights continues to tear apart this community and today's tragedy has added to the angst. Please, let's try to get this next expansion correct. Do the right thing and insist upon an EIS so informed planning and decisions can be made. This is your second chance. Respectfully, Blondie Vucich Sent from my iPad November30, 2019 To: PEC Members, Vail Town Council, Town Manager Scott Robson, Public Works Director Greg Hall, Kristen Bertuglia, Suzanne Silverthorn Re: PEC Meeting Dec. 9t", Expansion of Public Works Yard Neighbors, ladies & gentlemen: I am wrestling with the demands of the Town Mission Statement, as you must be, to "grow a vibrant, diverse economy and community and to preserve the natural environment" relative to the decisions Dec. 9th on the expansion of the Town Yards on Elkhorn Drive. Having learned late this summer of a 20 year plan calling for facilities expansion, a retaining wall, and rockfall barrier, as well as future sizable solar development, and workforce housing construction for up to 115 units, I twice expressed my fears to Council for increased harmful impacts on our beleaguered Bighorn herd and lack of public scrutiny for this massive plan. Specifically I cautioned Council against implementing such efforts concurrently with the Booth Heights construction, as this would result in a putting a pincer on the remaining Bighorn winter habitat, Booth Heights squeezing the ewes & Iambs at the east end, Yards expansion crowding the rams at the west end. I asked the plans not be implemented before an E.I.S. could be done studying likely impacts of both major developments in critical sheep habitat. Director Hall spoke to me following my 2nd appearance, offering a site tour to view the terrain to be affected and hear how the plan would be implemented. I was happy to accept this offer on Aug.23rd. As a Vail resident I am aware our growing community needs increased capacity for bus transportation and snow removal operations in order to continue to thrive. I was also aware of the Town's commitment to conversion to more ecologically -friendly electric buses, and public transportation in general. Director Hall showed me the current bus garage and limited capacity for charging stations. He explained the 24/7 nature of many of the operations to maintain roads in winter & keep the buses running, especially at peak hours of usage. It was easy to grasp the need for a larger barn facility. Outside the garage/barn, he showed me the limited storage available currently for materials applied to roads, etc., as well as summer composting, and all else from other TOV departments with no storage facility. The planned solution was pushing the existing retaining walls farther back into the already disturbed, in some locations, unstable hillside, thereby gaining more surface yardage for various outdoor storage purposes. But this would call for taller walls on the south -facing side, less so on the uphill side. Past debris flows and rockfall threat also could be mitigated by building a rockfall barrier at the top of the disturbed slope. Dec. 3rd this was proposed to be sited along a depression from an old homestead road, and would also have protective value for other buildings at the east end as existing administration & housing. Director Hall said he was indeed already talking with wildlife officials at CPW, might be contracting for an E.I.R., but hoped to avoid the delay required by an EIS. Indeed he hoped to get construction of the retaining wall, if approved, done before the rams returned this fall (2019). We later learned a Town- ordered EIR prevented such construction's approval till possibly Dec .9t". The Rick Kahn -authored EIR specified no such heavy construction till spring when the rams return uphill. There are now also other changes making the overall plan more sensitive to the landscape & changing the order of implementation of some components according to testimony at the Dec. 3rd PEC meeting. Among these, I was happy to see, is a commitment at least for the present, to roof -top solar rather than an array of hillside panels. Summary and my recommendation to PEC members: Balancing TOV & Public Works needs with Bighorn habits & impacts on these, I believe the department should be approved to initiate components of the plan within the flat confines of the historic yards, including initiating construction of the retaining wall if--- provisions of the Kahn EIR are fulfilled, including but not limited to those for timing of such activity so as to cause the least possible disturbance to any sheep which might be present, and only following scrupulous adoption of all measures for mitigation to their habitat agreed upon by wildlife officials including Mr. Kahn & CPW. I reserve judgment on timing of construction of any protective barrier until I know more about it, particularly impacts on the Bighorns foreseen by wildlife officials as well as consideration by PEC members whose comments prove often germane. All other plan components other than roof -top solar should await a comprehensive EIS. We already see adverse impacts on the public and the Bighorns of putting development ahead of mitigation. The Bighorn herd's rut currently underway in Booth Creek has been displaced to the Frontage Road and lowest slopes of the NAP requiring daily law enforcement monitoring to keep animals and humans separate and safe. Note, Dec.2nd: A ram killed this morning on 170 is the inevitable outcome of the displaced Bighorn mating activity. We are fortunate it was only one, and that it was struck not by a passenger vehicle but a truck. Anne Esson City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: December 9, 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) ATTACHMFKITC- File Name PEC19-0039 Public Works CUP Staff Memo 12.9.19.pdf [Attachment Al Vicinity Map.pdf [Attachment Bl PW Conditional Use Narrative.pdf [Attachment Cl PEC19-0039 Applicant Plans.pdf [Attachment Dl PW Conditional Use Photos.pdf [Attachment El Public Works Geologic Hazards Report + Addendum.pdf [Attachment Fl Public Works Master Plan 1 of 2.pdf [Attachment Fl Public Works Master Plan 2 of 2.pdf [Attachment Gl EIR Vail Public Works.pdf [Attachment Hl CPW Comment Letter 2019.12.03.pdf [Attachment Il Public Comments Prior to 11.25.19.0f [Attachment Jl Public Comments Recieved Prior 12.5.19.pdf Description Staff Memorandum [Attachment A] Vicinity Map [Attachment B] Applicant Narrative [Attachment C] Applicant Plans [Attachment D] PW Photos [Attachment E] Geologic Hazards Report [Attachment F] Public Works Master Plan 1 of 2 [Attachment F] Public Works Master Plan 2 of 2 [Attachment G] Environmental Impact Report [Attachment H] Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife [Attachment 1] Public Comments Prior to 11.25.19 [Attachment J] Public Comments Recieved by 12.5.19 WAV1191IAT1:114 Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 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: Erik Gates 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 28,000 square feet of additional building floor area for the new Streets Building, 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 most buildings and improvements proposed 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 IX 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 Expanded outdoor 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. In October 2019 an Environmental Report by Rick Kahn was submitted on behalf of the Town for this proposal. This report was given to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for comments, which were received by the Town in early December 2019. These CPW comments can be found in Attachment H of this memorandum. The timeframe for the Master Plan is 20 years. The proposed Streets Department building and retaining wall are the first projects of the Plan implementation. 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. 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. ncludes: 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 (in part) 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. Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) 12-9C-1: PURPOSE: 5 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 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 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 7 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. se: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit.- 1. ermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes 0 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) V. 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 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: USFS and Eagle County None South: 1-70 None East: USFS None West: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space 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 9 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 expand on the 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 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 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, 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. 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 this criterion. 10 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 significantly change with the proposed buildings, walls, or uses. A 36 (thirty-six) foot portion of the proposed Streets building will be approximately 2 (two) feet taller on the South face than the adjacent Public Works building. The existing buildings are simple, utilitarian buildings used for storage of heavy equipment. The proposed buildings are an expansion to these existing buildings. The site is not highly visible from nearby properties and is screened with a berm and landscaping to the South. Staff finds that the proposal meets 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. An environmental impact report was submitted with this application identifying a number of potential environmental impacts resulting from this conditional use permit, as noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A number of mitigation methods were also noted in this report including wildlife friendly reseeding in disturbed areas along the north side of the site, limiting construction activities during peak bighorn sheep grazing periods and continued monitoring of wildlife activity. Other impact mitigation strategies, such as prohibiting recreation north of the site and a prohibition on dogs while sheep are observed on the site, were also identified in the Public Works Master Plan. This report was given to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for review and comment. The response from CPW stressed the importance of monitoring this and all sites adjacent to bighorn sheep winter range habitat in order to provide appropriate management in a changing climate. The CPW comments also highlighted the need to time construction during summer months, reseed disturbed land, and prohibit human and canine activity north of the Public Works site. The Public Works department has been working with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to develop a wildlife management plan that includes monitoring of sheep activity and reseeding with appropriate grasses on the North side of the site. The applicant has provided a site plan showing planned reseeding area on sheet AS1.3 of the Development Plans for PEC19-0041, a variance request for the shoring wall. Furthermore, dogs are currently prohibited within the Public Works site, including Buzzard Park housing. Staff is recommending that the Commission pass a condition of approval related to construction timing. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 11 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 43,100 square feet (0.99 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. An Environmental Impact Report was conducted by Rick Kahn on behalf of the Town for this site and the proposed improvements contained within this application. The report is attached to this memorandum. In this report it was identified that a group of approximately 15 bighorn sheep rams could be impacted by the elimination of about one acre of potential foraging area resulting from construction impacts. While the rockfall berm proposed as part of this application would eliminate some foraging area, it was also identified as a possible barrier to help prevent sheep from accessing 1-70 through this site. Construction activities were identified to likely have the most severe impact on sheep during March — May each year. Bighorn sheep Iambs and ewes were not observed on this site. Mule deer and elk were also observed transitioning through the area north of the Public Works site. Mitigation methods identified in this report are stated to be applicable to sheep, deer, and elk alike. The Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife has also provided its comments on the EIR and this proposal. These comments are attached as well. These comments highlighted the presence of deer, elk, and bighorn sheep, and focused primarily on the S-2 bighorn sheep herd. The CPW comments echoed many of the recommendations present in the EIR, such as reseeding the north hillside and timing construction activity so as to have the lowest impact on the sheep herd. The comments heavily stressed the need for continued monitoring of the S-2 herd to provide more holistic management. As the existing winter range changes due to development, mitigation efforts, and climate change, it is possible that wildlife activity increases on or adjacent to the public works site. While not proposed in this particular application, the CPW comments also urged the Town to minimize the size of a potential solar array in sheep habitat by locating more solar on roofs and parking lots. 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. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this application the Community Development Department recommends the Commission 12 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), subject to the following conditions.- Conditions onditions: 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. 4 Construction of the shoring wall and rockfall berm shall be limited to the months of June to November, unless a consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife reveals a need to adjust this window." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this conditional use permit, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following 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. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative C. Development Plans from Victor Mark Donaldson Architects 13 D. Site Photos E. Geologic Hazards Report, H -P Kumar, November 6, 2018 F. 2019 Public Works Master Plan G. Environmental Impact Report, Rick Kahn, October 2019 H. Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Matt Yamashita, December 2, 2019 I. Public Comments prior to November 25, 2019 J. Public Comments as of December 4, 2019 14 C: L- 0 i W T 0) W N N E Q N n U >O U O O E Y (D Q M 'O L M 0 O O m N CD 0 cu � � U N d 00 ❑ ❑ O PEC 19-0039 REV 01 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 9.500 SF of Shop Bays and a new Streets Building with minor additional Public Works improvements of 23,500 SF on the first floor and 4,500 SF on the second floor. The large existing Greenhouse is to remain to the West of the Streets Building. The Cinders and Mag Chloride are expected to remain. 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. The EIR report has been submitted as part of this application. 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. Rockfall mitigation has been address by the HP Kumar and their recommendation have been incorporated into the site grading plan. 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 same 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 urpon 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 same height as existing buildings and the permanent Site Shoring Walls are no taller that these buildings themselves. END NARRATIVE. 3nlaal ),3MVn TVA 6021,L991,VVn z _ o mom onand a IIVA =10NMOI os -� a O I n u rT LL I I r ` I I I I I - - - I I I I - - - - I I I I I I � - - - - - I I I I I I - - - - N I I I I I I II II I I I I I I II n I I V I - - - - I I I I - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- F -L U N I I I I I I I h IasJ l ), vMV TV 6021 - _ 3niaa,�3��vn�ivnso�� z _ IVA o � Q TVA =10NMOI �� n w rc � Os o �.� w �1y aoM o w w �Qo e w m "_ � HON3er v LL I � ____ to � 3" �3�ia Km m o �' £yWIt a z„��� ❑IIII ❑I I� �It ❑ a ro�a�m era M-------- ----g Q ry1=--------------❑ 1------------ - I�----------------I a TI `--------------J `---------------J I I I I I I I � I I ❑ I II � I I I I I I ------------J I I I I I I wow U I I U I I U I I I I I I I I II Q LL1 I I o I II I I I L--—————————————————————— JL—————————————————— — — — — —I L—-----------------LII r-----------------------Fr----- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - m II m o m I JL----------- jiL_____ m o I I o Im III co li m Ili L-------------------I-----JL------------L-----------I-----L------------------JI s U U U a- ' ----—--�---- —-- Imo- — ----- J m a III III IU II II II e ------------------------------------III--------_-- - - - -------------------- - cr I 0 a Q � 0 ji z I�------------------------------------III------——------------------IIII 0 ---------- Y Of z a a a a a 0 0 Tans ), VMVA VA 60n _ 3nlaa,�3��vn�Ivnso21, z o �Q I IVA =10 NMOI os - - - - - - — - — - — - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F - - - - - - - - - o - - - - - - - ri-8-o 0 wH, z�N o�m w w. o 0 5-. w. 1. w o�m �e I Qo o rcIN H z� o o�P z O a wo� 0 zm w Q Q Q Q Q Tans OaVaolOO' _ 3nlaa A3llVn IIVn 6 60£6 z _ o � Q mom onand IIVA =10NMOI 05 ® 2 --------------------- Q a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,o o�z 0-5 0 H a ILL 0 0 cr Q Q Q Q Q 0 H a ILL 0 0 cr > ` o L991,8 VMVA TVAV 'IIVn ❑��� Q 3nlaa ),�3�wn 6021, mom onand IIVA =10 NMOl J a LU O z O w J W 2 H 0 , 0- z cr LU O LU J W 2 H O U) - - a z O a W J W 2 H crO z i - � ❑❑❑❑ w a L9962 OaVaJMOO'IIVn 3nlaa 3-nvnTvnso21, mom onand IIVA =10NMOl ro z O a LU w H LU LU I Q - - - w� o mol i o� ro z O a LU w H LU LU I Q - - - w� i u� i i Ili i v Ili 0 Ili III � o Ili !Lf-aL 0 z O H a O 0 a i ❑ — — — J W -lo � Or o oo ❑❑❑❑ wW a L9968 OavaOIOO 'I IVA 3nl?J(l), MVA IIVA 60£6 mom onand TVA =10 NMO-L os z z LU 0 LU (7 Of a J Z W Z 0 H a w J W H LLU e z Z W 0 W c9 Of a J Z W Z 0 H a w i J W COCO W - C o moo o�000 L991,900'IIVA o z N Al IO A3PlVA l IVA 60£6 0 m x o w =m�o�T sAsoM oiiand w m U IIVA =10 NMOI - €eW. aa a U5 > � L III�II�III as �=oW om ww 0 0000 i �LL L99 W 00 'l I VA 3nIN0 A3llVA l IVn 6006 mom iMand Il M=111111 1 .o • z w am o �x o��LL L9919 00 'l I VA 3nIa0 A3MvA IIVA 60E1 SMSOM 3118nd IIVA IO NMOL millill z z . _ o wZ w m o • cr m � x m i"'Oo y F o I° T it I ... f'?'+I,i,: `<€\\r\\\\"„,1;�.a\;�\;\\�,\;\,ar,.;,;;\^;�`I\\'•'tip, �s� — \\ ^ii;\i, , ,`^, \ ..... pp� pli ��\�ii�6 IP\\�� ISI II\I II IhI\ll 11 111 lIl I`ll ���I �`l , wIlA p „�9 l„y;I'.;; rrr4tClu9p;,l,'➢,v;';€n°a;u,„i,'„ ';;r;,; �'f;rdul;uur';-1, r d; �; l;u„¢;;^1,;, ;, ;;� d'''; N �a� Nou�naisNo�aoiioN SNOUODS SSOHO IWV ONWOHS O N0 I1HN10a00011HM0NW0HS ivw ne �Mo�a E � NllaVw NllaVl/�JI'll's an rte �b�sau ivw .aeo�oW �aro,d U smom oriend 11VA esso arow aa—N a°r / fl f t� / --r /v iM rr r 4�nhrrri��v�`v\� %grl�rri}w���h� it err/`iy/r 1�i i� kt l � r aw s) ii; ii %lireWR `\�,��N��ii�l,�iii�#;,%o'G� �� �ooaA�w�C.k\�:wd �i �i i7 iii ri� A 1 I 0��.A Az�Ii ," t;�� i v/ly"�iili�r �irr�i �j n r/ulir �m nirrin'rr i q�lirhlhrrAtr i brei i IArylr�r9 >` lllr l l 111f /I r a Q�\iiuo`��9�r�°r�ruilr'� n �� ��'� d __-•,i�iii� iiia viii hilii�i a di ; i '\ npli�uhui P d o � 0 1u1 �d�rrArpi iiiiilN uii�iiiigi i hi p i 1i s ��i��ii��niYI,\Jriiuq rinnl'ruq;��I— 4-ri; mr `i� nnaPi"If �i i i i rrr HIS I 3 �i� III I I A erAlu ; WI � Il iii o+oo i l�rhnn r i r/orn l � rrMu rihir rIPlr °ji��lrb digipii iii udi n n ,ii il'� d�'iiiw�h q n�ii�ur '+D�r Mini iry h inr �qh�r � r� � � ili�iii i Pul � w 9diipodi'iilni i� o,G n inil�u i�u I ` i t � �� �� t, r � it pi�y �;rliihlihiligil i �r�tgiuh« i° i i � 1; � mr/bluer I I n u /�i' � ii�p�,- ljnrrq�nr�Jrj iii rpr�uf�ii°ring" an�0� � i m�f ��nilr/pilrgi�ibu j,r, �/�r�!��%u r�fi�i\irrf ri%r\iii i n��'•. i�%rigid �� ✓ rirrrlir�il4irrtrhr i i9 jr�rrr�4iiv`9 �/ lrivijrdr�pr o i� �'. i p� rrgli rlr iiii�\��i i oriAAi°/i!i es � i � i lin roil 4lifs s iifnp Oren -4 %`/4gi/it It ql� i h i i d im it it r deli^ dri a ni n > w \3 a w 0 \o no� I\p \p\nX \�r�or rrrm spit � prr4 n u� �rrr wvvwoAv �r3r r rp�lh aUr�rr �A2y�w\vvvw � v� ovvo � ° wv\vv � u rnPrrrrr « h� �y\wd p, AvrrrvJ� `EP �rr�rrrrgOr r``rw �r`r1 ni rid' q r��`�in�nil��rAm16 ��rrrVrrrrop rps�o rrrq ii, bz��lino ni�ioug0ir e\rvvv��irergrrv�z w, iil,3,°s ni � i in ii rr,Agr�rr� nr a �uiili m i d i niliu� iii�ihilgiP iij'liiiiiil111 1W°�� pvvVvvhwvgo�wA� 0 w o Amo M iii rid w a r�rpd 6 I z o� P-a\rsve�.o�e .as0' "„0M ' "d �;� - �owvwu°�r :No�woo1 °N11111 NOUOnHiSNOJ idOJ lON 311jolld'1H XHW 71tlM ONWOHS IN n�osoartim� asotio ae NOLLVNIGdO0011HM ONNOHS Tyrwr�aa,ou� cul war��l,d mse �Mo�a E NI1HVw NLL21 NAZ-J an rte �blsaa rvw .aeo�oW �aro,d U Smom oriend 11VA w°N wa a =°ssl oN esso arow ,aa—N asr flo / j ��rr� lrnGs,OnigJlNr�4��lrlri rir I�IId 11� � � __ t! � ( ��?� I Ilrl�li �1 dIIPI w k i I III II ii/4rrr rr lim6a�oi�inid�ll� �I� uImIIM�i�poll i � I i I �I�A\,� ii�V r� rlr�rl ria �� i lel o o r rrid n m l ro 6 r rrr � A, �� .< r raw OQr i'ii I ,�(pi(r�lrrr/rirvf/irr:� �� �:I li�ll�l ��oQ�jll�l'Irr rArlrll= I�il(niilill I /�rri���rr � p ,ate _- `l a\� � �Ill��lli� �a II I II " z I I rll lul(Ir�dl,m � ` Ilhrl cw�o r`b� �Il�illh��r �� ISIII rrr r r � � i s l � r� rlllllllllno 1Vlnlllellln�rnl Iw r 1.m ® -_' - y r�lhgq �€� ro��rrw Ill��ul oar qgrinllilrrl/r r �� i �r ��V �iiyq r�Qo I i Illl —>` I �wYo� ii — mw I p plu' r �I qql d III OWN 9llh(lull u^ f a �il4igl Q� s_ jsl hill �r����. II,-,"'I�lilli'llril��luililullglllul II`I`irjls� i �r` i Ilq �r�� A ,;;!alll�iild��lA'pi lllillug lu ullllllgllhl 11 l ie �r:� o Illl��ll� ,null II l JI II i � IPIa �Illplllul I l rlr� i I �� x1111' 3 `� r iiiil�iillll111i\I1111111111� "Ii4I,\\ �. � rAvr llnllll 1u111pbn11 11 111 hhllll4l l ' ' � = lila rr �11 "I I r r1lPQ ll 1 I Al n � 111 � III 1 �' I Ilf 1 lnuormnu 1I u( \rillle � rr,1 1 � � 1111 I I I llr l Ih pc, I l 1 I I a II� ill I � / erllu 1 111 _ I Illur IMrr1r(rl 111 uv,ullo 1 11. l l 11 p1l 1 1 1 1 rax m hlll Ir )r /allll III I my Illlmq�l g1/lllm tri Irlr I 11 1 � y �� 1 z I I I I II �� 1111I1u111 � l r1Mu r l 11 Pl1m fpr r0/pr � � �. � � � 111114 III 1 11I� I Il�'n 1 �- 1 rlllalilulll I �I�I I fr1 n 1 x111 Ic r)< 11 1 I� I w l l 1 rlu �1 1 1111 111 dli9ulll°r1 �'� A 1� III �� p16 11 0 � III I I I ry 1n1 ul( I r. 1. 11 1 1 IUlu11 I � I u ` lr ` h pu Pu w Ilpnlllallnl II i II1lhllu lill I ` 1 t ` lA r r}✓ 1�111u111�IIl�=il�ullu(11up111111 4dlh' Imilll ` 1 r 1e ' 111I1j r � Illllq ° lu dull I 1 � r r l lr iiri r �'S'ri1)S&a;°Imililul��iil it II n°h°1(110 i I 111' 1�l 1(ilQ1u rG t� �?/irrd� (ini��liii�%r IiiliEj�l4��iv�ly" g26° i er i, � �l�n �i -drrr r/ r rrr¢ I mr 'r � �r%r�i�r%iir nll�ilrgi✓iu trrr ai iiiijq / � i ll �' r ���I��rii%,r/r%rril°ai✓l rlpii ;rurigl I I� �. ,'' ;, rp��/ii,u� iii'lirr r�rir�lfrrfl�ri�ii i ���'• 3 - n ri jjr�i/ism, ll �rr r riiii/i rii%i�� r i��l�lirrilirrrilu I a �� r o � r/rrir io mirrirr. ii vly rrri iel�lu >%� �� I � �.. /r 1(1 r1(4rr rr v/ir rriA %drrrr� � �� ' I Vr. I lin rrr rfr 9 s I � 1jh'11 nl d lln�q rrr/�sr .,r z / I I�, "11 h � Mrd iad/x1161 n1r'r�rtz II I #� I II iilllJilnul �41ri(ill �Ilu I, 11111 �I 9s ��� � 11 ��.'� 1111 I� gblplwll `01. m I II 111111 � ry r . I� 1x111( ItilJ�ilbi�lr. 11P1fi�rll All Ins � 1 a I� r 111 II 1�ip1�i�Apg1rl��Jnr1 \@ J\r� r ' r 60 " \ A \ rr Aerr A� r°A Q A� Vr�prr p� Ar�rr� i� rA s:c \ J��VA rr r rp �R°,r,4r �\�� � r\r\\�W°\rrr�.lro, o� r A Q�rrr \ ppp r rrr�rrl r\ r Ar, m o sore ,,.,p°V r\l#' mrwoAr dol o� rVrp�lrr�rsllrlr�rl r� rrr QQ�s'\llam;�rua) Ju\�y' `BN a/m;�1ar a aa� to. \lots \\ rny0\oa•�za,rrrr A ,rr�•�yll��alllmir o��a ���r�r"°�ioos err rrrrJ��rrr�o��t11 rr a gil�l,�arrrrArrr\lrA rrrrArrrrAJrm/rA"aawl�l r 1111 lllallowil�illnn�,'I, �llr1\1rrrOl olw orl1 141 hd111`�a°till°llA�, " JQrr`1rA1r��ol rrlw�o rr111 �� 101 1pli°Ia n111m��11oJ1,`I ,rrrrr�rrelgll��z ulll I Il 1111 1111 � I n In I 1 �V�r�Vr�r`n�`r�` r��lrlz,llllllllllll liA�lll lil i illlllllul�l l�luilll�llilliil�ll l�l�'� i �r r `r \,r,hrrrrr�rrrrrrroLL�d4u1r11111 I pl��ll'pnrygluodlhr °a�Arr� ill rll ulliilrl�liisl��ll��i���srAli \zrar��tr r a��hhrpor�Ar rh`o� ,rpr\rrir\ r lA4rrllll�lli�rlrl�10�rr� ar��r�ro�r\r��rro�\�:�rrA�r�rr�pOa��yr.rrro �ymrr�prrrr�r �rrr\rrrrr�r�or\�"c- p�\2rr�rl l r r rrd�rrr\\\ro Av r\��r�\�\g\ur� m'. l rgln w9 1 1w1g1 w � z 1 � 11dg11 LL m o � I hg11u oil z 11 I 1I Ills oww 1 1�11i11 l 11 ii = � l 11111, ah6� ¢ rr l rill � r� 11111 r r��ll r <�r Son � o � 1 0 , � V ar o mr `1 ti lor r IN jl rrr i �,��alor•� � �n i__�—,I(1pr---�1 , %o v 41 11 4i/l rs r ,a�so0 I'd - �owv �r� :No�rdoo, �N�Mddo 10110111111100 2101 ION NOU33S 8 ONIOV210 IIVM llv1NOOi N n�osoartimo7 aooti�o ae NOLLVNI(Id000 �WAA-nVdNoo i „rlwl�aa,ou� qui im���i�d ,Vw Sg NIli1Vw NIl21Vl/�J� iVw rte �b�saa ,Vw .aeo�oW �aro�d U Smom oriond 11VA —N a ass' -N esso a,ow awnN aor F1 —'\3..e\....a.=o„ =,.oM =��4�d �Nw��N�� No�� D NN�—O . ��llliiu!,II • �II VIII —'\3..e\....a.=o„ =,.oM =��4�d �Nw��N�� No�� D NN�—O T �Y I. F LU U) I O z LU LU (7 011 14 A 4 V Tr 1(+AKWW&A=dat03,h)C.- Geotechnical and Materials Engineers 5020 County Road 154 and Environmental Scientists Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: (970) 945-7988 fax: (970) 945-8454 �— email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com An Employee wed Company www.kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado November 11, 2019 Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Attn: Mark Donaldson P. O. Box 5300 Avon, Colorado 81620 markdA,,vmda.com WMEMNSEUMM Subject: Addendum to Geologic Hazards Review, Proposed Town of Vail Public Works Facility Development, 1309 Elkhorn Drive, Vail, Colorado Gentlemen: As requested by Chris Juergens of Victor Mark Donaldson Architects (VMDA), Kumar & Associates, Inc. has reviewed the proposed grading plan and rockfall hazard mitigation wall design by Martin/Martin, and conducted additional analysis of modeled impact energies along the proposed rockfall hazard mitigation wall. The services were done supplemental to our agreement for professional services to you, dated September 26, 2018, Proposal No. P7-18-713. We previously conducted a Geologic Hazards Review for the proposed development and presented our findings in a report dated November 6, 2018, Project No. 18-7-606, and a subsoil study for foundation design for the proposed development, report dated August 7, 2019, Project No. 18-7-606.01. We have reviewed the proposed preliminary grading plan and rockfall mitigation wall design by Martin/Martin dated::November 9, 2019, Job No. MCI 8.0933. The proposed rockfall hazard mitigation wall with a height of 7 feet and a 6 -foot -wide Swale on the uphill side in the location shown on their plan, sheet C 101 should adequately meet our design recommendations to mitigate the rockfall and debris flow hazard at the subject site. The recommendations presented in our subsoil study dated August 7, 2019, Project No. 16-7-606.01 can be used for the design of the proposed rockfall mitigation wall foundations. We should review the final grading and rockfall mitigation wall plans once they have been developed. The modeled potential rockfall impact energies along the length of the proposed wall are shown on Figure 1. These energies are based on the CRSP results presented in our previous report, the gradient of the natural slope above the wall, and the proximity of the wall to the potential rockfall source area. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Victor Mark Donaldson Architects November 11, 20191 Page 2 Sincerely, Kumar & Associates, Inc. �'�� � P -- Robert L. Duran, E. I. Reviewed by: Steven L. attachmen apact Energies cc: VMDA — Chris Juergen (chrisj(&,vmda.com Town of Vail — Greg Hall (ghall@,vailgov.com Martin/Martin — Mason Talkington (Intalkington(&martimnartin.com) Kumar & Associates, Inc. 0 Project No. 18-7-606 use West " 420,000 ft—Ib l �) 14 C-- i� 390,000 ft—Ib I.� c + 5' 330,000 ft—Ib ;r I y 7 + 1<« 260,000 ft—lb Terminate wall and tie into existing debris flow berm + o� i I l �f s� Not to scare East 18-7-606 Kumar & Associates Potential Rockfall Impact Energies Fig. 1 H -R KUMAR Geotechnical Engineering [ Engineering Geology Materials Testing I Environmental 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945-7988 Fax: (970) 945-8454 Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Silverthorne, Colorado GEOLOGIC HAZARDS REVIEW PROPOSED TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY DEVELOPMENT 1309 ELKHORN DRIVE, VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 18-7-606 NOVEMBER 6, 2018 PREPARED FOR: VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS ATTN: MARK DONALDSON P.O. BOX 5300 AVON, COLORADO 81657 markd(a-),vmda.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY........................................................................................ 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................... 1 SITECONDITIONS...................................................................................................................- 1 PROJECTAREA GEOLOGY.................................................................................................... 2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT..................................................................................- 3 RECOGNITION..................................................................................................................... - 4 IDENTIFICATION................................................................................................................. - 4 EVALUATION........................................................................................................................ 4 RockfallSource Zone........................................................................................................... 5 RockfallPaths...................................................................................................................... 5 RockfallRunout Zone..........................................................................................................- 6 CRSPMODELING................................................................................................................ - 6 ModelInput Information...................................................................................................... 7 Model Output Information................................................................................................... 7 ROCKFALL RISK EVALUATION...................................................................................... - 8 ROCKFALL MITIGATION CONCEPTS.................................................................................- 8 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................... 10 LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................- 10 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 11- FIGURE 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 I 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 ditch/berm feature does not appear to be maintained. The ditch/berm structure is currently relatively free of debris. Scattered rocks of up to 2'/z feet in diameter are present along the entire ditch/berm. PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY The main geologic features in the project area are shown on Figure 3. This map is based on regional mapping by Kellogg and Others (2003) published by the United States Geological Survey. The project site lies along the axis of the Laramide-age north -south trending Spraddle Creek Fold. Formation rock in the area consists of the Pennsylvanian -age Minturn Formation middle member (Pmm), the Robinson Limestone Member (Pmr), and the lower member (Pml). The lower member consists of arkosic conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale that is pinkish - gray to grayish -brown. The Robinson Limestone Member is a fossiliferous medium to thick bedded marine limestone interbedded with light tan arkosic pebbly sandstones, siltstones, and shales. The middle member consists of arkosic conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale that is pinkish -gray to grayish -brown. The bedding dip of the formation rock in the vicinity of the Project No. 18-7-606 -3 - project site is variable and ranges from around 20 to 25 degrees toward the east to 40 to 60 degrees toward the west (Kellogg and Others, 2003). Surficial deposits in the area include upper Pleistocene -age Pinedale glacial till (Qtp), middle Pleistocene -age Bull Lake glacial till (Qtb), and recent landslide deposits (Qlsy). The Pinedale glacial till consists of sub -angular to sub -rounded gneiss cobbles and boulders in a light tan sandy matrix that is unsorted and unstratified. The Bull Lake glacial till consists of material similar to that of the Pinedale till but also contains sandstone, conglomerate, or limestone cobbles and boulders derived from the Minturn Formation. The recent landslide deposits consist of debris deposited by recent landslides that is unstratified and unsorted. The landslide to the northeast of the project site is active and is a deep rotational slide with shallow soil slumping near the surface (Kellogg and Others, 2003). Kellogg and Others (2003) also state that rockfall is a geologic hazard in portions of the quadrangle, especially in areas below steep slopes and cliffs formed by the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation. The recognized rockfall deposits described by Kellogg and Others (2003) can be observed on this site. The slopes above the property where these processes initiate have measured slope angles ranging from 60 to 100 percent. Heavy rains at this location can be accompanied by rockfall. Rockfall deposits were observed adjacent to and on the property. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT Geologic hazards potentially impacting the project site consist of rockfall, debris flow and potentially unstable slopes. Rockfall from the outcrops above the site on the valley side appears to be moderate to high risk. There is a small debris basin and associated channel upslope of the east part of the proposed development, north of the existing berm. The existing berm/channel outlets along the western edge of the existing Public Works office building. The potential for unstable slopes appears to be low to moderate and mainly at the existing cut slope to the north of the existing parking/roadway area. We should review the grading plans for the project once they Project No. 18-7-606 have been developed and perform additional stability and rockfall analyses as needed for the areas of proposed new development RECOGNITION There is evidence of a rockfall hazard at the property. This hazard involves loose rocks along the slope rising above the property to the north and fractured blocks of Minturn Formation exposed in cliff faces and ridges above the site. Evidence of the extent of the hazard within the property may have been obscured by the existing development. We reviewed historic aerial photographs of the property dating back to 1999, the oldest aerial photographs readily available for the site. Several rocks were found in the area along the existing berm and un -maintained two -track road to the north of the existing cut slope. These rocks ranged in size from around 1 to 4 feet in all dimensions and mainly consisted of angular limestones and sandstones of the Minturn Formation. IDENTIFICATION The majority of the rockfall evident adjacent to the property comes from rolling and bounding loose rock. The initiation force may be a combination of loss of support for the loose rock due to precipitation events, freeze thaw cycles, chemical weathering (disintegration of the rock mass), and plant and animal influences. Wind also may be a contributing factor. Other rockfall may result from planer or toppling failures within the large rock masses with open fractures. Based upon the apparent erosion of soil supporting loose rock during heavy rainfall, destabilization of the loose rock could occur during times of high precipitation. EVALUATION Evaluation of the project site for rockfall included field observations, terrain analysis, aerial photograph interpretation, and rockfall simulation modeling using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (Crsp3D version 2012.12.12.23.37). The evaluation focused on three zones defined within the area. These included: 1. Rockfall Source Zone 2. Rockfall Paths 3. Rockfall Runout Zone Project No. 18-7-606 -5- A map showing potential rockfall hazard areas is presented in Figure 2. The potential hazard consists of a rockfall source zone, a rockfall runout zone, and an area of potential rockfall paths between the source zone and the runout zone. The project site is located in the potential runout zone as shown on Figure 1. Rockfall Source Zone The majority of rocks presently posing a hazard to the proposed development are located at the rock outcrop located approximately 560 feet up the slope and along the ridge to the northwest of the proposed development area about 400 to 1000 feet up the slope. The source zones are primarily intact sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone that exhibit varying degrees of weathering and fractures. There are loose rocks littering the slope below the outcrops that have rolled to their present location. In our opinion, most of these lower, loose rocks do not pose a significant rockfall hazard. This is due to their lower location on the slope. It is unlikely that these lower, loose rocks will develop significant kinetic energy should they roll down the slope. The exception to this is the loose rocks in the vicinity of the outcrops that can be dislodged and are higher up on the slope. There is one very large boulder above the middle of the proposed development at around elevation 8,436 feet that appears currently stable. Rockfall Paths The mechanism of rockfall at this location involves rolling, toppling, and/or sliding of loose rock from the source zone. Once moving, the rock rolls and bounces through the rockfall path zone until it stops in the rockfall runout zone. The rockfall path zone above the proposed development area extends from the base of the slope to the ridge and outcrop above. Rocks roll, topple, and/or slide varying distances from the source zone. Some rocks are stopped in the source zone after initial movement. Other rocks stop varying distances down the slope. The rocks that stop movement in the source zone and on the slope lose speed and kinetic energy through contact with the ground surface, other rocks, vegetation, or a combination of these. It is likely that some rocks have rolled and bounced through the rockfall path zone, impacting the flatter ground at the base of the slope. We are unaware of direct evidence that rocks have Project No. 18-7-606 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 PROJECT y • SITE E . -M s Awt'I. f'•lih 1'. l -_ .fJ � �' ,y r • �I� &y.d.I • i y '. Y le a 4 r • y 1p �' �. id'Vii. ,• (OttP 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 o N •E L . N cn CU L U� LU 13- 0 O V/ Z LUr Z O U LL O J m I 1 U) 0 0 �U) C: O O Q a> oof C: X O 10) EjU '— Z 0 O W c aww N O O O O O O O O L L o- n O O C C O O O O O O U) O C C o- n O O N N C C O O 0 0 O O O O O O L L O O (6 (6 O O O O 0- 0- 0606 O O 0 O N N a) m c m c O O io c c °vi °vi O o 06 06 O O O O F L L N O O O O N O N O O O O O C C N a) O 06 O O O O O Q LL m LL O 06 O m m 06 ch otS ch Cl) E � E � 0- 0- 0) 0) o m Q - 'Q 'Q x x c c 0 m w w w w w wm H m H 0 0 0 O 0 t t t t= o a O m m m C C C C C C C a3 m m N N + + 0 0 0 0 O O O Y o 0 0 0 Z)Z m o .Q .Q .Q .Q .Q .Q o = _ m m vi 0- 0 0 0 O O O O O 0i 0i - 0i aa) Z O O O O O O O c c c c c c U Q "� O 7 0 U O 0 U O O O O O + (n (n (n (n (n (n (n LL U S (n S S S S S (n W N C? V (C) (O I� a0 0) Y O 3 U J m CL 6 Z O 7 O O U) � C O a o m O(D E E m U) �i EE E az O Cl) O a a U _ uJ O m p c a) �� c cFL a) Q DY O Z a3 O T O C/) a3 m a3 m a> U o U °� O azm O = o }? }? L O U t ) � O z �' � (06 (06 00 > O E H ._� - gy m 0) a)LL M E c O O E c Y) '° N E 'c LL Q E 6) s z(n W W QS>UN U) C:/):, W 0 0> (n = N CO V LO (O = N C? V Lr� (O N N N N N N c'7 co co co co co O O O O O O L L o- n O O C C O O O O O O U) O C C o- n O O N N C C O O 0 0 O O O O O O L L O O (6 (6 O O O O 0- 0- 0606 O O 0 O N N a) m c m c O O io c c °vi °vi O o 06 06 O O O O F L L N O O O O N O N O O O O O C C N a) O 06 O O O O O Q LL m LL O 06 O m m 06 ch otS ch Cl) E � E � 0- 0- 0) 0) o m Q - 'Q 'Q x x c c 0 m w w w w w wm H m H 0 0 0 O 0 t t t t= o a O m m m C C C C C C C a3 m m N N + + 0 0 0 0 O O O Y o 0 0 0 Z)Z m o .Q .Q .Q .Q .Q .Q o = _ m m vi 0- 0 0 0 O O O O O 0i 0i - 0i aa) Z O O O O O O O c c c c c c U Q "� O 7 0 U O 0 U O O O O O + (n (n (n (n (n (n (n LL U S (n S S S S S (n W N C? V (C) (O I� a0 0) Y O 3 U J m CL 6 Z O r CL\( /\D k�c \(( §\(b \\/\\ 2®®R§ �)oco §(S m 'E 2CLoCL D &33= \))\2\ m=mLLmm wwa'IT a6 E\± $) : \ - J# %$g -_ . -- e= - \ \ ƒ_ - : {[ §) ){ . )(_ //. § CL ¥A �_ « I% p \ \ \ �� �� 0 � \ o�m cc 0- g, §\ \«:L- — .— (j) _ - ® \ \ f�! r ° §6: k \\ j ®§© m E / \ \ =) :5 m m\ |%)§ E 0 _ \\{ - )/ J \f �- -_ }/ ( .. -2 / -= S 2 \- Z5\ ) § ) L ( 2FU /k/ \ Co -_ 7 7� -r- L6 '0f®�) & \ I� (�\Fu �co \ ) = CL a \)/ §j \E _00 $ /§)j \7) /§\ /} ) CL\( /\D k�c \(( §\(b \\/\\ 2®®R§ �)oco §(S m 'E 2CLoCL D &33= \))\2\ m=mLLmm wwa'IT a6 N _ O _ O U M N O (6 Q I-a��� (n ) p 75 -24 O_ W N W Q S C �j N U 0 N CO V LO (O N N N N N N N z J a LU C9 Il fl1; LU U H 7 Q CO X i cn w W � � r Q N I oa LU 0 af lollI U) Q U) 1 I' Y 'i, (7 z c 5 �w���� U co D 91dV i Q m Q O •yl �r � Z Z Z Z �� � ,.x•,11 lxo� I Il 1 e_ I I I .•• �Y � II 1 � l � i ,I 11` • 1 /_ / pi• i l l i I I a � CO IR7�, }, } CO IM � a I J w Ci 04 // 7c R.— r i ui r _ w F-- m UI Q H W < z W U Q' . A s LU f+ Cl) W Cl) m L 1` < Ir m O z o Cf) LU LUO r s'1 U S w 49t' Lz Luz w w u > c.. �.. _.,N7—s; z F W t I'I 1 t ` 2���' . .. •j P r ., ISI y �;� . . 'k.. W � 2§ =11 ) CO § « § } o � k � } z z � n o § 0 � 2 Z ! 0 ` Co co co/ co \ ! \ y k � / \ . aoco & - \� CL !. \: o » - G ± k \ %. . L ) . : - . � � \ � \\0 Co �) 2 U \ ` t u- k= .®�/f - 0 - o , / k \ (on)\ / \ 7 ® & ` � � � • a / e � • / E :5 C: _ c v O O O Z w w m m — w 'a O C 'O N L o 'O N v c 3 3 m D� m m N a S a) o w m t;o o n16 6 C: s n E w w n n m m m0 m o v o w v s° o w m 1) o.m w Co m w .m m v m m o w w O n a m m° w a O� w m m o s°° 3° E> n -° n m° s `o i -O m 0 am O iO E °m °w Ew °mE ° v a v . mw m n -0 o U E m t cn O N Y U O C U O EC a) U t m w w a v U N o -o C N oo no w3 o m co -C c .0 v o z w a 0 Co o Co co w m H x O ' F N N M V lf') (O iw (� 001 iW j0 iIL w m m an LU a Z w 2 N d y d d O C O J O o U m U d d E Z 0 �ocra 2 . 0 x_3 Q Lu Y Q O H Q W O -j w O 0 O :te z H x 0 -j a w 0 w LU - D w i F m m w 2 2 2 Q Tr s T 001 m m an d N � O � — O m N d y d d O C O J O o U m U d d E w w w Z z o d w an O c E O O O O O O a i w w cn � 06 Zw� Q J Q U t t t t t t ;:' m m m m m m m `i - ..� d m m m m m m i Non FQO z zw 06 4 .. . m D N n r m � cc cc o o � �r o N a V! 3•� f_ _ Q Tr s T a c� z z O N IR N Z a J a W N Cl) a Cl) Y O 3 U J m m CL 6r SEo ` $YE — U' i as N U a) d �L t4 f4 ++ N_ W ?� H Qua 1, I it . n r I_i _ S yy Z to r �+ o a c� z z O N IR N Z a J a W N Cl) a Cl) Y O 3 U J m m CL N CL m O Q E o oOC di o m N E E a E E E Ln 0 E c c o m -OU) o -6 m E F- z _ o o 1,31a> rU) a> W s U)m m °� > E E 0-) 0-) (n W > Cl) 0 N CO V LO (O M C6 co C6 C6 C6 C6 Alk s H LL ri v 7-1 'O N U C Q � C U) O m w > rn O a) -O p m O U _ 0 J m .�.. n° o > Q N O m U J U) > �6 C'O O O O p c ' m v 0 a a m L m m .— p Q co m C m m ami U o v m � 0 U) m a) co C `o ,c co w N U) �� oui om p °oo = s N O a)m� E� 01 U C m 01 N — E S O `p w m Uco U) E S P 0 2 �) CO- >� 9 'w U) iso a) U > U a) s E O p — Y O O O U N N C U OwQ =U > m m O w� m m m m n N C p > 'w O U O O N O U w m o p A in a) O- a) > o E O o= m E r°ns Y m m -p rn U) m ow �w � N O �m w �U m x O c:O 7 7 w a) N J E U m a) U m a) O a) a) O 7-1 A Tr f T ' C() co D O w w w m co U) a) > rn O a) -O p m m CL _ m .�.. m U U) a"C: y mm H a) p L m O m° w 'LD O L m 'N O OC 'O � 'O � 0 U) m a) co C � O .— 7 ,c co w N U) m > m m ° m m a m °oo = s U N m a)m� E� mQ� N.S Y °o4 p °? wET -m �) CO- >� 9 'w U) iso a) U > U a) s E O p — 3 U) 2' O C c � -E >, OwQ =U > m A � ° ° ca�i °o n�� cwcOi w a'E LLB inEo a) 2 a) 0 m m m Y O o �a�ip w N� E m m m E o Y m m p m ow �w a`))Qa) m ��U o� H w �m w �U m N°m m w EC v- w N w c a) O O 0)m Eaa o -I cc -0 2 am) ° o �`�Hpm0x m O>a) m� U 2-C: " O N m w U) U c�' -o a) o N c C > N m Z X� A cr m O a) . Co 4 m >. Co N m O mJ d X o m rnm< O o 2 a) a) N a w C7 a°i i n m oN wa�o o �.o a m�� so o ) m°�X m m m m C: T n CL m m =(n, a) w 6 U) C CL w wD NCm O O m� U I N p- UmcriEOpm =1 >a— O aS a)o a `a) mUO0 5 o's CO cp- a)aoE yo m = >wo m a)- 0 O. 2 OwcO Ern c 7 E U�_O�m 2m nX97� m w0iaXt m m QE ° wC m 'mam o_oC: v U) c -p O X o a o E coN a) S U) Q o o E m� o o E t0 o Q ao 0) Q� o _0 am 0'-p O.�NoOrn E J °� a) wrn > om H 0 A Tr f T E2 N CLO C m O O) O a) a) m CL N C m w U) a) C C: o m rn C — O) C U Q C 0) m C C Y w C Q co CO C w: ... m U LL U LO N 0) N 0 0) Q O) O) N U) O) ..�—. L 7 a) N N U) V N m O E O Q a) m (n m co 7 m co O m 0) C N m N C O i C L a) O cn C (� m0 N D E 3 7 co C i 0 O J CL O.S o a o E °? .L.. - O ° m '� 0 0) C .0 LO N — Q U a) 0 O U N ... C O E ai C N CL m O> Q m m O m (O E O O U m O a) m 0) 2 C U) 0 Y x m N E 7 C U) a) 'X -0 a) lf') N O U N O 0) N y O N = `p O O V O m >' O U O Q Ln a) -0 C U m N Y U Uj 2 -0 U U) 2' -0 U -O m - m� 00' p O N N > a) m N O C O 0 V M a) Q a) y. �0 V O_ L a) -0 .L.. -0 m O L > L U C C J 7 0) O.L.. O E U) L ~ O O_ p X >, a) w N N C U C C a) E O N C C O a) N >` m C O U C O E N N Y -0 N N C Q U) .O- N L _ N o> E O m U -0 O) 7 m -0 7 0 O O C Q N C U) O- -0 N U E L � m C O m -0 a) m H N in O1 YO M C .N w -o C m O Y m O p U) 0 a) C Y rn O O 'C N O O Y _A — N m U N O O)O U.L.. m �Q On m T)C 0 o m w� w� o�ai Q —om O 7 6 maC m C m C O -0 a) W U) >. Q O L m C Y O O U Q M Q w Q Q a) C m C m U Y O o Y mD �' 3 Em .i -tmw .L.. O 3 a) m ow. O Q H U ow m n m a m 0' 7 U C C �. a) aw m w U) 5-o i' C w m _ � E N x m m o N o °� 0- m n o m E n m o f O J C O N N C -0 C -0 > U a) C0) M N Q C CO C 0 N 'O -O N C 0) Q O (n a) V a) m m X- U) N -0 m N o- m N O E 0 E 7 I6 01 C m a) O O O W L Y U) >, C ip O O L In C U) O -a U0 U CO -L0O m N C CTO N U (lu O U DC m N U O O 0) a) E a) 0) O Cc c � ~U o Um Z °n0)n Wa o Co N a w � C O OC ' Nm mEa N YU3: U U aN -NLOLN O-:50 C CO ... Y 2 C: � o �mm c m m C L6 � a s 0 Y n OCL o 3 QSO>) ` omowU � am o _ U E Q 0) Q Ly)0 Q Q OH(�n ) U .� • • • i • �p O- W 0 • • • • • • • OI C C J LL m 3:m O ui a` )) H coco > H w a m N w o m m � S m U C o C m U m w m O D U Q C m w a) a) p) '> � U) V+ C `p U) U C m m C L _ " (`") o a) C O O- � O N L E O 7 N C U L a) 0) 0 '� O- U C 0) .O- a) L U) m a) T O) 7 O- m a) a) co E '� M mm E m m m m L C C)) m m w L m >, a) -O U O Q Q .0 a) i U) A 0-0 LL LL Ana Y E m w Q m 3:m o 06 U) ..- O rn ui m w m m 0 c- E o m w a) N co p i -O U a) co L .L.. E — E C L() M a) O C S E c m=) Q i m 0 O O co a) co m ~ O E m m O -0 E w :L- L a) 7 wm 00 >O p -O m O 7 UO EM U) Q p C 7 O w C -0M m 0 0 N V 0 0 am) -r- -E 0-U a) Q > a) 0 m CO L C> mZ-)S S U) .Lm. In -0 a) CO m p m O- m U) a) U E 0 C D C O C X O C a) m O U -O m CL & i N U a) m a) U) o C O U O M L6 O N U) X m m m w m w C Oa) w co: -taa`?`i -0 m Lion O a�. °? o2 �rn N O 3 m O N _ 0 >, 7 co C 0CL o C:) N ) — "' Eco' E C -0 E m 0 p Uc o �) o O o m= °o 2 �) w a) o) E w _ m O Y CO w 2' OCL CO m E O L m (cu: U) N C a) Q .�. O) m a) m 0 0 U m O Co � L —0O D a) co O � U) m a) C O O m N a) O U) m m N a) 7 a) m O- 0 f%) E '� m Q O- w i a) N O m U) m a) -0 (n a) m a) a) N .L.. O o m m � a O O o Y m n — m E > o n E U) C Ln O- 7 C U m —_ m Y C U O O O '� E U) O a) U ... U) � O 0) C .0 E O) � C .0 E - N m N O w N Q N Q N .N 7 N CO L6 7 -O .O N -0 O_ - O) m O '> -O C C LL O) U +• O- Umm ax) m m aa))_C m o wpm (n E2 LL o5 oU m C t m O M -0 N a) N O) � cos C 0- H w '° m E o .2 H m '5 Q o Q. c n � T m Ma) M O -0 E2 N CLO C m O O) O a) a) m CL N C m w U) a) C C: o m rn C — O) C U Q C 0) m C C Y w C Q co CO C w: ... m U LL U w w b a), CL a) m D 3 U c m o m > w ��. 0 LO m o Co 0 m m s U at O c a) aNiYtm rn� m `m o~ E c m m ° )i m o w � m w o C n N a C� m m N w m a �'m o f � com rn0 p.� ° m a) p = Y s a m ° ° ° umi ° m - U ) m 3 m comm 0 o Y� o.m cn w w m w .S w °�-0 w �m ° c°� o m m U) C O N O co m >` o— U N m C O- co Y O i w '� Q Y a) m a) m E -0 w m -0 m Q co m O C7 p ��=_� a w cn w° -° a mw ° E m a) co 3: m ) mD U U) a) N co: 7 0 p U U m C C U) a) C a) a O) ui o �o ai a m m n o U m'ompa N �w �- cmi -° o°° o m O m D a o -r- a) xt m m m : ai a a) U) s m min w� a° 3 UY OO m w m m m nsaio n mm a)w Xxm v m Op c wm m `m o !E m m rnm m w� wY s w m ~ O ° O o o > O ° > m O p t i o n o w ui `m o U (7� a n o m 2 Q > -0 H rnY rn� 12 v ° `m v 0,6 m_ a.0 3 U 'N a) O -0 N O (n � (OA N -° m m CL a 7 n y m -0 .S a a) U - - w rn n a 7 -0 "a °- Q O) N t a) O O) O m 0 O O Z m E 2 A M O O m-0 U) C a) C U -0 n Em �Y Cd CQ CL p m a) p U) Q a) a) U) O O> N a) a) a) C U) O a) Y a N m a) a) E° Z° o0 0° w m H w m w ��m curio Q� Em mw �� o w m H w E " > � >(u p cn m� 0 a cmi m o N m '> m o o .� m m �� : O m Ui o CL E a) 0 a) N O a) m C N' w Y _ Y ° mo i �_ L Q O U) � O O) s 0) 2 U N '� j .m 7 m a) a) m U) x--00 E° tm c: �T >t m � pM w > �� w a) a) 0 m°n mm 7 m ~ O .0 m '' > O .. O) a) m Q O a) O :.. N `O a) N O) o m m m U Z E i .� 0 o m E m Q- -o LL m p D a) U) m .. -0 0) Cm N a) m U) Y 7 0) ... ... O i m o .m p 2 a � a E ,o m o � aa, '2 a E 'E w '� o w E p m m m m 0) c°)) 3 0) m 3 E O v °? S mm 'n a �m w E>> m m 0 E o E U � ° w E� .�� c m H a) rn 3 a m -' ` a) m m m a) m x w x n n O m o `m m a) m n s ° �'3 �Y m u) m O �_ m m O a p m. -' Y ami o mm Q °) �)o °)'� ui ww 0 U a`m),� a-) L=L UU) w p in o 2 in � j,w E c w m.�m m m `mn a)o aa) rnm o m a_� iim v -° m v m 0 •o 60 m mw mN Y ma;m> > a -a >(0 E ami _ �N �o ii LL x x a x aw c0-0 mrn mY �ax)�> 5a)-, 5mm N n m o f 3 m -0 w E m w 0.5 a m a) m.� a) m o° 3 3 Ea c° c: H� > m v o m v m m m m ao:- m x m x� m E° m N > m > HE cn-0 a) a) m w n� wmp i c D 0-o m T ' U) (n N O U _ O N m O ° o -°° o - n a) 0N w- m Q a) E m -0 7� 0 co O a) _� Q O U) 7 p -O 0° U Y i t m -0 N O> C Y x .2 - Fu ° n ° - m N N m m U i i m m ° -° > O w o >° U= ai w m E m o w m E ° a) o a) o° m o H m m a) m w .x ° m p a= 0 3 m w m-0 mO 0 a� a) om our 0)o 0O °- n. rn Y� a' Qm oDN m t aa))0 o° 2 U o L6 mH ow m U O Q a D 3:Y = >— a -0 N 2 -° 7 s y m o ff o m m ° m o > 3 a 0 O m ° ° m U °- m m m m o > 0) m (D_ _ m �a n �� Nw �°.� o m �- mm rn �� w Qoa) 0 m Z co w - w m o m a)N m t Ea cmi m a)cn n m� a" U> m a) a) m m o w o� c a) M Nsw m ~ o ur cow `m aa)i 0> o 0) 'w o E m0 °our �5 E ° w Y3 w0� �U ooh win a) a) C:a) 6 X60 -_�_ o� m C'4 m N n 0 mo mm u, U E m . Y m m E a) m o w m o H w m w O m -0 a) o a) m 0 U = w 3 a o -° E rnw x m -0w m m m a) m `O . a) i m m 0 m 6 o m m m E our m m m) �.S > 3 3: a) n.E � wa) o (7H oo 0 0 0 ~ 5, w o E -0 -0 (n Q O U) 'N m .O m = N N Ul .N a) >� U) (..) a) m U) w 7 X a) a) 0) M O U t o U) m a) O) a) (n U) t O O) C co O U) C .�-U t M m m "O m 0 t O a) O 0 C .� m m E Y O O m O cmi O w �� o �� o EY CL rnm m m -°00 c a) °m mU) a) ccmiw 3 m 'E o Co m n 0 o m= 'm m o m `o = .N -0 ani ° � m a)i ° m a) m m O m-° m °' o� m E o rn� -° n m m a y E m our m� m `o 'm 2)-°i o o m i m 3 �U) E o m'57<n O'm m m �' m ° �_ U a) 0 m m m m�,� o'rnm m a'- U 0 x o U m m -_ o m 3 0) m ° y t .N ° m° w ° H w .m m m '� s .- c m> s a) w t o a) N 0 a) � a)m 3: a) ~ °) - s E c mew U E Co O � E H w n m J c� co a) -r aim rn o w )i m o 0 oa) a) CL m c °) m aa) o in Em m= O z m n� t w n °w m v urn F w m> a; M2 cmi LL a) ma) oo coma) Y U° N rn.N wro m= n m ° s m �' to o = -° ° ° U >s ° v E 0 0 c m E Q m.� o o o E S2 C:�CIL m � to o m `m o in o C�� a)m `mmv °Oo w ninN curio rn mo° ��co w oc 3 ° E� ori Nod-w U m -2 co (7 ° �� Ycmi �0a) �m �� a rami m O m m> m ° N °� t N 3 m E m w O° m m m ui m p o ch ami E ii H '° w H U m H n.� v H H a w U w `m T. cn H (7 '°� H a E o Q • • • • J • • • • (n a) ,N • • • (% m r�w0 ao 0 N M ° N o� Nm.s "mom 0) � _°' o °� m w o a. °> U E n n n 0 o a° 0 X m Y ° o '� m N n m w '0 I� i X x m m o 'O Q U m N N_ X 'O a) 0 0 �° ° ° m O O U) a) N i -p N_ O Q C C C a) t m °- O O m C co O O N N N m C U a) N ° O a) co .�.. m .Q.. O 0) _° -O C a) — .Q.. m> N 7 C m -0 p O_ ° O .Q.. m w C m N 0) �` Y .� w m U m O N w Q m x C N O � m 2 a a o° a) O C m -° _° N °' N -� c m ` w '�" Q -p N C S O N C C m (n N N E N O U O 'O N N O_ 'O Ci m 7 N O m N m U a) m O O t a) E a) 0) -0 m co) N -�0 O N E o a) C 0) m Q O O N O_ -0 m co s o o w m m w m 0 m w n ° '� ui rn a) a) a) N U W n C w ° o m U QD LU m o °� n° w- m ° m 0 'E IE O -° �_ .S �)0 m w ° o m >cn� n w w w a m o- o - -U U m ; ° m w °� ami °Q w2m 000 m N° U i i U U N O C p .� C O) O O 0 Q 7 0) Q N _ C E ° C N C O N > N 02 i °- U� C m a) O N N "' -0 '0 E N 2' L (n O N U a) m > t E U C: C W t-,� j M Ul m Q- Ul -0 C w. C ' N � _ co m O a ° .N w 5 0 o m .� c o O N m M Q Y O N m O ._ m m aa)) .0 m U U N C a) ul c°i O Y j T D O_ —0 0 w° = m N Om w N E .� m � � � co � O � m n E � d m Q w n o o _ � o w m E m m m Q axi -° m m ai � cai rn= w o � w C o a) O C m m O N Y m i "' N C ... O> O> a) C EO U y m 0 N w N m C N E O m N O '(6 0 �1 N ' N c ON O Q W> C O O° C N n > o m () w 0 . V m= 0 E m -°a nt a) 2 j L C a) >o O � C so 7 m N O E_wm O m oa `m > m o .� -° cmi . a) m U m n 'N ai a m m `m w w in Q m m rn= a� ° w .m 0 0 in .9 co m o w N C n N. m m m m d >. E: ° m WE w 0)0_ 2- E m .o ° Q -E n rn uNi ° U > w �_ m H E u w a) E m N a) U a) t N" U_ N ~ U C C C m J N -° p , N N m U m (6 a0+ N >� O N t m� m a) � .Q.. L`��� N p a) 0) :-� ���� atS N a) C d ' 01 _° a) m -E mm Www U U) N a) Y >m E C U m N 'O O O m�aE E 'O a) O �w'E a) a) °p�� 2' °' C a) O R iC .O m— m '0 i U° '06 C C O "O m N a) (6 a) O E 7 E N m° E o m m Q t w.� t m a v o m�� U m J 0 ?'X '0 m m .�.. co m p .9 (D U O _ Q J W m m W E2 m w in U rn.C:in m v '0 w U m w Q m N ON - -p OU .wUm UC) O OO- aU N C° m.Os m E N Qm_ w n m O C °- Q O L O S 0) � C Q m co Q O L A W N .w H 'D N N _O E W U E N m j m o- i .Q.. >_ m ° 0Cc: O > 01 N N - a) N �� J C a) O_ '= D_0 c t ._ 7 N m U� N m N� 0 w n o mm U O Q� o'o ° 7 '0 w °� E °? O_ C m � =° w ° °� ° E U° m E w w m w '0 E U O w m A rn p m Y `m O m 'O C O n m m O C a) Q U m -° p 0 s s -0 O m w _ N w m o n._ Y m n w O in g m S o w' ° Cc 0 o o >� cmi L i m U O o m a) E a) -p U w OC) C N � o N 0) Q U ° U U) s a) LL m m N a) E a) .0 O— m C t— a) 0) Y E C U O C~ m - LL U m U 0) C w O m m m x rn a) m .S o U E 0 N N m E C O m a) 7 0° O �O a) m C— N 0) j °- m 7 W O N m m O m .N a) cmi w .J o m J m J � a3 >, > U N a) N N U= O 7 N N C C: c1 C m m O N.V m NQ .Q.. a) N N 7 N.� .�T.-6 N 40- m .o .� co o U orn Um =NN EcoN >. m E C� -1 V flW 'o0) NU UmU 0) 8 2m so O wD o E nnww c ° c C: mUDm N. C m mE O T rp p .- wm >° w°m .2 > >, _ 2° c 2- E C i o Oc-0 N `m O `m n mo c 3 mn� s mE E w 0 �Q �Q m C = t Z > c ._ m E m - m 'a -X) w .� a") 9 °� -06,:2w Q° ami t .= m m- n° m ° Z `� m ° m o m cn co w fn m 'Q m .N N N .i O N m m m '5 O 0) LL E m i J 0 N m t U E O s N a) m E C .i Y a0„ V a) a) a) O Q w N m C Q N '0 a) a) E m O .c m a) t m C 0) OC) .0 C N m N _ C Q CJ a) w m U O U N 0 m m > O_ a) �O D` ° U o U E N 7 C O W CL Q m w E — N Q co B � O1 t C ._ 0)'— =° >%Q cn ai a) m 0 co 3 -° -o o Q -r- m o W W '-' N m_ m m w C O O a) i N '� m C a) _° w a n m C O N `O- s 0 E J m m E a) a) co m m m m n v t n U m N o m m E v C U ,s m i m' w m w ° m m. In° w m Eaaa)) v° OHm°m CL ���nii �Qnn� wpm u0 (7orna) s m Ha O m a) U O c W.Q.. N a) - O U.Q.. s m � ® - //10 - \- ! m - p/ 2® §�£_ \� � §\ LL 3£ �6 {},a }s §\ e) \/ 0L _ ` �2 -5 k�\ \o \\ \� m a)a) \ §A / _ \ \) ./_\ /oE ±2 Gf {\ / § Ea E ) Q ) f \ \ 3 (:-E ]f ] �E\> ,) 7>m } )o ® ~ 3 §ff� \\ C(\ § t\/) -\ )_ » j2 o k }Ai§ a)\ \2 ER 2 _ ) \ - �° (<,) ) / _ \\ \� /\/ / ���� o m \} Jf® \\\ / \\\\ \j k/ \�� \{] w 3o: -c: - 62§ o, e5�=D )\ /o <«R &t} f \ §±/3t . . . . � . WOlow-T wg w > OU) w wo OR Wo W, z w 40 iwg Cl) O LU 5 < 0 0 W 0 w o U)z w Ui O WOlow-T wg w > OU) w wo OR Wo W, z w 40 iwg 5 < 0 W w o U)z w 0 I 1. X kA 0a) a))acN U) 0 m m a) .�T'--- + 0 0 .� u' woo m U fl c o Lcu N ULU U)CD z z 0 y n 5 i O_ O_ CCcc O cu m LU G— oC o a a � T E u) • cm cu N N ai Z a) fp N U H co co v 1014+ r LO a 9i1 `gip• •:� �• .1� -_ -O ,: isL...:• 1 a) O C -O t fl - A a) U 1FY _ co co � Q C a) 3: L 1! O i6 O i6 -as U Y a) F ` [• I N O m M E Q E U -oa) a) Q LL m LL V! LL (D . N M V U7 (O 1-1: I` it • R .1 z O Q z LU 2 LU J a z J a a LU F- CO CO Q T T M M M r 6 Z O LL LLJ Q O M N 0 0 0 0 r- r- O N 0 0 0 0 ~ Q O O O 00 O N 00 00 M r- 0. 0 0 T 00 Ow N 00 V V V 00 0 0 I- M N - - M 0- z w W Q H z M 00 r- N m N M 00 M a c� z LL z LL d w Cr 0000 O M M O O O O r- r- O V 0 0 0 0 < N 0 O 0 M 0 0 00 0 V 0 M 0 M 0 M N N 00 - 00 - M M N N 0 0 0 0 OQ 0 t -p 00 N M M V - - - - - - - - OZ O_ Q U) m 00 00 LO r- 0 0 0 0 O M M M M M � N Lo M M V M N M M N (M � J � U� LL a w cr Q 00 M 0 00 N o o 0 r- r-� 0 00 00 00 00 a c� -p M V r- M M M M M M O 0 0 0 0 M z O t M z m c (M In M m O m N t 0 N O N 0 N 0 N lf') N N 0 N 00 00 00 00 W J �_ a z z w LU a o t QLU -O o Y E a E (� co U Y U N i U N O' D N Q w 7 i N N 2 i N EO x CO " - a w 2' 7 o o 02 a) N O Y U Q S' O 0) C o O O N M E � LU U M � 7 c N co n E (n 2 O a O J O (n N H U - O 2 (n Q a o O (n N 210-10-10- Q m U w LLV x— Y- z O a a r 6 Z O m -------- - + ---------- +---------- I I I I H I I W L - - - - - - -- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - Cl) L - - - - - - -- - 1I1� I I I ------1- II j I I Fx-l1I1I❑ II L: L- I I I 11❑ 1 J � N M I I II I I I I I - I I I I im K 0 �D M 0 0 § § .0 .2 \ o � U) / / § § o ° .+ .+ § § A A 0 0 0 0 0 i i «« 2 0 a .) .2 $ .0 / } G « / A A « « 0E .+ EL§ § a o o 3\ 3\// .2 6/ 6 $$ \ \0 ƒ « ƒ .2 .2 q q / « / « 7L- < _ I _ ` ` § § \ \ \ \ \ 2 [ k [ k \ \ 7 7 \ I ® I ® ®_ = o y o y @ @ E 0/ 7 7 7} 0\<& j j// 2 < « « _ _ _ _ = c [ 0) [ 2 2 E ® 2< I o o c c §.E I C: 'E I q q/\ k ) ) � � n { / / / / / / / / \ \ \ I I / / ` 0 0 0 0 0 0$ j c§ c 6 6 6 0) C-) \ \ \ \ \ \ 2 g \ e \ \ \ \ \ < e e e e e e\ e a = a������ o R o R R R R R� m m m m m m m= m I m I I I I I m o a m'T r e 1- g m K 9 9»@ 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 � � 2 U) \ 2 / CO m G U \ \ G § < § C14 « \ LU \ LU } 0 0 01 LL \ LL LL \ \ $ $ \ R ci\\L6\ g G — m LO G \ 0 < k o 4 ) j § \ § § ƒ \ z a a / s § / / U < 2 2 2 co o �/\�\.\ �\\�\\\ \ ] () $ k ƒ §)\��§7co \�\\\\//�-0 =�>000C:57 /ee, )%EE:0o:pf k\/\�a\\)/# =±e_R 7l0/ } k 20- $,r/\\j f a a f®§ G J { (cu: \ n f) [ 2 0 0) o /) CL .2 $ k /{I)±)ak-mo\ y k o CL o { °S=®]§S>! E(n2\�of®99 2 562=Ie&I ]§®k2%f]2« ta{{{/ |(§k\){f: »)/ 42!#{a ��o§�� jj\§kjk3)} 6 w w a 4 CO E z § 0 I 0 � « 0 COO - � � 0 CO § � 0 � M a a � § < 2 2 � 2 @ � § a � 0 7 0 Z H.- 0 2 \7 k =� }� \ E0 a � _ {� \ w o / \ §==2 \� &f ® _ a 0 \ 6 2 ) 0 e 2 0) 2 7 2 = » :0:; c + \ § E150k/ / \-0 Cl) o �/ag2§==g m\ j e k` E 3 0) \ 2 — _� o 7 \ : » \ �2co 2EoE /j\ � § Z; C) 7 2 \ —=e \�2�� t o X 7 4 0 0 2 ; _ ° E .\.\ \ § = f 2 ± E oEA—o 022\\2-0 Q Q e e 8 /_ )@ 2 §fffff�/k/ C:z-i F F 2=-i a«ad0LULL �}2 71NJId.yo/ \ � ^ \ « LU / § U) \ § \ \ z z E 5 a ¥ a § § j \(D j z o \ [ § CO CO < § \ w LU co( CO / 2 S § 04 z z Of E E ° o LU j § \ \ §� f ,. t0 o Lf) U. - , �< « � \ z U. \ƒ U. 0 %\) C4 -- o � ^ \ « LU / § U) \ § \ \ z z E 5 a ¥ a § § j \(D j z o \ [ § CO CO < § \ w LU co( CO / 2 S § 04 z z Of E E ° o LU j § \ \\„ �j� gat• Z i % i i _ - 0 z ,I1 j w O \I 3 r l --,1. 1,1 U 1Iii IIi r/ v — z z w H a r l;;il 1111 Q a Q z _ z z w O i'i 1„�l il�� 1111 ll� � w z (7w D v� - IIII III _11 o Q o z cD �I o (D- _ — — ----1 l'Iil' m -- (7 w U O \ 1�1 IIil1111'IM',1!11'1'`1, W w z U z } Q > C7 w Q (n U) F- 0 ��� '11� 111111 II%I1111N�I�'I 1111 O Q ZY W Ur w coJ Z w W -i Z 100 11 II`, \;1111 1111 II g11 1�, Ilij �jii 1 = o -- U (n a = Q 2 U F- CO P' #'' VIII 111111 I Y OQ ' U w = 2 Cl)U M m / 1111 I! III 11 J CL — `\- 1, ', Q w co co = w J v �� 4 !1111111111 m z z H Q z Co � J = U o O Co CoU w - a X X L C9Q o w w w Z N LL N cr V 1.� i1 0 AV _ 1111 m ” 0) Z o � _ �i, p� _� 1��O ■ M_ �'I, N p 1'1\ m X 75 m \\,A\ VI \ O o 06 m o V�� A�V���vV� ►— N Z cavi o T m\ 1\I, \`\ ` Q > Qom,'',A\`�1'I 11111, 11AI� '111''111 Illi' __,� SII 1 �i a Cli 111 111 1� �I1111 \ I m 45 c 0, M \ 11'11 V�, �A ��� , OD X1111 1 m w o \ `,,, 'I\'�\� a N (�i6 A, \\ V1�V t �� ��� \, A '11� 11 W Cl) Z o m o 1 E V',1 1 Cl) m LU fn O O m N X _0 \ AllCL �� Z U O m \ \ \ \\ \\ �\ \ \\\ \\\\ \ 1 1 Z m O— L x V �>c ��\A\ A\ Q co U Q H Q �� ��VI VSA\���� III' ti d Q CO U D Lu, Ny•o +� ! '••� iii i 1:.�... � �, d � sad SCJ ; i p 1 • 1 °� 8 U Z w O O a o 'yv IzCf) X O m +I LU (D W U' Z Z ( z =sc $ p W ; f] i I m LU D W Lfl } a CD O W CO =Cr F � g g; CL cr z LU O Q W U W I a=m e W C7 � Z Im m 9 b„n U U) C7 a CO U D p = z„= z Q m W c �Q Q e f z z U CO co co x x _j a QQ l Q z w 2 O CO Z R x Hco U W p 0 LU H LU LUO e! 0 Z d' a\ Lf) U. co 2\ 3 � f .- i U. W fn U_ 1 Lf) W � , ` l o < _0 c a> Z N N J Lu Q a O -0 0 o u' c 0� Z m o o \ o \ a Cl) `o 0 o m U) -0 Z m o o E s O 0) U o \\ \ 1 U U c c o w W W -o (7 .S T- co a Z E 8- U) U) o m m \ a V QO0- (D oco v y a Q co Ci o ui \ \ 3N]l AiH3dOiId 1 � U ' Z Z 0 O r w U) a z O w z s z Q "' z - w 0 H O w 0 Z Z H L J o a U) cD 5 O J oa Q m a L ULU m Z(D x 4`, o m w 0 F -CO 1 a l I W N LLo 0 Q z Y W U) < w m z (LIU) c ~ I11 w (D Y Z u) m (n ly}� O �Q U O 2 U F-: M - N Y m J I LL 0 cn w w 1 m z z w O p CO N H H co J 0 2 R R a — a U a w w a Q W) v l h a; t w Ld R : J � o p � � z a 1 LL - L z O Q oi J U) a Q O o o e C7 0 LL Q 0 o - O 0 F- LL w of z 0> a O NP,'� = J vi \ �i m x w a C7 (7 x A w x z z LL > H W W o 11 \ \ w - C,4 OU a a �y00G ° mo s ffPZ`3 O C� r 0� Q 1 �' N W 1 a> m c o x V m \ \ Cl) N o zO Q m \ _-- o .� \� Cl) -6 'p U 7 U) C -0 \ H p \ \x 0 � Q Cl) Q (,nO M i o _ �cn m o o \ \ \+ 11 Z (u 0 a) -o QE(nQ0 x o aQ [oU0 vX z Lu / LU ° L \ k <z 2 / w 2 ® Cl) § < z Lu§ § < z 2 e LU o E a z o m o O \ � \ co \ \ a 0 0 \ \ \ / z § § § 00 0 c z § j } \ \ \ § § j3: \ \ z ■ z 0 F- M 0 § § M CO w CO CO « I � - � o r WU z U O g-----------� 5 0 ? > O 1 + I o s z z L C7 al ry $ z J < 0 mmm D Z hyy 11 `i r $ W I O m z Y CO L z _ J H m y o Q d' D W N w C9 y, O CO W Uco O 0 O m m O (D o M Z E- Z Z= Z N o Q O CO I w w a o a a 10 (1) -,- U -o H o (1) ( x W > O > m U 00 ate--, m O Q J Q ?2 iO , O 0 O 0) O + O __ _ _ N O p) N -_ Z O (O c O Q W O O -0 Q m Q ai � Li cr m o_ O (7 O c `6 _0 �' Q H cr U) M aTo a. w a)\ N coo N c -0 o0 \ p e JO p cr LuZ U O U U m H (�6 - -E -0 L \ /� bad L>U C Z O N — \ W > 7 O 0 .L +0 0 0 O l -�\ O LL I W W; LU 0 O'O ?-cr Q Q mLu OE 7 :2 C iOOtn. U Q LaL �—- 0 0 o �H l 1 N 0 x Ul) m I z a � a � y \ W \ I- \ a \ Cl) � 1 m 0 7 0 § ? LU o § ( z m 2 § 0 ) e = LU < \ \ z 0 cr{ ) § § LU _ < = e � § § § § ( ( ( § ■■■ § ¥ � � LU _ CD § Z CO M 0 § » 0 k / CO I � / k / / { = R \ \ � / k ) t = E .� $ .� r Cl) 3 = { 5 % § / \ \ / o a ) } / c / / \ $ ± 2 \_ § \ e m6 # ®� o cuz j § 0 E.�.c o = , o L) N p LR & \ 0 2 j ® ] E / « \ \ j \ \ \ \ a& a d 6 z § ? LU o § ( z m 2 § 0 ) e = LU < \ \ z 0 cr{ ) § § LU _ < = e � § § § § ( ( ( § ■■■ § ¥ � � LU _ CD § Z CO M 0 § » 0 k / CO I � �n a LU m 0 n C7 Z CO M O x LU w O J CL 2 LU o� w CO a x a 0 v § } \ > § < 0 \ j 0 z 0 _ ( 0 § 0 LU § § crƒ NONE _ � � LU _ CD § Z CO 0 _ I » 0 LUa � _ w CO I - § » o k / / \ A = o \ j 0 � 2 \ 2 t » \ 2 m k/ a B o e e & \ 0 / y [ 2 § ± -o k e � V5 6 � E) ®= ) cu / 2 _ o E § 3 /./ } o g — o E \ § \ u CU � * o E * S = _ Z o., o o F- o � / / f / / ry a < = o = u z \V\\\\ \ § } \ > § < 0 \ j 0 z 0 _ ( 0 § 0 LU § § crƒ NONE _ � � LU _ CD § Z CO 0 _ I » 0 LUa � _ w CO I - m a LU m C, n z (D Z_ CO M 0 2 W W } 0 J a LU I w CO a 2 a i w` - a Pi LU �� '• z N �z C7 z �li N z r D z z U, O l D z r ••/ :"II a 1 1 Y < oa = M a w Q _ w cr } O w ti z O O o�€ N co W J z D m 0 Qwl D m o a G7 w z z z H H H a L L L O w w w w a Q 11 'I Pi r I" l r ••/ :"II a 1 1 z O z 8240 0 LU z Z N z m II g U) LU w r � z W z z I� O0 < 6 LU LU Q C� w w Of c4 } O N 0 = $ a3� D p D a d Q m p O LU �'P I,I z lel I Z Z Z O LuN LO L/) L/)a C()w 0 2 Q II I'i I a 7 7 i w a� N t � N cm E aEi a� o rn — c rn n a -a -a C: m cm m o C Z v - O o rn � c n Y LU U Q CU D- o D- � � -2 Fn O Z N 0 O N N N N � Z Z 6 p X Q Q w J a Q Q m LU w co Q z a (7 z C7 z w Z �5 D z O LU Q w > a Q 0Of a N LU D CO m m LU O C7 0 z z a �z �z O CO CO w X X a w w M E N F - z LU 2 LU U Q J a LU Y a 0 N N M m w CO Q 2 a v z LU 2 LU L) � M LU ) E ) « § _ 9 LU CO I � ) o F- 0 0 Lu 0 = 2 0 M w / LU L) § LU0 LL o ) § ) CO E C() � § z \ } 0 CO & a z M F- M CO0 § 0 0 CO E � LUz M F- LU 0 � / 0 0 CO CO _ .N t N _ O c� _ d E E V d LL n EM EM 0 Z Z, c� 000�000 EL o 06 06 0 06 -0 _0 D T 00 ++ p p N N N N N N N N 2 2L L L L L L L L n Oui o _ N CO V LO (O I— 00 0') Ln Lo Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln X a O CL O E E O c.i NN� O cm a .y a v .O L a r LO 0) .m .a CLL U) m O_ LU t 0 O z m n m O 0) E_ N 0) CL m .L- t O U co co O D m n C m U O- 0) i U) co w m — D N O � O u, m � U� N co 0) C Q U m N C _ m � m N a) 0 U m o � cr n U w m 51 LO M N a1 to m s IL c� z CO Q 2 a U z O H a O a W COOO M a W) _ D D o O 3 D C U O a) 0 O O N D �� U Q O E m � N J O O 6 c Q c m a N D O m =o m � m 0 m 0 o ami m` n O CL m U o m N C O m E m N O m O E m m E E N D Q m m o m O m NY m Q (7 `o w oCO w = o O a) E D U) O O O O c m N N () - 2 u� O a) n E N o co o E Q m CL co °8 E ° oCL + .T, _ + umi w _ `� °� m °o Q 0 � L � o o 0 o v m m o itiD coN ioi coN = U) E m N O i 0) N O to C N C O — O M m 0) 0) O_ C N m E C Y N m E O 0) O2 O EL "' t O_ O_ a) O t a) O OM a > > c U a o U n a o 0) .m .a CLL U) m O_ LU t 0 O z m n m O 0) E_ N 0) CL m .L- t O U co co O D m n C m U O- 0) i U) co w m — D N O � O u, m � U� N co 0) C Q U m N C _ m � m N a) 0 U m o � cr n U w m 51 LO M N a1 to m s IL c� z CO Q 2 a U z O H a O a W COOO M a W) Lu U � z a z LU c 0 Z � z Q - o � c Z co 00 a w 0 O a `- c U) a , Lu U Lu F U U) Q m c� c9 z z M M � X X L LU w c O LU m U) J i U) 0 5 M i o 0 z a O = � H < o cD cD z z � Y Y a a z J M LU CO a LU CO ¢ 2 a 0 LU CO O a O a N W) 0 Z Y cr a LLQ LU Co LU CO Q cr W 3:O O J Z M J zZ Q 0 J m Lu 0 w 2 O w Q p a C7 CO o (7 z C()O0 w D? LU 0 cr C9 U O o 0 a z D a U) U (7 � w D 0 No 0 z J M LU CO a LU CO ¢ 2 a 0 LU CO O a O a N W) U z O F- M O z O J O 2 W D r W CO Q 2 a M W) U z O F- M O 6 Z a J_ M m CO H W W w F— CO CO r W CO Q 2 a v J J 0 Z_ w O M: U) H Z W Z LU Q U)5 D w O w x cn a Z cr p LU Lu w 0 U � 0 0 Lu Lu x U U x O O H JJ w W W p cr Of N ml \ \ } W H \ J_ Q M J J Q 0 Cal) Z w LUa � s �h W v z z 1 a O ' l U) w z z O s o a c� s z m o o } W J_ S 0 Q 3 0 c m o (n Qm 0 o W YU) cr W z Q m O W F- 0 0 � y z z w N N w (n (n Q W X X x CO W W a Q I = a i cr J I LU I cr O Q W W Q 0 Q ' c cr O H I M J I O D Z W CO O I LU LU I W ,.,_, M Z d M WOf LL J Z ' 1 J Y - p;� - •- z a f i O tL p u a co Z O 06H f-� 3 W -Q z u _;. z (n ❑ o C W a w❑ 2 M Lu F x Q u Y o N W (� a Oy z = O y Q LU 0 0 Lu Y Y O O a a J 00 m Lf)m p r I 00 1 OL, pG W N N \ J Q A 30 STALLS , i cr J I LU I cr O Q W W Q 0 Q ' c cr O H I M J I O D Z W CO O I LU LU I W ,.,_, M Z d M WOf LL Y 0 N 0 Z a w U) a x a W U LL LL O W O O cr t L L 7 s 7 c D :) L L � J c n 7 L L J L D D C 1 C D c 1 c D C Y � LLI 0 a O U) Y J D m 0 Z D O a 0 z_ O C7 J (D U) Z z Y cr W a LU �aLr J C JOi co L W U Q c J Cr _ ] 0 ] it ( J it J � n W LL J O ' W ] u ] z L i O C Lu C co C Z_ a U Z O F- M O 6 Z_ 0 J_ M m CO F- LU LU w F— CO CO "? LU CO Q x a W U z z w LU C7 F- 0 z O COCO W p P: z J U LL N LU U CO LL W LL O EL LL I LU a LL O L U U H Z m m w w a LU a Q Q O _ J J � fn fn M �D h 00 T I F- L) U F- LU w C7 p zEr 0 a ai Q w w J L) w J O w 25 O -U-a~IL a r N M 4 I Go c, d ai i i i i i n i p W W Cl) H Q = U z O w J W W U z O F- M O z Q J a a O O J LL M W CO Q 2 a n Alf 3Nl7 ), L,M3ti0Yd ui J O Z U) Z E Y O J 2 � m ZZ Z W =, z O a O zLU_ r�i a O O N = J H 0 0 (n W = Z z a LL Of W a oN 0- "� W U) 0 0 0 a W J U O ZZ COz O d — 0 W a LL z ~ a H Z LU Z zz Lu J < O LL W 0 W W LU 3:0 0 Q CO z > x O H U z O_ F- M a O 6 z_ D J_ m F- F- LU W F- F- CO IT W CO Q x a Go f V. % LU cn z O_ 0 z Z w J Co z m a o 2 a Y oa 0 cr U) LU d Q N c N (7 Y > Co Qf 0 m m (7 (7 z z w a x x 2 LU w 0 - MEN MEN 0 Z Y cr a 0 z D O cr 0 cr LU 0 z D x H LU H U) LU m 0 LU x H 0 z O J a cD Z CO M O x z M 0 v W CO a x a rn U) z D 0 z U) D O M: LU J m a J a U v N N Y cr O w U) a a 0 z Y a a 0 z D O cr 0 cr LU 0 z D 0 z a LU 0 LL cr D U) cD Z CO M O x F - z M 0 Go 14 LU CO Q x a 0 To: Greg Hall, Town of Vail From: Rick Kahn Wildlife Consultant Re: Wildlife Impacts to Vail Work Center Master Plan for Town of Vail (TOV) Colorado (Solar array and Public Works site expansion) October 2019 Rick Kahn- Qualifications- I have been a professional wildlife biologist for over 40 years. I have a B.S. degree in Wildlife Biology and a Masters in Wildlife Science. I spent 32 years with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDW) in many capacities including: District Wildlife Manager 10 years, Statewide Big Game manager 4 years, Wildlife Management Supervisor 15 years and Terrestrial Section Manager for 3 years. During my tenure with CDW I worked on many bighorn sheep projects including trap and transplant, disease monitoring and testing, development on statewide policies and presenting regulations and policies to the Wildlife Commission, Executive leadership and the Colorado legislature. I was a co-author on the Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan 2009-2019 and represented CDW on the Western Association of Wildlife Agencies Bighorn Sheep Working Group. After retirement from CDW I spent 7 years with the National Park Service as a system wide wildlife biologist and worked on bighorn and Dall sheep issues across the western United States and Alaska and represented NPS on the Bighorn Sheep Working Group. As both a CDW and NPS employee I was involved in numerous land use issues and either directly wrote comments or had employees under my direction write comments on impacts to wildlife from many entities including private developers. I am familiar with the various aspects of wildlife mitigation and have been involved in both management and research efforts to determine the effectiveness of various mitigation techniques. My Masters of Science work looked at the impacts of pinyon/juniper chaining on mule deer and small mammals. At the present time I am the owner and principal wildlife biologist for RHK Consulting LLC and formerly worked with the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society providing technical assistance. Executive Summary - The Town of Vail has submitted a request for a Permit to expand and modify their Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive in Vail. This report details the potential wildlife impacts of this expansion on the adjacent big game habitat and specific impacts to a group of bighorn sheep rams that have used the area primarily during winter and spring. The TOV project has the potential to impact a group of ram bighorn sheep that have used the site and adjacent areas of USFS land sporadically in the past decade. In 2019 a group of —15 sheep used the site from around March- May. Construction will result in approximately 1-1.25 acres of potential foraging area being eliminated and there is concern that construction impacts will be negative if conducted at times when sheep are in the area and constrained by snow that limits movements. Mitigations are recommended that restrict construction to certain times of the year, that require grass planting of key species to mitigate losses, that limit access to the area for recreation, that restrict the use of dogs and recommend further monitoring of bighorn sheep and other wildlife. Project Description- The Town of Vail (TOV) has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for demolition of an existing building, construction of a new building, the construction of a retaining wall and a rock fall berm, expanded storage space for vehicles and construction of a solar array at its existing work center at 1289 Elkhorn Drive in Vail, Colorado. The total expansion is approximately 59,000 square feet of space. There are other projects outlined in the Master Plan however this analysis only related to the specific projects mentioned above. All other developments, including working on the existing housing area should require additional analyses. The analysis will focus primarily on the impacts to a group of bighorn sheep rams that have used this general area including TOV lands and adjacent United States Forest Service lands as part of the their winter and spring habitat use areas. Techniques I reviewed the information sent to me by the TOV including the site plans, permitting request and other appropriate documents. I did a site visit on 30 September with Greg Hall which included looking at existing facilities, looking at proposed sites for development and meeting with various other staff and contractors. In addition, I have been retained by the TOV to provide comments and analysis on another development in the Booth Creek area to the east and during that investigation I spent over 40 hours researching and investigation impacts to this same herd of bighorn sheep on the Booth Creek area about 2-3 miles away. I also interviewed a number of Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff regarding this project including retired individuals with site specific knowledge of this herd and area. Wildlife Background Data- This evaluation will focus almost entirely on bighorn sheep in the vicinity of the Public Works buildings and adjacent lands with the following exception: This area is also used by mule deer and elk primarily as a migration corridor and for transitional range. Neither of these species has spent a significant amount of time on the adjacent areas for the past 5-10 years or longer. This is corroborated by former Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager Bill Andre and by sightings made by staff at the Work Center. The reason for this is not totally clear, however both mule deer and in particular elk populations have declined dramatically in this game management unit (GMU) over the past 10 years. In addition, it should be mentioned that the entire upper Eagle Valley has seen explosive growth and development over the past 40 years and a dramatic increase in the overall human footprint. This has undoubtedly had negative cumulative impacts on local big game populations. Mitigations recommended for bighorn sheep are also consistent and applicable for both mule deer and elk. If the present trend changes and either mule deer or elk establish either fawning/calving areas or use the area for winter use then the TOV should consider further analysis to better understand local impacts of the full development of the Master Plan. Bighorn Sheep Bighorn sheep use the local area and are part of a local herd designated by CPW as the Gore —Eagles Nest herd (S-2). This herd utilizes a wide area of summer range primarily in the Gore -Eagles Nest Wilderness north and east of Vail on Forest Service lands and winters almost exclusively along the north side of Interstate 70 from the Booth Creek area west to this site due north of the TOV Work Center. Colorado Parks and Wildlife have mapped bighorn sheep ranges including critical winter ranges in this area and the development area are within the mapped winter range. However, it should be noted that this designation was developed over 20 years ago and it is possible that winter range has changed in that time period. While the designations are still important, changes in land use in the general area may have resulted in a contraction of the overall winter ranges. Under ideal circumstances this information should be updated and the best information is obtained via the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) collars on an appropriate sample of bighorn sheep from the resident herd over a multi-year period in order to determine specific seasonal uses of habitat. Bighorn sheep in Colorado have undergone significant population declines since pre -settlement times. Though there was no specific evidence on how many bighorns were present in Colorado at settlement, there were anecdotal accounts which state they were common and widely distributed across the state (George 2009). There are estimates of at least 200,000 bighorn sheep in Colorado in the mid 1800's. At the present time the overall population is about 6,800 animals which is about 3-5% of the pre - settlement estimate. The statewide trend is slightly downward over the past 5 years. The present estimate of the S-2 sheep herd is — 50-65 animals which is down from an estimate of —100 animals in the mid 2000's. This is an important native herd with only one supplemental transplant of bighorns from the Tarryall herd in the late 1940's. From the mid 1980's through the mid 2000's this was one of the largest bighorn sheep herds in the northwest % of Colorado. It has traditionally provided a small number of rams for hunting opportunity and is one of the most important in the state for wildlife viewing given their wintering range adjacent to Interstate 70 and the high amount of winter traffic coming to the Vail Valley and areas to the west. Thus this is a herd of very high importance both locally and statewide. As mentioned earlier, this herd has declined in the mid 2000's anywhere from 35-50%. The reasons are not known, however it is thought that the severe winter conditions of 2007-2008 may have contributed to an all age die off and there has not been recovery in the ensuing decade. At the present time pneumonia related disease is the most critical factor impacting Colorado's bighorn sheep herds, however in certain situations human related impacts on the winter ranges, when sheep movements are constrained and forage is limited, is also a contributing factor to poor population performance. The area adjacent to the TOV site is US Forest Service land and is in not grazed by domestic livestock. It is used exclusively by bands of bighorn sheep rams. Ewes and Iambs have not been noted on the site for over 10 years and rarely if ever prior to that time. The ram band, which had a high count of 15 animals, was present in the winter and spring of 2019 from approximately March through late May. Since 2008 rams have been noted in the general area for at about 3-5 years or about 30-5-40% of the time. However, there has not been a standardized count in that specific area and these are just general observations, so in some years sheep may have used the area and were not noted and may have just used the area for a short period of time. This group of rams has used the south facing hillside just north of the Public Works facility and on occasion has been sighted in and around the TOV lands. Small groups of bighorns have been noted in the area just north of Interstate 70 to the west of the facility on occasions and there are observations of rams moving through the facility in an attempt to move further south towards the Interstate. It is speculated that the rams have been drawn towards the Interstate and the facility to get salt which is used on the Interstate and also stored at the facility. The area adjacent to the TOV site is typical mountain shrub community with native grasses, shrubs, including snowberry and serviceberry and scattered conifers and aspen. There is a small strip of disturbed land adjacent to the power line that separated TOV property from the adjacent USFS lands. Bighorns have been seen utilizing this area on a regular basis particularly around green up in the spring but it is speculative to make statements as to the critical nature of these areas for bighorn sheep in the area. This area has non-native grasses including wheat grass and smooth brome and these species are very attractive to bighorn sheep early in the spring as they tend to green up faster than native grasses and provide key nutrition in the post winter period. The area has only limited amount of bighorn sheep escape cover (steep rocky slopes, with greater than 10% aspect, that provide escape areas from primarily mountain lion predation). This is most likely the reason that the area is only utilized by rams and not ewes and Iambs. Rams are less likely to be victims of lion predation due to their larger body size and horns which can be used for defensive purposes. (George 2009, Schnoeneker 2005) There are two rocky outcrops in the immediate area, the one to the east is larger and provides more escape cover. There are more rocky ledges to the east towards Booth Creek which provide better escape cover and thus that is where the ewe/Iamb groups are found. Due to the sporadic nature of bighorn sheep sightings in this area over the past decade and the lack of any formal studies on this sheep herd in general in the past 25 years it is difficult to fully understand how the proposed developments will impact these specific animals or other groups if they chose to use this general area in the future. While there are certainly cumulative impacts to development and at some point development and habitat loss leads to negative population responses, this work site area has been intensively used for over 40 years. The area has lots of people and vehicle traffic and the specific ram band that used the area in 2019 appeared to be somewhat habituated to this level of disturbance. However, it is not clear what further increased levels would do to their use or what impacts disturbance might have on future groups of bighorns that may choose to use the habitat. Project Details and Mitigation The project areas that are covered by this paper include the following actions taken by the TOV: Instillation of a rock fall berm to be constructed in the area just south of the existing power line near the north end of the TOV property. 4 Instillation of a solar array below the berm extending along the north end of the property from the east side to the west. Construction of a new building and a lower retaining wall in the northwest area of the Public Works site, including demolition of the existing structure and a retaining wall built into the existing hill to stabilize the north side of the site. These actions are to be done in 1-4 years of permit approval. Rock Fall Berm- The rock fall berm is to be constructed on the north end of the TOV property just north of the work center complex. This will result in the removal of .16-.24 acres of existing habitat which has been used by bighorn sheep. As mentioned earlier, this area was used primarily in early spring as the site contained non-native grasses which greened up early and provided some early season foraging. This area has been adjacent to a significant amount of human activity for an extended period of time (>40 years). The proposed berm will have both positive and negative impacts on bighorn sheep. The negative impacts are the loss of a small amount of habitat that provides forage at a critical time. The potential positive impacts is that the berm may provide a barrier to bighorns moving towards 1-70 and may be helpful in minimizing both highway mortality and keeping the bighorns away from attractive nuisances in the work area such as salt storage areas. It is recommended that the berm be built in such a way as to allow bighorn sheep some potential footholds to scramble over the barrier in the event they need to get over. However, I do not recommend adding a specific area in the berm that could allow for easier bighorn sheep or other wildlife access such as a gap in the berm. The thought here is that wildlife and bighorns in particular do not really need to access the areas to the south for specific needs such as forage or for movement. If this is needed there are other areas to the west and east that could potentially allow wildlife access. The loss of these acres of foraging habitat could be mitigated in the following manner; the disturbed site immediately north of the berm should be seeded to a wildlife grass mixture which should include some cool season grasses which would green up early in the spring and provide some forage at that key time. If this area is on Forest Service land the TOV should work with FS to do suitable habitat enhancement in this area to provide better forage. This could include fertilization of the existing vegetation or interseeding with a wildlife friendly seed mixture which would benefit bighorn sheep and other ungulates. Solar array- The solar array has a larger footprint on the land than does the berm or new building as great as 4.5 acres if totally built out. Wildlife impacts of ground mounted solar arrays have not been extensively studies so there is little research available on specific impacts and none on bighorn sheep. Since the solar array is linear and extends along the entire edge of the property during construction it will have an impact on potentially a larger area. One idea for the TOV to consider is to roof mount as much as possible portions of the solar array on the new structure and other buildings which would minimize the overall footprint. If this is not practical, then TOV should try and enhance the areas around the solar array by planting a wildlife grass mixture so that the disturbed sites do not result in noxious weeds and also provide and area for bighorn sheep foraging and help to mitigate the loss of habitat. New building and lower retaining wall- It is not anticipated that construction of the new building will result in any long term impacts of bighorn sheep in the area. The lower retaining wall needed to stabilize the slope for the new ground level building will result in .84 acres of habitat lost. This is almost exclusively non-native grasses which bighorn do utilize particularly in early spring as they tend to green up faster than native vegetation. This loss could be mitigated by planting a wildlife friendly grass seed mixture with some brome grass in it along the disturbed site of the solar array and other adjacent TOV areas as mentioned above. Timing- The timing of the proposed construction for all three actions is critical. Every effort should be made to avoid major construction during times when the sheep are present. This has been from March — May during the past couple of years. TOV and CPW should monitor for sheep presence prior to and during construction phases and be prepared to either stop certain actions such as blasting or major heavy equipment work and modify other work so that bighorn sheep are not forced to leave the area. This is particularly critical during areas of heavy snow depth when bighorn movements are constrained. Construction during summer and fall time periods should be optimum based on recent bighorn observations. Recreation- The TOV should make every effort to minimize recreation and access to adjacent FS lands from TOV property during winter and early spring time periods when bighorns are present and when snow has constrained movements. This should include not only the public (no plan for new public access) and to employees. Dog use should be prohibited at any time when bighorns are present and as a general rule during winter and early spring. Forest Service Land- The TOV is involved with the FS to look at habitat improvement for bighorn sheep in the Booth Creek area. While this site is of lower overall importance if there are resources available that do not take away from the Booth Creek site then the TOV should work with FS to improve the adjacent areas for bighorns. This could include; fertilization of the grass and shrub communities, modification of any decadent stands of mountain shrubs, use of controlled burns, and seeding with grass mixtures along the property lines if any areas are disturbed. Overall this is the most beneficial for bighorns and will have the most positive impacts as these areas are closest to the escape cover and will keep sheep away from the Work Site and interstate. Monitoring As mentioned earlier, these recommendations are based on the existing information on bighorn sheep observations and not on specific wildlife inventory or research. At a minimum it is recommended that the TOV use a systematic monitoring system to acquire information on bighorn sheep use in the area adjacent to the Work Site from fall of 2019 and on as the project moves forward. This should be coordinated with CPW. This could be TOV employees getting some very basic training, developing some standardized data collection forms and glassing the areas in a systematic fashion a couple of times/week. This would allow the TOV and CPW to get a better idea of when the bighorns show up, how long they stay and ideally what the conditions are (snow depth, green up etc) that might be tied to their stay on this general site. While rudimentary, this information is extremely valuable if collected over time and provides insight into both potential disturbance and impacts and value of mitigation. A more robust sampling system could be developed if the TOV was interested. Comparison with other projects Given the timing of this project and the concern expressed locally by other developments that could potentially impact this bighorn sheep herd I have added some differences between this project and the project in the Booth Creek area proposed by Triumph Development. The bighorn sheep impacted by TOV project to date are only males. Male are typically less impacted by both predation and by human disturbance. They also tend to move around more and have less site fidelity than do ewe/Iamb groups. The overall footprint of the project that this paper has analyzed is less than the overall impact at Booth Creek. As mentioned earlier, further analyses are needed to determine impacts of other phases of the Master Plan build out. The adjacent winter range is of lower quality due to the lack of escape cover when compared to the Booth Creek area. This area has less overall use, not every year, and has been more transient in nature. The Booth Creek area is the core winter range and is occupied annually. COLORADO v Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Area 8 - NW Region 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2969 1 F 970.947.2936 Town of Vail December 2, 2019 Erik Gates, Town Planner Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO. 81657 Dear Mr. Gates, Thank you forth e opportunity to provide comments on PEC19-0041 and PEC19-0039 regarding the Town of Vail (TOV) Public Works facility master plan. Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) has a statutory responsibility to manage all wildlife species in Colorado. This responsibility is embraced and fulfilled through CPW's mission to perpetuate the wildlife resources of Colorado and to provide sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire future generations. One way we fulfill this mission is to respond to requests for comments on wildlife impact reports, land use actions, and consultations through public-private partnerships. CPW has reviewed the applicant's materials to include staff memos, master plan, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These comments pertain only to the proposed elements of the master plan addressed in the Town of Vail's EIR and current application. Furthermore, our comments do not yet address anticipated impacts related to any residential buildout of the Public Works facility/Buzzard Park. We offer the following comments for your consideration: General Comments: • The Public Works facility and subsequent site for any additional buildout of any portion of the Public Works' Master Plan exists within or immediately adjacent to a variety of sensitive wildlife habitats. Of highest concern are impacts to the S-2 (Gore -Eagle's Nest) bighorn sheep herd. Specifically, the project site lies within or in close proximity to bighorn sheep winter range, bighorn sheep severe winter range and bighorn sheep winter concentration range. Additionally, the Public Works area overlaps with elk winter range and mule deer summer range. This particular area, running from just west of the Public Works facility and extending east to the Booth Creek Cliffs is the only remaining bighorn sheep winter range in the Gore Valley. • The S-2 sheep herd is an endemic/native herd, which reached historical numbers of roughly 100 individuals. As of CPW's 2019 census surveys, the herd likely numbers in the low 50s. Disease outbreak, habitat loss and human impacts continue to be the largest threats to the existence of the S-2 herd. • The Public Works site has seen a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance and impacts over the last several decades. Habituation and tolerance of human activity by this sheep herd is likely in response to the limited available winter range. While this survival response may allow for continued use of impacted habitat, there are also negative repercussions to habituation. Long - term effects of habituation can be total abandonment of migration routes and continuous use 1.c Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair ra 1876 and subsequent degradation of critical winter habitat. Consequences from these negative effects can be a decline in the overall population of the herd. Furthermore, it is unclear what effect cumulative impacts from the proposed Public Works facility expansion, adjacent developments in the Booth Creek Cliffs area, and increasing human recreation will have on the S-2 herd. • Of particular note, the sheep that winter on and adjacent to the Public Works facility are almost exclusively rams. All individuals recorded during 2019 winter census surveys in the vicinity of the Public Works facility were rams. • The habitat surrounding the public works site has historically been used by the ram band of the S-2 herd. While rams are typically more tolerant of disturbance, more pioneering in nature, and impacts to the male portion of a population are typically less detrimental than impacts to the female portion, there is such little available winter range, such that, all bighorn sheep winter range in the Gore Valley carries a significant value for the S-2 herd. • The Town of Vail in partnership with CPW is in the process of implementing habitat treatments in targeted areas of the S-2 herd's winter range. One goal of these treatments is to restore and enhance habitat connectivity from the east to the west. The western portion of the winter range is characterized by less escape terrain and a higher density of fuels relative to the Booth Creek Cliffs area. Converting habitat or improving access to habitat that was previously unusable or undesirable may lead to eventual use of areas closer to the Public Works facility by the ewes and Iambs within the herd. While this is speculative, it should be noted because continued buildout of parcels to the east and west and increases in disturbance of sheep winter range may result in behavioral changes and habitat selection that is unanticipated and is inconsistent with the objectives of TOV habitat treatments. Mitigation and Recommendations: • North Shoring Wall: The applicant is pursuing a variance for construction of a maximum of 22' retaining wall, along with the expansion of the northern area of the Public Works site for future storage use. According to the applicant's narrative, this expansion and wall construction will result in the direct loss of .84 acres of bighorn sheep winter range. It is recommended --in conjunction with TOV efforts to the east --areas of winter range on TOV property and adjacent to the Public Works site be identified for enhancement. CPW concurs with suggestions within the EIR for seeding with a wildlife friendly seed mixture on the hillside north of the Public Works site. Additionally, a regime of fertilizing that approximates 100lbs of Nitrogen per acre at a ratio of 1.5 to 2.0 acres fertilized for every acre of disturbance is recommended. Fertilization should occur every 3 years. CPW further recommends that the timing for wall construction and earthmoving be restricted to when bighorn sheep are not occupying their winter range. This construction window is typically during summer and early fall months from roughly June to November. Rockfall Berm/Retaining Wall: The retaining wall, which seemingly ties into the northwest shoring wall, for which the variance is being requested, and is independently addressed in the EIR, will result in the direct loss of .16-.24 acres of bighorn sheep winter range. Mitigation measures pertaining to the northwestern expansion and wall construction also apply to any habitat loss incurred by the remainder of the northern wall. Timing of construction remains the same as previously stated. Demolition of existing infrastructure and construction internal to the existing Public Works facility footprint: It is not anticipated that the demolition of existing structures or the 1.c Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair ra 1876 construction of the new streets building will result in any direct loss of habitat. However, given the increase in human activity and auditory disturbance associated with new construction or demolition, it is recommended that the construction time window is adhered to. • Solar Panel Array: While the applicant's narrative and submission materials do not address the proposed solar array construction, the EIR does. As noted and assessed in the EIR, the solar array construction will result in the direct loss of approximately 4.5 acres of bighorn sheep winter range. The EIR correctly notes that there is little research to show impacts of solar panel arrays on wildlife species, in particular, bighorn sheep. Additionally, without sufficient research it is difficult to know what long-term impacts, beyond direct loss of habitat, this solar array will have on wildlife. As such, CPW recommends that every effort be made to minimize the footprint of solar construction on sheep winter range. Rooftop solar or covered parking solar are potentially good options to utilize previously developed areas. The nearby Ford Park parking areas might present a good opportunity for this. Additionally, CPW concurs with the EIR recommendations for enhancing foraging areas around any solar arrays on winter range. Previously discussed seeding and fertilizing can also apply to any lands impacted by this buildout. Again, the aforementioned construction time windows should be strongly considered. • Restrictions on Access/Recreation: CPW concurs with the EIR's recommendation of restricting human access to surrounding sheep winter range and restricting uses that may radiate onto federal lands. Prohibition of dogs on this parcel will also help to minimize stressors to the herd. • Collaboration: CPW further emphasizes the need for continued work with TOV, USFS and other relevant stakeholders to pursue long-term projects for the benefit and recovery of the S-2 sheep herd. This includes collaborative projects with the USFS and TOV for vegetation treatments, prescribed fire and seasonal closures. Mitigation requires continued maintenance, long-term commitment, and even then, there is no guarantee that impacts will be offset or negated. This being said, the mitigation efforts for impacts incurred by the actions specific to this application should be consistent and work in harmony with mitigation efforts to the east. Additionally, if faced with monetary or logistical constraints, mitigation work involving the Booth Heights development should not be foregone for mitigation work involving the Public Works site. That is to say, the area currently used by ewes and Iambs should be prioritized. However, this is subject to change as environmental conditions will change, and subsequent mitigation efforts should reflect this. Closing Comments: Analyzing a multitude of impacts with a more holistic approach is becoming increasingly necessary for proposed developments in the Gore Valley. Locally, developable land is limited and a variety of wildlife species are imperiled. Therefore, anticipated impacts from this proposal should be viewed comprehensively with other factors that will influence the same species and herds. Additionally, future phases of the Public Works Master Plan may generate significantly greater impacts than discussed herein. p4' c0� Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair ra 1876 Sincerely, Matt Yamashita, Area Wildlife Manager cc: Devin Duval, District Wildlife Manager File pF _ COLO Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * 1876 VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION August 31, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: TOV Public Works facility/Retaining Wall variance request Dear Chairman and Commission Members: We write to urge that the PEC deny the Town's request for a variance to build a new retaining wall at the Public Works facility (Phase I of the larger plans to redevelop the entire facility) until the Town submits an Environmental Impact Study with appropriate mitigation measures for the potential harm to the bighorn sheep rams which winter in the area adjacent to and above the facility. As the Commission is aware from proceedings before it over the past several months, that area is the prime winter foraging range for the rams of the East Vail bighorn sheep herd (rams forage separately from ewes and lambs except for the spring mating season), and wildlife experts hired by the Town, as well as CPW, have all recommended that there be a comprehensive plan for sheep survival that includes the Public Works facility redevelopment. And yet, the Town of Vail has stated that it only intends to provide an EIS if it elects to build a solar farm on the hillside above the project even though its application for the retaining wall variance concedes that 36,500 sq. ft. of winter range will be lost due to the fact that the wall will serve to expand the site. Strangely, the application states the retaining wall "is necessary ... in order to reduce the impact on bighorn sheep winter range. " Not explained is how taking away winter range will reduce the impact on the rams. And the variance request ignores the impact on the rams from the construction of that wall (i.e., the excavation and heavy equipment that will be necessary to build the wall), especially if that construction were to take place during the winter period as is the present plan. Beyond that, the rest of the development, which is a massive project, has the potential for even greater disruption of the sheep, even without a solar farm. The Town is not exempt from Code requirements, and those requirements cannot be avoided by piecemeal requests that fail to acknowledge the scope and impact of the entire project or the harm to wildlife. If this were a private developer, the absence of an EIS would be a huge red flag. For those reasons, the VHA urges that the variance request and any other request concerning the Public Works facility should be denied until an EIS and appropriate mitigation plan has been submitted. Providing an EIS should not take inordinate time since much of the work would seem to have already been done in connection with the Booth Heights development. But even if it does, that should be beside the point. The Town has known for some time that the East Vail bighorn sheep herd is in a precarious position and that the bighorn sheep rams winter in the area adjacent and above this facility. There is no excuse for ignoring those facts and getting this right is much more important than rushing headlong into building the retaining wall. The VHA would also urge that in developing a mitigation plan for the bighorn sheep, the Town of Vail should heed the advice of the wildlife experts that it is of "high importance" to do at least the following: 1. Schedule all construction to avoid the most obtrusive disturbance (site clearing, excavation, use of heavy equipment, installation of utilities) from November 15 — June 1. In terms of Phase I and the retaining wall, that would mean that no construction should start before June 1, 2020. 2. Reduce construction related disturbance by providing construction screening around the entire project. Permanent landscape screening should be required as part of the overall project improvements, and the entire project should be enclosed with permanent eight - foot tall cyclone fencing that will prohibit access to bighorn sheep foraging areas. 3. Bighorn sheep foraging areas should be enhanced which should include removal of any jackstraw logs, trimming of shrubs and undergrowth and thinning of woodland areas to provide more open space for sheep foraging. (Sheep will not forage in forested terrain because of predator danger). A controlled burn would be most effective at clearing and rejuvenating but may not be acceptable to the surrounding community. If a controlled burn is not possible, logs and trimmings should be stacked and burned in place, and the open space foraging areas should then be fertilized. Fertilization should be repeated three years later and burned and/or fertilized areas should be periodically treated with herbicide to prevent native vegetation from being replaced by cheat grass or other noxious weeds. 4. There should be permanent closures of foraging areas with appropriate monitoring and enforcement. There should be zero tolerance for violations by construction personnel, Town employees and their family members and/or guests with immediate termination for any violations. Additionally, there should be no dogs allowed at the Public Works facility, by any construction personnel, workers or residents and family members and/or guests. 5. There should be a GPS collar movement study of the entire herd to provide base -line data about the sheep's movement and use of the area to better inform future mitigation efforts. It should involve at least 10 to 12 sheep, including at least 3 rams. The movements of the sheep should be tracked over at least a two-year period, and the resulting data should be periodically posted to a publically accessible website. Very truly your J i Lamon ecutive Director Vail Homeowners Association Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vha(i�vail.net Web Site: www.vaithomeowners.com VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION November 24, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: TOV Public Works facility/Variance and Conditional Use requests Dear Chairman and Commission Members: We write to urge the Commission to postpone consideration of or to deny the requests for a variance and conditional use permit for the TOV Public Works facility. We do so for several reasons: 1. When this matter was last before the Commission, the public was promised a full EIS about the impact of the development on the East Vail bighorn sheep rams. As you know, the property immediately adjacent to the site on the north and east sides is the winter range of the rams, and the health and ultimate survival of the East Vail herd is directly dependent on the health and wellbeing of those rams. It is without question that this development will negatively impact the rams, resulting in the direct loss of up to 6 acres of habitat and the indirect loss of much more from the "zone of impact" due to construction and the eventual increased activity at the site. Yet, no EIS has been submitted. The requests are accompanied by a "report" which was written to make it look like an EIS, but that report in essence states only that little is known about the rams because they have not been studied (even though the TOV has been planning this project for years), and it only lists some things the TOV "could" do. A proper and full EIS would identify all negative impacts on the sheep and propose specific measures that should be taken to eliminate or mitigate them. To make matters worse, Town staff did not recommend a single step to protect the sheep. 2. The applications and supporting documents were only made public on Friday afternoon, leaving no time for the public to learn of them, much less study them. And these applications are being presented on a holiday week when many members of the public are either absent or otherwise occupied even though the health and wellbeing of the East Vail herd is a matter of extreme concern to a large segment of the Vail community. 3. There is no mitigation plan to protect the sheep. There is no question that the proposed expansion, even just that proposed in Phase I is going to result in significant habitat loss for the bighorn sheep, yet the only thing stated by Public Works is that the mitigation work at the Booth Heights site (yet to be determined) will "offset" the losses at the Public Works site. That statement reveals a fundamental failure to understand the sheep. The Public Works area is ram habitat; it is the ewes and lambs that use the Booth Heights area. Rams stay apart from the ewes for all of the winter. They only come together during spring mating. Therefore, whatever is ultimately done at the Booth Heights area will have no benefit for the rams and will not offset the loss of habitat due to the Public Works expansion. That is the reason why the applications do not contain any mitigation for the loss of ram habitat. 4. Currently, the PEC only has 6 members, and the vacancy will not be filled for a couple of weeks. Until then, there will not be a full complement to consider the applications. The Town may argue that a full and proper EIS can be postponed until later stages of the project are brought forth, but the "report" goes into other aspects of the project --a rock fall berm and solar farm—which suggests that those items will be coming soon. More importantly, a "head -in - sand" approach to the total impact of this project is a recipe for disaster. The protection of the ram population is critical. There is no need to rush this through since construction cannot start until the spring at the earliest. The Vail Homeowners Association, therefore, urges that these applications be either postponed or denied and that no further consideration be entertained until a full and proper EIS has been submitted. Very truly yours, Jim Lamont, Executive Director Vail Homeowners Association Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vha(&vail.net Web Site: www.vailhomeowners.com. VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION November 25, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: TOV Public Works facility/Variance and Conditional Use requests Dear Chairman and Commission Members: We apologize for having to send a second letter about the Public Works requests for a variance and conditional use permit, but having only seen these proposals Friday afternoon, we are scrambling to analyze and respond to them. As we have gotten into analyzing the applications, we found that the applications raise a host of questions that must be answered before appropriate conditions of approval and necessary mitigation steps can be formulated. Those questions are 1. How many more employees will be working at the site when it is completed? We know the facility is being massively expanded—the size of the maintenance building will increase by about 300 percent --but there is no disclosure of the number of additional employees that will be working there and no evaluation of what that means in terms of human activity that might impact the sheep. 2. What other Town functions will be placed at the site? The application refers to other operations being shifted to the site, but it doesn't disclose what those are. During the discussions of the new Civic Area plans, it was stated that certain Fire and Police functions would be moved to the Public Works site, maybe even other activities. What will those operations be, how many additional people on the site will that entail and what will that mean in terms of impacts on the sheep? 3. How many new additional housing units are to be built at the site? Initial plans called for 100+ units. Is that still the plan? How many new residents will be living there and what will that mean in terms of impacts on the sheep? 4. How much additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic will be generated by all of the above? And what will be the impact of that additional traffic on the sheep? To date, no traffic or internal circulation studies have been submitted. 5. How much additional sheep habitat will be lost due to the construction of the rock fall barrier? There is a planned massive rock fall barrier uphill of the retaining wall along the entire north side of the project. To build that barrier, a huge cut is planned uphill from the barrier. That is going to result in more habitat loss. What is the amount of that loss? 6. How long is construction of the entire project going to take? In other words, over how many winters will the sheep be disturbed by construction activity? What will be done to protect the sheep from that activity? 7. What will be the "zone of impact" from both construction activity and later use activity at the site? The biologist reports puts the direct loss of habitat at upwards of 6 acres, but how much additional indirect loss of habitat is going to happen due to human activity at the site? 8. What is the plan for the solar farm? It was part of the original plans and is discussed in the biologist's report, but it is not shown on the plans. Where will it be located and how much additional habitat will be lost? 9. What will be the total impact of the full project on the sheep? So far, that has not been quantified, but it is clear that there will be an impact, causing the "double squeeze" scenario (from the west by the Public Works project and from the east by Booth Heights) that the CPW said could result in the extermination of the sheep. 10. Will any specific mitigation steps be taken to protect the sheep? So far, not a single item has been proposed to be required. 11. Does the increased traffic from vehicles entering or exiting the site, both during construction and later from the people living and working there, create a public safety issue at the adjoining Frontage Road intersection? The road to/from the site is already somewhat of a blind corner due to the position of sloping berms supporting the interstate. Do there need to be turn lanes, merge lanes and/or a traffic light or traffic circle at that intersection? So far, no traffic analyses of the intersection have been submitted. 12. What is the vehicle and pedestrian traffic capacity of the I-70 underpass? That underpass is the narrowest of all underpasses in Vail; it seems that it is already insufficient for the vehicle and pedestrian traffic that presently use it. Will the underpass have to be widened or otherwise improved? 13. Will there need to be bus stops for the expanded facility? It would seem that will be necessary, so how will they be accommodated at the intersection? What needs to be done to ensure pedestrian safety in crossing Frontage Road? Until these questions, and probably others that we haven't yet thought of, have been answered, appropriate conditions of approval and necessary mitigation steps cannot be formalized. These questions also underscore why a full and proper EIS, as well as other studies, are needed and why these projects are not yet ready for consideration by the PEC. These plans are presented as "Phase L" Obviously, there are other phases to this overall project, and they entail potentially more impacts on the bighorn sheep. As we stated yesterday, the Town may argue that a full and proper EIS can be postponed until later stages of the project are brought forth and that, in the interim, these parts of the project can and should be approved. But the Public Works Department shouldn't be allowed to piecemeal the project and ignore the scope and impact of the entire project or its harm to wildlife. The protection of the ram population is too critical. If this were a private developer, the absence of an EIS would be a huge red flag. These questions should be addressed now, not later, and a full and proper EIS, as well as other necessary studies, should be required. Until these questions have been answered and a full and proper EIS and the other studies have been presented, the Vail Homeowners Association urges that consideration of these applications be postponed. Looking ahead, even though the Town staff has not recommended any protective measures for the sheep, as we urged back in August, at a bare minimum, the following should be required to protect the sheep: 1. All construction should be scheduled to avoid the most obtrusive disturbance (site clearing, excavation, use of heavy equipment, installation of utilities) from November 15 — June 1. In terms of the retaining wall and the first building, that would mean that no construction should start before June 1, 2020. 2. Appropriate and effective fencing and screening should be required. During construction, impacts from construction related disturbance should be reduced by providing construction screening around the entire project. Permanent landscape screening on the north and east sides should be required (which should be planted as soon as possible), and the entire project should be enclosed with permanent eight foot tall cyclone fencing that will prohibit access to bighorn sheep foraging areas. 3. Bighorn sheep foraging areas should be enhanced which should include removal of any jackstraw logs, trimming of shrubs and undergrowth and thinning of woodland areas to provide more open space for sheep foraging. A controlled burn would be most effective at clearing and rejuvenating, but if a controlled burn is not possible, logs and trimmings should be stacked and burned in place, and the open space foraging areas should then be fertilized. Fertilization should be repeated three years later and burned and/or fertilized areas should be periodically treated with herbicide to prevent native vegetation from being replaced by cheat grass or other noxious weeds. 4. There should be permanent closures of foraging areas with appropriate monitoring and enforcement. There should be zero tolerance for violations by construction personnel, Town employees and their family members and/or guests with immediate termination for any violations. Additionally, there should be no dogs allowed at the Public Works facility by any construction personnel, workers or residents and family members and/or guests. 5. There should be a GPS collar movement study of the entire herd to provide base -line data about the sheep's movement and use of the area to better inform future mitigation efforts. It should involve at least 10 to 12 sheep, including at least 3 rams. The movements of the sheep should be tracked over at least a two-year period, and the resulting data should be periodically posted to a publicly accessible website. Even more steps may be necessary once we have the benefit of a full and proper EIS and the other necessary studies. Very truly yours, Ji amont, Executive Director Vail Homeowners Association Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vha(a)vail.net Web Site: www.vailhomeowners.com. From: Susan Bristol To: PEC; IettersCubvaildailv.com Subject: URGENT - RE: November 25 PEC meeting - Public Works Proposal Date: Saturday, November 23, 2019 11:40:08 AM TO: PEC@VAILGOV.COM, LETTERSaVAILDAILY.COM LETTER TO VAIL PEC — 22 NOVEMBER 2019 RE: NOVEMBER 25TH 2019 MEETING To the six remaining members of the PEC, Regarding the Expansion of Public Works Facility on the agenda for Nov. 25th 2019, I would strongly suggest that it would be advisable to postpone/table the proposal until the full Board of seven members is again assembled. In light of a renewed community interest in full transparency and legitimacy of Board decisions and the fact that no construction could begin until Spring 2020, why not wait until a meeting when the full Board is voting? Furthermore, the larger scope of the project is not addressed in the proposal. With 100 housing units, a rock -fall berm, a solar farm and multiple buildings in the future Town of Vail Public Works plan, a formal EIS assessment should be required by the Town itself. The simplified opinion of one biologist does not address The Elephant In The Room, the mitigation required to preserve the adjoining winter forage land of our herd of Bighorn Sheep Rams. Why does this proposal, only announced on a Friday prior to the PEC meeting on Monday and without a full Board in place smack of intentional concealment from the public and the community? Respectfully, Susan Bristol — 1652 Matterhorn Circle, Vail — susan.bristol@gmail.com From: Sally Rose To: PEC Subject: November 25, 2019 Meeting Date: Saturday, November 23, 2019 5:10:29 PM Dear PEC Members, My husband, Byron Rose, and I will be out of town on November 25, 2019. Were we in town, we would attend this meeting. Please imagine that two more people are in attendance. I am especially concerned about this meeting in light of the fact that there seem to be, in the wings, plans for housing, a solar farm and perhaps other structures. I don't think planning for extensive construction in the same area should be done piecemeal. We would like to have a fuller picture of what the future may hold. Respectfully, Sally Rose From: Lynn Gottlieb To: PEC Subject: Review of the Town Public Works Facility Date: Sunday, November 24, 2019 12:22:38 PM Dear Members of the PEC Today one of the agenda items to be considered is a request from the Town Public Works Facility. The town, the PEC, the citizens have been through a months long divisive process over the Booth Heights proposal which is still not resolved. How the Bighorn herd is going to be preserved is still to be studied and decided. No one knows what amount of land is needed for their habitat. Development of the Vail Public Works site is part of all these decisions. Given the above considerations I hope the PEC will table this issue until the new member is seated. It is vitally important at this juncture that the process be transparent, well studied and all parties needs be considered A comprehensive solution is better than a piecemeal one but takes and deserves time. Please table this issue!! Sincerely, Lynn C Gottlieb Sent from my iPhone From: Susan Bristol To: PEC Subject: Apology Date: Monday, November 25, 2019 4:49:26 PM 25 November 2019 To Members of PEC Board, (bec e,vailgov.com I would like to apologize for the somewhat strident letter I sent to the Board in response to a public "call to arms" Friday regarding a Town of Vail development at the Public Works center. After attendance at every long meeting (seven or so) regarding Bighorn Heights, I obviously erroneously concluded that another development proposal akin to that process was afoot. After the meeting today I spoke with Brian and Ludwig and learned that the Master Plan for Public Works had been addressed six or so months ago. I was unaware of that proposal or even the Master Plan discussion involving housing, solar bank and other habitat -changing additions to the site. By habitat -changing, I mean effects on the homeland of Vail's Bighorn Sheep, an iconic element in our environment since before Vail became Vail in the eyes of many citizens. One point that I made in my letter -- that the public perception of the Planning and Environmental Commission has been eroded through the Booth Heights process, is unfortunate. In the case of the Booth Heights process, it appeared that the developer had carte blanche to set parameters, most likely in conjunction with Vail Resorts, even given the confidential agreements between the two. I grant that the Booth Heights process was a difficult thing for the Commission to handle gracefully. We the community trust our Council, PEC and DRB, among others, to represent our best and highest goals for the Town and the community. And it appeared that Vail Resorts had the greatest gain, along with the developer, without having to extend themselves to consider community concerns and proposed alternatives without the backing of the PEC. This may be erroneous, however a large segment of the community seemed to perceive this to be the case. In the meeting today, regarding a piece of land owned by the Town of Vail, the process included an across -the -Board concern for our environment. All Board Members expressed their concerns that the process include EIR and/or EIS embracing the long-term Master Plan for the land. Members also indicated that the Town Council should be responsible for changing the code to include those environmental considerations. This constructive long-term vision is encouraging. A resident since 1970, I think it vital that our commissions and boards are clearly perceived to represent our best and highest goals in place since the `70s. I am embarrassed that my letter sent in haste on November 23 might have appeared to question that the PEC might be missing those concerns. I respect the time and study board members give to the community through an entire year. I simply urge that an effort be made to keep the community appraised of environmental issues before us, perhaps with large articles in the Vail Daily. Simplistic and theoretically unnecessary perhaps, but a community outreach that might yield positive results. Again, I apologize for my letter that might have been seen as casting aspersions on the process of the PEC! We are all members of the Vail family in the end, embraced by a wonderful valley. Respectfully, Susan Bristol — 1652 Matterhorn Circle, Vail CO — susan.bristol@gmail.com From: Blondie Vucich To: PEC Subject: Public Works Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:24:18 PM Dear Commissioners, As you may already know, a Bighorn ram was struck by a truck this morning on I-70 and killed. Last year we heard from wildlife biologist, Rick Thompson who noted no sheep have gone onto 1- 70. And he also stated that the Bighorn herd never ventured on to the parcel slated for development. We now see them there almost daily. This is what piece meal study accomplishes .... nothing. The entire corridor from Spraddle Creek east through Booth Heights should be subject to an Environmental Impact Study. This area is in flux and undergoing massive changes and the master plan is outdated and void of an EIS. Booth Heights continues to tear apart this community and today's tragedy has added to the angst. Please, let's try to get this next expansion correct. Do the right thing and insist upon an EIS so informed planning and decisions can be made. This is your second chance. Respectfully, Blondie Vucich Sent from my iPad November30, 2019 To: PEC Members, Vail Town Council, Town Manager Scott Robson, Public Works Director Greg Hall, Kristen Bertuglia, Suzanne Silverthorn Re: PEC Meeting Dec. 9t", Expansion of Public Works Yard Neighbors, ladies & gentlemen: I am wrestling with the demands of the Town Mission Statement, as you must be, to "grow a vibrant, diverse economy and community and to preserve the natural environment" relative to the decisions Dec. 9th on the expansion of the Town Yards on Elkhorn Drive. Having learned late this summer of a 20 year plan calling for facilities expansion, a retaining wall, and rockfall barrier, as well as future sizable solar development, and workforce housing construction for up to 115 units, I twice expressed my fears to Council for increased harmful impacts on our beleaguered Bighorn herd and lack of public scrutiny for this massive plan. Specifically I cautioned Council against implementing such efforts concurrently with the Booth Heights construction, as this would result in a putting a pincer on the remaining Bighorn winter habitat, Booth Heights squeezing the ewes & Iambs at the east end, Yards expansion crowding the rams at the west end. I asked the plans not be implemented before an E.I.S. could be done studying likely impacts of both major developments in critical sheep habitat. Director Hall spoke to me following my 2nd appearance, offering a site tour to view the terrain to be affected and hear how the plan would be implemented. I was happy to accept this offer on Aug.23rd. As a Vail resident I am aware our growing community needs increased capacity for bus transportation and snow removal operations in order to continue to thrive. I was also aware of the Town's commitment to conversion to more ecologically -friendly electric buses, and public transportation in general. Director Hall showed me the current bus garage and limited capacity for charging stations. He explained the 24/7 nature of many of the operations to maintain roads in winter & keep the buses running, especially at peak hours of usage. It was easy to grasp the need for a larger barn facility. Outside the garage/barn, he showed me the limited storage available currently for materials applied to roads, etc., as well as summer composting, and all else from other TOV departments with no storage facility. The planned solution was pushing the existing retaining walls farther back into the already disturbed, in some locations, unstable hillside, thereby gaining more surface yardage for various outdoor storage purposes. But this would call for taller walls on the south -facing side, less so on the uphill side. Past debris flows and rockfall threat also could be mitigated by building a rockfall barrier at the top of the disturbed slope. Dec. 3rd this was proposed to be sited along a depression from an old homestead road, and would also have protective value for other buildings at the east end as existing administration & housing. Director Hall said he was indeed already talking with wildlife officials at CPW, might be contracting for an E.I.R., but hoped to avoid the delay required by an EIS. Indeed he hoped to get construction of the retaining wall, if approved, done before the rams returned this fall (2019). We later learned a Town- ordered EIR prevented such construction's approval till possibly Dec .9t". The Rick Kahn -authored EIR specified no such heavy construction till spring when the rams return uphill. There are now also other changes making the overall plan more sensitive to the landscape & changing the order of implementation of some components according to testimony at the Dec. 3rd PEC meeting. Among these, I was happy to see, is a commitment at least for the present, to roof -top solar rather than an array of hillside panels. Summary and my recommendation to PEC members: Balancing TOV & Public Works needs with Bighorn habits & impacts on these, I believe the department should be approved to initiate components of the plan within the flat confines of the historic yards, including initiating construction of the retaining wall if--- provisions of the Kahn EIR are fulfilled, including but not limited to those for timing of such activity so as to cause the least possible disturbance to any sheep which might be present, and only following scrupulous adoption of all measures for mitigation to their habitat agreed upon by wildlife officials including Mr. Kahn & CPW. I reserve judgment on timing of construction of any protective barrier until I know more about it, particularly impacts on the Bighorns foreseen by wildlife officials as well as consideration by PEC members whose comments prove often germane. All other plan components other than roof -top solar should await a comprehensive EIS. We already see adverse impacts on the public and the Bighorns of putting development ahead of mitigation. The Bighorn herd's rut currently underway in Booth Creek has been displaced to the Frontage Road and lowest slopes of the NAP requiring daily law enforcement monitoring to keep animals and humans separate and safe. Note, Dec.2nd: A ram killed this morning on 170 is the inevitable outcome of the displaced Bighorn mating activity. We are fortunate it was only one, and that it was struck not by a passenger vehicle but a truck. Anne Esson City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: November 25, 2019 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC results 112519.pdf November 25, 2019 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl November 25, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Rollie Kjesbo, John -Ryan Lockman, Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette and Karen Perez Absent: Pam Hopkins Main Agenda 2.1. This appeal has been vacated and will no longer be heard. An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of an interpretation by the Administrator of the Community Development Department concerning Section 12-6D-8: Density Control, Vail Town Code, regarding potential redevelopment of the property located at 2417 Chamonix Lane/Lot 20, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in regards thereto. (TC19-0028) Applicant: John R. Bergey, represented by Wear Travers Perkins, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.2. A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, 75 min. 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, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Erik Gates Planner Gates introduced the project and brought the commission up to speed on its status. He stated his intent to speak about both this item and PEC19-0039 as the two applications are directly related. He explained to the commission what changes to the application had been made since the last time this project was heard. Gates referred to the comments that have been received pertaining to this application. Kurz -Please explain the difference between an E I S and an E I R? W hat are the impacts. Gates- E IS is more rigorous than an E I R an takes a longer time to complete. An EIS requires an exploration of development alternatives and their possible impacts. This generally takes 1-2 years to complete. Gillette -W hat does the Town Code ask for? Gennett- An E I R Lockman -How are the two applications related? Gates -The CUP is for the expansion of the Streets building and the retaining wall at the Public Works site. The variance is to allow a height in excess of 6' for the retaining wall. Greg Hall -Discussed the changes that have occurred to the plan. Spoke to the review by CPW and the delay in receiving that. He stated his intent to request tabling. Discussed the rock fall berm and the scope of Phase 1 including the location of solar on the building. The style of the rock fall berm was presented. Hall discussed how the revisions are more sensitive to the site and result in less disturbance. Gillette -How will the construction occur? Hall -The relocation allows the Streets building to move forward without the wall. Building construction would start in April. The wall and berm construction would occur within the June to October window. Chris Juergens, Architect -Discussed building changes and the flexibility it allows. Elevations of the proposed building were shown. Perez- What is the extent of the wall. What is its distance from the buildings? Chris -it ranges from 80 to over 120 feet. Probably 150' from the existing housing. Gillette -Questions from Jim Lamont should be discussed. Gillette asked about employee staffing levels. Hall -Staffing is not based on the building but on levels of service. No new employees contemplated at this time. Gillette -Traffic levels? Hall -No change to traffic with Phase 1. Discussed traffic study and the master plan. Gillette -Scheduling should be included in the memo for the next meeting. Hall showed photos of the site and where the berm and wall would be located. Discussed two dates for open houses for the public. The Commission discussed the possibility of a site visit at the next meeting. Gillette -W hat is the lost habitat? Hall- 0.8 acres from the wall. The area between the berm and the wall is not taken as a loss. Ground solar is not part of the application. Gillette- Construction traffic causing a safety issue at the frontage road? Hall- Flaggers will be added as needed. Gillette -Is there or will there be a mitigation plan. Hall. There will be reseeding. Will see what the biologists recommends. Gillette- Need a ten year plan. A mitigation plan for the life of the master plan. Need to be throwing 200K a year for ten years. Reseeding does not cut it for a mitigation plan. Will be looking for that at the next meeting. Hall -It is in the Forest Service's court now for 2020. Gillette -Would like to add a condition that the TOV formulate a long term habitat mitigation plan. Kurz -Would go along with Brian's direction that we have discussed the mitigation, but nothing has really occurred. Issue needs to be addressed after everything that has happened in the last two years. Kjesbo-Asked if the site is adequate right now if solar and housing were not contemplated and the retaining wall not constructed? Hall -The retaining wall is necessary with the possibility of the closing of the charter bus lot and VRD requests. Additional interior heated space is needed as is exterior storage areas. Gillette- Spoke to mitigation measures and their benefits. Hall -Would like the biologist to weigh in on measures. Gillette -Would like to know what the plan is or the process. Need a coordinator. The floor opened to public comment Blondie Vusich- Encourage by the Commissioners comments and the direction. Would like to see an EIS. Robin Burch- Heavy equipment on the booth heights site made the sheep move all the way down to the highway. Sheep were scared. Worries about sheep falling off a 20' wall and the precedent a high wall makes. William Shake- Had questions about the construction of the wall. Susan Bristoll- Feels the larger scope of the project is not addressed. Would like to see the TOV require an EIS. Does not feel the mitigation plan is is adequate. Tom Vusich- Encouraged. Observed sheep on the site of booth heights development today. Jennifer Crabtree- Attended the October 15th meeting. Spoke to the applicant supporting mitigation but no plan in place. Gillette clarified the questions concerning the retaining wall and rock -fall berm. J uegens-Clarified how far the wall is from the buildings. It ranges from 90 to just over 200. Hall spoke to the historical use of the site and the inability to halt activities on the site. Kjesbo-Supports EIS. Worries about scope creep and being sensitive to the site. It is a PW site not a housing site. Does not support the solar field Gillette- Agrees with Kjesbo. Does not support the solar field. Asked about when an El R or EIS is required. Would support it at the master plan level instead of the development plan stage. Asked staff to consider making this a requirement for master plans. Perez- Agrees with Gillette. Need to have EI R or EIS at time of rezoning or master plan. Concerned about consistency among applications. Would like to see mitigation plan and CPW report. Should follow Booth Heights mitigation plan. Lockman- Agrees with fellow commissioners. Spoke to components of the master plan. Supports the retaining wall. Need a clear plan for the development of the site and related mitigation. Kurz -Agrees with other commissioners and the need for the TC to provide more precise direction. Need to also recognize the needs of PW and their needs. Hall -Asked about a Public Works Master Plan update to the commission. Gillette -Depends on the biologist recommendations and the mitigation plan process. Brian Gillette moved to Continue to December 9, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.3. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12- 5 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) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Erik Gates Brian Gillette moved to Continue to December 9, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. November 11, 2019 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to Approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). 4. Adjournment Brian Gillette moved to Adjourn. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it (5- 0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 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 Published in the /ail Daily November 22, 2019 Ad #: 0000520170-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 12/6/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 12/6/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 12/6/2019. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 12/6/2019. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .l ME LISP MEDINA Narnav Pugz VATf Oi CUl04AD0 NOTARY til Rpil�Og9i9g N`/vCfi3.¢CGDt6;XplRI:GAUGil67et,26�i' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 9, 2919,1:99 PM Town Ccunell Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order 1.1. AHendanoe 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A mquest for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a -no district boundaryamend- ment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Val Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of 2211 North Frontage Road West VC!, I$ Composed of Tact C, Lot 1 Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das $Chane Filing N0. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schon, Filing 3, Irom the Commeroial Core 3 (CC3) District to the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District andsetting forth details in reggard thereto. (PEC19-0047) 15 min. AppIIc TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Witlewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 22. A request for a recommendation W the Vail Town Council of an application establishing SIR e - I Development District No. 42 (Hi hi, Hotel Renovation 2019), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel add'hion to add 79 accom- modabon units, convect 19 existing tlwelling units t0 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 unit EHU r dormitory, m ve Hice spa , add conference spa and build 16 unit employee housing ap. ment builtling, and rstated uses and improvements, locatetl W 2211 North Frontage Read West which is com- potlset[ T araC, Let 11,, Lot 2a ndth Lot Vail DanG I 0048). Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vol Das Schone Filing 3, Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Witlewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 2.3. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, ExtedorAltem- tions or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow forcdnstruction of a hotel addition and an EHU apadmeM builtling, located at 2211 North Frontage Roatl West which ,,Composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Use Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Val Das Scheme Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0046) 15 min. Apphcant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Witlewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 24. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 16, Conditicnal Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of an outdoor dining patio, located at 254 Bridge Streel Unit C/Lot C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0049) 20 min. Applicant: Mt. Solved- 45 LLC Noun Bridge Venture Partners, represented by Resod Design Arohitects Planner: Jonathan Spence 25. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-613-8, Density Control, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/SseOntlary Resi- dential ,no district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for the review of a variance irom Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Cod, to allow for avari.nce to the stipulation that basement GRFA deductions apply only to floors whhin six vertical feet df the lowest lev- at of a structure, born in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cotle, IocaF tl at775 Potam Patch DrivelLot 19, Block 1, Vail Polsom Patch Filing 1, and setting forth debacIS in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050) 5 min. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to January 13, 2020. Applicant: SCOH Ryan &Foster GIII,H, represented by Mdurie110 Pldnning Group Planner: Erik Gales 2.6. A request for review of a varianceirom Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Tawn Code, on,- uant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a retaining wall l excess of six (6) fee tall at the Town of Vail Public Works facility locatetl at 1289 Elkhom D(we/UnpldHed, and Setting form de- culsinregarddherelo. (PEC19-0041)45min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner. Erik Gates 2.7. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12- 9C-3, Conditional Uses, VaII Town Cotle, In accordance with Title 12, Ghapter 16, Contlitional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, t allow for an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Town of Vol Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and wiling h details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0039) 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, rapresentetl by Gfortreg Hall Planner: Erik Gates 3.Approval of Minutes 3.1. November25, 2019 PEC Results 4, Adjoumment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during egularof- tice hours at the Town of Vail Community Da,,1,pmem Department, 75 South Frontage Roatl. The public I. nvited to attend the protect orientation and the site visits that precede the public bearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and o,do, of items are approximate, subject 10 change, and cannot be relied upon to determine W what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will con- sider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional informalion. Please call 711 for sign language inter- pretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily December 6, 2019. 0000520170 Ad #: 0000513529-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE account number is: 1023233 Ennvironmlental Commission of theHEREBY GIVENtTown of Vall willll IN ICEYour PROOF OF PUBLICATION hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12- 3-6 Vail Town pm in the Town of Veil Mu lcpa B Building. et 1.00 VAIL DAILY c uneiiio .—asiric boulnd toAmendment, pursuant to Saction 12.3.7, Amendment, Vail Town STATE OF COLORADO Cotle, to allow for the rozoning of 2211 Nodh Front - age Road West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1 COUNTY OF EAGLE Lot 2, end Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and o 1, Vail Das Schone Fik DartnallthI Dommemial Gore 3 GD3 ng 3, from r tq the Public Ac- modation-2 (PA -2) District and setting forth de- tailsinregardthereto. T. S. 471 I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of pMuritTNFa ni In aroup&Triu pre a ted by Mauriello Planning Group 8 Triumph the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in Development Planner: Greg Roy whole or in art and published in the Count of Eagle, P P Y 9 Arequestforaarmamandationtothe Vail Town Council of n application establishing Special Bevel - State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; zo; e)°P rsuan[�o Se ong129(A),tSpecialDevel- that said newspaper has been published continuously and opment Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the deyelopmentofahotel addRiontoadd79anom- uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle fora of datlon units, convert 19 exlstln, dwelling units to EHU Ido limited service lodge unime, period aaddconf confers ry, remove office sp conference more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the h pld- mpere antl huiltl 16 unk employee M1 improvements, first publication of the annexed legal notice or located at 2211 North Fronts & Road West witch i mprisedof Tract C,Lot1, ot2,and Lot3Vail advertisement and that said newspaper has published the Das Schone Filing No. I andLo[ I, Vall Das Schone Filina%andaetting fo.deteils in reg.rdthando. (PE19-00Q) requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. EY Maunel Plano ng GroupBTrumph pre a tetl Development Planner: Greg Roy =for review of an Exterior Alteration, pur- The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertisingmedium, P g ttoSection 12-7J-12, Exterior Alteratipnsor Modrfica"ons.ValTown Code.toalbWfor -nstruc- only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home tion of a hotel addition and an EHU apartment build - Ing, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West Rule prOVI$IOn. which is comprised of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Be. Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Faingg 3, end setting form tletails in regard thereto. (PE EC19-0048) That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Applicant TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC, represented byMapmlBOPlanning Group &Triumph published in the regular and entire issue of every number Planner. Greg Roy of said daily newspaper for the of 1 insertion; and A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, —12--wMConditionalPermits, pursuanttoas period that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of P to ronditioal he Useof ad— dining train, located at 254Bridge St`eet Vail Village Filing 1, and Unit C/Lot C & L, Block 5Cin said newspaper dated 11/22/2019 and that the last rega, settiPEC1 9-0049) Applicant Mtt.. OelNede 45 LLC`NorthDridg,V n- publication of said notice was dated 11 /22/2019 in the tura Panne., represented by Resort Design Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence issue of Said newspaper. Arequestforthe re view of a variance from Section In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 12 -BD -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow fore variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Pimary/Se ontlaryResiden- 1 2/3/2019. tial zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, and a request for the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance bin.i. iGRFAtletluc.lohl eth$1sti5ulatilods asp le only to floors withinsixverticalfeete the the n level structure, bath in ac the AWL sa f prov n i Section 12-17, Variances, Veil Town noes, Vel To Bloock 1,Var Potato PPotato t Filing 1, antl setting h forth details in real mean.. (PEC19-0050) Applicant: .1-1 Ryan & Foster Orion, represented Mark Wurzer, Publisher by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates The applicationsand information about thepr000s- are are available for public inspection during office Subscribed and sworn to before me, a nota public in and notary p hours at the Town of Vail community Developmeat Deadment, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 179 213e �° sft=.�ei90 u'm'/plannnigforaddition- 12/3/2019. al information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. P.1,11 had November 22, 2018 M the VIII Dap, \� it 0000513529 Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 JEMi.YNN ME WA Ptl$LiC, TF op 6TAT£Oi' L^l7L DU N0 NE"A"�§0a938A' w CCAgd m", f'Xi'3nlw4AgGi15TA2w