Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-01-13 PEC
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl January 13, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Pete Seibert Absent: JohnRyan Lockman Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density 30 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) Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to January 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.2. A request for review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for 30 min. the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19- 0051) Applicant: Battle Mountain LLC Launch Development Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence: This project has been approved once by the PEC. Now there are 3 new requests: Reduce parking requirements due to the presence of on-site EHUs (staff does support this), reduce the quantity of existing parking spaces required to be replaced (staff does not support this), revise the internal layout of the parking. Sean McGinley: After getting into the weeds when it comes to the engineering of the building, it was discovered that the 3rd underground parking level is not viable. This has added a new constraint to the project. Asking for a reduction of 12 spots total. This can be reached in 3 ways. The original existing parking space count presented to the PEC in 2018 was inaccurate and there were less spots than presented. The second way would take advantage of EHU allowances. Asking for 3 additional spots in addition to these points. Kjesbo: Would, by today's standards, a restriping reduce the number of parking spots? Spence: Yes, but this is common of many developments throughout the Town. Gillette: Had a question about the drive isle in the garage and the viability of double -stacked valet parking. McGinley: Discussed the EHU allowance. Perez: Valet was already expected here and that could potentially be used to reach current requirements, this seems like dipping into the pot again. McGinley: There is now a need to reduce spaces as it is impossible to get a 3rd level of parking. The third level would reach the water table and make the building structurally unsound. Kurz: Looks like you are asking for a reduction of around 15%? Asked a clarifying question to Spence regarding Staff's support of the EHU allowance. McGinley: Explained who their proposed breakdown of parking spots would be for. Public Comment Keith Capella: (Works with Vantage Point) Spent some time reviewing the parking issue. The building is nicely designed. As a whole, we have an issue with the parking. There's nowhere for anyone to go when the parking lot fills. Reducing the employee parking, which is a community benefit, the employees are unlikely to be able to afford the public parking in the winter months. The reduction will have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. Vantage Point is the only place that offers free guest parking in the area and will be inundated with parking attempting to park there if this request is approved. The issue of the high-water table is important, but we have to look at the impacts on our (and surrounding) buildings. Though there is the Lionshead Parking structure, people will always try to avoid payed parking. David Moe: (Works with Vantage Point) 93 was their original number, now 57 is proposed. The reduction of parking will overflow into Vantage Point. Already experiencing overflow parking from the shortage of hospital parking due to its construction. Concerned about the structure of the Vantage Point building as well, both before and after construction. Soil settling post construction will result in cracking at their building. This can be engineered around, but wants to bring up this concern to the PEC. Tim Cook: (Homeowner at Vantage Point) Needs to have valet for this parking structure to work. Doesn't think the proposed parking system could be fully automated. Thinks this is going to negatively impact the area. Why wasn't the water table problem brought up years ago? Lots of work to be done still. Susan Cahill: (President of the Vantage Point HOA) Has gotten lots of calls from residents concerned about the project. Wanted to state that the HOA will be closely looking at this project. Kurz: Where is the 93 number coming from. Spence: During the initial planning process, the applicant stated that they could potentially get 93 spaces out of the land, but promised not to go below 69 spaces ultimately. McGinley: Discussed the CityLift automated system that is proposed. Normal retrieval times are 75-90 seconds. There are two carousals and a backup generator for redundancy. Kjesbo: If this was a new application, would the application be able to make these arguments and would you look at this application the same way. Spence: Yes, the applicant would likely be making the same arguments, but this is a bit different from other projects because of the existing parking that needs to be replaced. Kjesbo: No problem with EHU spaces. No validity for the additional 3 spaces being request. Still confused about the existing parking to be replaced since there is some ambiguity here. Spence: Clarified that Staff analyzed existing parking by looking at the number of spaces out there currently, not by considering how many spots would be there if it were restriped. Gillette: Not in favor of reducing parking. Perez: Also not in favor of reducing parking, but wants to work towards a solution. Can some agreement between the applicant and the town be reached to lease parking spaces at the Red Sandstone parking lot? Encourages the applicant to look at additional options to address their issue. Spence: Agreed that there may be other solutions but would discourage against the Town losing some of its short-term parking. Hopkins: Not in favor of reduction. Seibert: Recused himself from the discussion as he works with the neighboring property. Seibert had made no other comments during the discussion. Kurz: Encouraged the applicant to table the application and re-evaluate. Brian Gillette moved to table to January 27, 2020. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Seibert Absent: (1) Lockman 2.3. A request for review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit pursuant 30 min. to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to amend the circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Building, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Unsubdivided and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0052) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Davis Partnership Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. This Conditional Use approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application(s). 2. All Conditions of Approval from the September 11, 2017 PEC approval remain in effect, as applicable. 3. Prior to applying for ROW permit through the Department of Public Works for the proposed improvements, the applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with the appropriate CDOT approvals. 4. The applicant shall demonstrate through the construction documents that the infrastructure for future snow melting of the drop off aisle and sidewalk will be installed. 5. If the operation and maintenance of the proposed improvements, including snow storage and removal, result in adverse effects on vehicular or pedestrian safety, the Town of Vail may initiate further consideration of this component of the Conditional Use Permit and may require the closing of the valet until such time as alternative measures are implemented. Planner Spence: The CUP for the east portion of the Hospital campus included replacing the parking lot in front of the current Medical Professional Building with a sidewalk and landscaping. The new proposal uses that area for a valet drop off lane and a bus stop. This is not as optimal as the previous plan, but it is the best plan that has been come up with that includes all the goals addressed by this design. Tom Braun: Representing Vail Health. Two colleagues are not here yet due to weather conditions. Tom started by discussing the previous process for the hospital up to this point. The east wing of the hospital addresses many of the community goals identified prior to approval of the hospital. The purpose of the valet is to provide quick access for the Urgent Care building. The purpose of the Urgent Care is to provide medical help without an appointment. Tom discussed the existing conditions of the drop-off. 4-5 cars can be fit in the valet drop-off at one time. An attendant will also be present. The current bus stop is nearly in front of the Four Seasons and the stop is in the drive isle. The new proposal gives the bus a dedicated drop-off lane. W hi le the previous design was better, the new design meets more of the goals of the hospital. Tom Kassmel: We (public works) has been working with Vail Health for a while on this application. Many iterations were discussed when it was decided that a valet was desired. Public Works is ok with this plan, however if it doesn't function properly, it will need to be removed. Not anticipating issues with snow management. Tubes ready for a heated isle will be installed. However, as of now there is no boiler associated with those tubes. Will be installed if snow management ends up being an issue. Tom displayed and continued to discuss the circulation of the site. Perez: A question regarding the 2 ft of sidewalk lost as a result of this. Public Comment Fred Goldburg: Where do the valet cars go? Spence: The valet will bring the vehicle to the main parking structure Gillette: No issues with the proposal and agrees with the staff recommendation. Perez: Wondering how necessary this is. Vail Health was in front of the commission 4-5 times and a valet here was never discussed. Worried about pedestrian safety. Worried about all the busses that need to stop here. Hopkins: Is there a crosswalk? Braun: As of now no, but there could be one. Spence: The crosswalk was going to be discussed with the DRB. Braun: In addressing Perez's concerns, the need for this valet was not there during the initial process. Also prioritizing safety and efficiency within this space. Hopkins: Seems like this wasn't an easy solution. However, it appears that when all of these street improvements come in things will run properly. Seibert: Feels comfortable with this as a CUP. Kjesbo: I n support of this as well. Kurz: Also in support of this. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.4. 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 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. This property is within a geologically sensitive area pursuant to Chapter 12-21 Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgment of receiving personal notice of the fact that said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 5. 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. " 6. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the continued prohibition of dogs, other than those required to be permitted by law, for Buzzard Park residents and visitors and employees of the Public Works site. 7. No outdoor recreation shall be permitted to occur north of the retaining wall and Buzzard Park during winter months and/or when sheep are observed in the area. 8. This conditional use permit is contingent upon the applicant, the Town of Vail, continuing to work closely with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the duration of the Public Works Master Plan build -out, and the applicant continuing to convene the bighorn sheep habitat restoration group for as long as is appropriate. Planner Gates provided the commission with a re -introduction to the project and the changes since the prior meeting. Gates discussed the Bighorn Sheep working group and its purpose. More conditions of approval have also been added to address concerns expressed by the commission, including a ban on canines and on recreation above the retaining wall. Greg Hall, Director of PW, spoke to Bighorn Sheep mitigation measures completed and planned. Scott Robson, Town Manager, provided an update on the bighorn sheep habitat working group and its purpose. Robson spoke to the importance of the PW project for continued level service for the community. Robson spoke to habitat improvement, the NEPA process, sheep collars and funding. Gillette: Asked about participation in the task force Robson: Pleased with Forest Service (USFS) representation. Gillette: Asked about the possibility of hiring a biologist to assist with the NEPA process. Robson: Spoke to hiring a biologist in the next few months and spoke to this being necessary to expedite the process. The USFS does not have the ability to move this to the top of the list. Spoke to next steps and possible timelines. Robson discussed how information would be passed along to the public. Perez: Asked about the makeup of the commission and if the charter requires a member of the PEC. Robson: It may be time to look if this charter referenced commission needs to be reformed. Spoke to the task force being science and implementation oriented. Hopkins: Asked about how projects in this area will impact the task force. Robson: Spoke to the task force taking a comprehensive look at the situation including proposed projects in the vicinity. This is a landscape wide approach. Hopkins: Spoke to the sheep being seen in the aspens and the true range of their activities. Kurz: Thanked Robson for his work on this issue and the commitment from management and the TC. Hall: Asked if the commission had any questions concerning the CUP. Gillette: Referenced a letter from Jim Lamont. Asked about timing of construction, possible fencing, landscaping and seasonal closures.. Hall: Provided a timeframe for the anticipated 7 month process. Will coordinate with CPW and wildlife experts. Discussed the demolition plan and the proposed construction of the berm. Hopkins asked for clarification of the berm and its height. Hall provided details on the proposed berm. No Public Comment Siebert: No further comments and appreciates the task force and feels that this should be approved. Hopkins: No Comments Perez: Supports the task force. Thankful for the conditions of approval. Would like to add an additional condition related to following the recommendations of the CPW and other experts. Gillett: Agrees with Perez Kjesbo: Agrees with Perez and the need to follow CPW recommendations. Does not support EHUs and solar fields at this time. Kurz: Supports the application and feels the Town has taken steps in the right direction. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 5 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. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Karen Perez moved to table to January 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.6. 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. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Karen Perez moved to table to January 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 2.7. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, 5 minutes 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. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Karen Perez moved to table to January 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. December 9, 2019 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Hopkins Absent: (1) Lockman 4. 1 nformational Update 4.1. An informational update on the Town of Vail Housing Department including 30 min. the 2018 Housing Policy Statements, the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan, and a snap shot of progress toward the goal. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 5. Adjournment Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 13, 2020 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) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0050 Staff Memorandum.pdf PEC19-0050 Staff Memorandum [Attachment Al PEC19-0050 Vicinity Map.pdf [Attachment A] Vicinity Map [Attachment Bl Gillett Variance Narrative 11-11-19.pdf [Attachment B] Applicant's Narrative TOWN of Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 2020 SUBJECT: 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) Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates I. SUMMARY The applicants, Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting two variances: The first request is a review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, 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. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends denial of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. The second request is a review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for relief from the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA. 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 item, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A) and the applicants' narrative (Attachment B) are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, and from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances would allow for each unit of this duplex to have their basement GRFA deduction calculated separately and allow the secondary unit to use greater than 40% of the allowable GRFA. The subject property is located within the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) zone district and was first developed with a duplex structure in 1986. A number of additions to this duplex were legally approved throughout the 1990s to bring the property to its current state. After these additions, the East unit had at least 137 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining while the West unit appears to have nearly reached its maximum development potential in regard to GRFA. Following subsequent code amendments related to the way Vail calculates GRFA in 2005, the East unit is allowed an additional 617 sq. ft. of GRFA, while the West unit is now out of compliance with regard to GRFA and considered legally non -conforming. The goal of these variances is to restore any development potential lost as a result of previous code changes, and to bring the West unit into compliance with the Town Code. An approval of just the variance related to basement deductions would result in the East unit becoming the secondary unit. This leaves 22 sq. ft. of GRFA available for the East unit and 1,232 sq. ft. of GRFA available for the West unit (assuming the West unit does not take more than 60% of allowable GRFA). An approval of just the variance related to the 40% GRFA limit for a secondary unit would result in 617 sq. ft. of GRFA available for both sides to pull from. An approval of both variances would result in 1,255 sq. ft. of GRFA available for both sides to pull from. III. BACKGROUND In 1986, the duplex in question was approved and built to code. At this time, the 40% secondary unit GRFA restriction was in place, and the East unit was considered the primary unit as it was the larger of the two. Through the 1990s, several additions were made to this property. These additions made use of the 425 sq. ft. allowance, 250 ordinance allowance, and interior conversions that were available for this zone district at the time. As a result of these additions, both units ended up close, but not over their maximum allowed GRFA at the time. The East unit remained as the primary unit at the end of the 90s. In 2005 the Town of Vail significantly altered the way it measures GRFA. Of note, the 425 sq. ft. allowance, 250 ordinance, and interior conversions were no longer available for the PS zone district. To offset this, the Town altered its GRFA calculation to incorporate the 250 sq. ft. and 425 sq. ft. allowances. The basement GRFA deduction was also codified at this time with the rational that basement floor area does not significantly contribute to a structure's bulk and mass. The basement deduction as it was originally written simply stated that only the lowest level of a structure could receive the basement deduction. However, due to ambiguity on what constitutes the "lowest level", an edit to the Town Code in 2016 clarified that the "lowest level" is the lowest floor by elevation and any other floor of the structure within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The difference in basement level height for the two units referenced in this application is eight (8) vertical feet. As a result of these code changes from 2004 to today, the East unit has 617 sq. ft. of GRFA available while the West unit exceeds its maximum allowable GRFA by 237.4 sq. ft. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) CHAPTER ll: LAND USE PLAN GOALS/ POLICIES (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. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Vail Town Code 12-1-2: PURPOSE: (in part) 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.- 5. urposes: 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. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL: (in part) B. Gross Residential Floor Area.- 1. rea: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site.- a. ite: a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of site area, plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10, 000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of site area, plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area, plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). 12-15-3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: (in part) A. Within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts: Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages, attics,- vaulted ttics,vaulted or open to below spaces, basements, crawl spaces, and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area,- except rea,except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage. (6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the finished floor level with the lowest USGS elevation, including all floor levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. A multi -unit building shall be considered one structure. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title, but the deduction does not apply to any crawl space or attic. 12-17-1: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment", of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: (in part) A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- 1. ariance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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. V. SITE ANALYSIS UI rd'.I^:II M 775 Potato Patch Dr. Legal Description: Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch Lot Area: 0.494 acres / (21,532 sq. ft.) Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Duplex Residential Geological Hazards: None SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North: Residential South: Residential East: USFS West: Open Space VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential None Agricultural and Open Space The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed variances facilitate the potential for additional residential expansion to both units. The variance related to the 40% GRFA limit on secondary units will not result in any more GRFA than a strict interpretation of the code currently allows. This variance simply makes GRFA currently available only to the East unit available to the West unit as well. The basement variance will result additional GRFA available to the property based on a strict interpretation of the current code. However, it should be noted that currently a significant portion of the East unit's lower level is underground (i.e. not significantly contributing to bulk and mass) and counted as GRFA. Both variances may help facilitate additional bulk and mass from what currently exists, but should not significantly impact the uses, structures, or views of surrounding properties. Staff finds that the proposal meets 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. It is clear from the development history of this property that the code changes related to the measurement of GRFA have created a nonconformity on this property. While this nonconformity is legal and will not prevent development on the East unit, from reviewing PEC minutes during the 2004 GRFA code change hearings it is evident the Commission wanted to avoid the creation of non -conformities from these changes. However, the degree to which the West unit is out of compliance is rather small (less than 250 sq. ft.). As such, it is the determination of Town Staff that only the variance related to the 40% GRFA limit for a secondary unit is appropriate. This variance would maintain the development potential currently and historically available to the East unit, while bringing the West unit into compliance. Staff has determined that a second variance related to the basement exclusion would be considered a grant of special privilege that grants additional GRFA not available to other properties in the PS zone district. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variances will not result in additional dwelling units or additional traffic to this property. As such, there are no anticipated effects on light and air, population, transportation and traffic, or any other public services. Therefore, Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions The Community Development Department recommends denial for 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, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicant's request for 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, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050)." 2. Variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control The Community Development Department recommends approval for 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, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for 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, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050)." 3. Findings Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve either/both variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the January 13, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. 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. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative Gillett Residence 60-40 Split & Basement Credit Variance Date Submitted: November 11, 2019 u Mauriello Planning Group Introduction The owners of the units at 775 Potato Patch in Vail are requesting variances from the 60-40 GRFA split of the Primary/Secondary Zone District (Section 12-6D-8: Density Control), and the requirement that basement credit is only given if the lowest level of each unit is within 6 ft. of each other (Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions). The variances are requested due to the GRFA amendments which have modified the calculation of GRFA and which have impacted this property negatively with regard to development potential. 775 Potato Patch - east unit. The basement space was created via the Foster Gillett owns the west unit which has Interior Conversion process. This space was not counted as GRFA when recently been called the secondary unit approved. Now, under current regulations, the entirety of this basement (nothing formally designates the Gillett unit space is counted as GRFA, because the finished floor elevation is 8 ft. above the finished floor elevation of the western unit as the secondary unit) at 775 Potato Patch. The unit is non -conforming with the requirement that the secondary unit not exceed 40% of the allowable GRFA for the property. The secondary unit is 43.23% of the allowable GRFA. As a result, there is no remaining development potential for the unit. In this case, the GRFA modifications that have occurred over the years rendered the unit non -conforming and eliminated any future development potential from the secondary unit. Furthermore, the current limitation that basements are deducted from GRFA only if the lowest level of the duplex is within 6 vertical feet of the lowest level of the adjacent duplex unit created a hardship on this property. The existing basements are within 8 vertical feet of each other, and therefore only the West unit is allowed to take the deduction. Both of the basements were legally constructed through the Interior Conversion provision of the code, and which exempted the conversion of crawl space to livable area from GRFA calculations. The Interior Conversion provision of the Code was eliminated for PS zoned properties in 2004 when the entire GRFA chapter was rewritten. The current method of counting the basement, adopted in 2016, on the East unit effectively eliminates available GRFA potential from the property. The owners are requesting these variances to allow for fair treatment of properties under the current GRFA calculations. In this instance, the West unit is being considered the Secondary Unit, though there is nothing in the code that prescribes which unit gets Primary unit Status vs. Secondary unit Status. As such, the current regulations render the West unit non -conforming and eliminated all opportunities for additional development. This is unique to the West unit and created an unfair hardship, depriving the owner of development potential that all other units in the Primary/Secondary zone district are allowed. Furthermore, the East unit is prevented from deducting the basement space from GRFA because of the2016 GRFA chapter rewrite. 2 This variance request is unique in that there is not a development plan associated with the proposed variance. This is because there is no immediate plan to add onto the West unit. The owner of the East unit has been pursuing an addition which would utilize the limited GRFA remaining s, on the property. In their design process, it was discovered that though the site has —= available GRFA due to various code changes, only the primary side has the ability to use the available GRFA because _ �r. = _= the secondary side was rendered non- — - conforming with the 60-40 split requirements. In addition, due to the language on the basement deduction, only the West unit gets credit for the below- grade basement area because its basement is 8 ft. lower than the basement of the East unit. The granting of this variance would allow the owners of both halves of the duplex to split the available 775 Potato Patch - west unit. The basement space was created via the GRFA based on their own agreements on Interior Conversion process. This space was not counted as GRFA when the use of GRFA. approved. Now, under current regulations, 87% (or 977 sq. ft.) of this basement is deducted from GRFA. The following section provides an overall GRFA analysis for 775 Potato Patch, indicating how the changes to the GRFA calculation have negatively impacted 775 Potato Patch. 3 GRFA Analysis Permissible GRFA for a residents is based on the zone district for that property. In the case of 775 Potato Patch, the Town has made several changes to the GRFA allowances for the PS zone district. One of the keys in establishing total GRFA and allowable GRFA for each unit is based on establishing the Primary unit versus the Secondary unit. However, the code does not define Primary or Secondary. It simply states that the Secondary Unit shall not exceed 40% of the allowable GRFA for the entire lot. The issue with the 60/40 split applied to this property is that the designation of Primary/Secondary based on the size of the units has changed. In 2004, the West side would have been considered the Primary unit based on size, whereas in 2016 the East side would be considered the Primary unit based on size. This back and forth works counter to the intents and purposes of land use planning. Zoning regulations would change over time, causing properties to become non -conforming without any material changes to the property. This is a dangerous precedent, and one that should be avoided. The Town never really analyzed the effects of the GRFA changes on the 60/40 status within the PS zoned neighborhoods. Current GRFA Analysis (2018) 775 Potato Patch is zoned Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS), just as all of the other single-family and duplex homes in the Potato Patch neighborhood. The total lot area is 21,531.71 sq. ft. GRFA in the PS zone district for the entire lot as follows: 46% of the first 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area 38% of the next 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area 13% of the next 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 6% of lot area in excess of 30,000 sq. ft. It then further limits the "secondary" side to no more than 40% of the total allowable GRFA, which allows the primary side to have 60% of the total allowable GRFA. The following is the allowable GRFA for 775 Potato Patch: Primary: 4,409 sq. ft. (60% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,939 sq. ft. (40% of total allowable) Total: 7,349 sq. ft. The following provides the existing GRFA calculations for 775 Potato Patch: East (Ryan): 3,555 sq. ft. (48.37% of total allowable) West (Gillett): 3,177 sq. ft. (43.23% of total allowable) Total: 6,732 sq. ft. (617 sq. ft. unused GRFA remaining) Historical GRFA Analysis I. 1990s GRFA Analysis When the home was originally constructed, and when subsequent additions were done in the late -1990s, GRFA was calculated differently. The calculation was as follows: 4 25% for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 10% got the next 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 5% of lot area in excess of 30,000 sq. ft. Primary: 2,641.80 sq. ft. (60% of total allowable) Secondary: 1,761.20 sq. ft. (40% of total allowable) Total GRFA (before credits): 4,403 sq. ft The secondary unit was limited to up to 40% of this calculation before any other credits were applied. In addition to the calculation above, each unit was allocated an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA. After the application of the 425 sq. ft. credit to each unit, the allowable GRFA looks like this: Primary: 3,066.80 sq. ft. (58.4% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,186.20 sq. ft. (41.6% of total allowable) Total GRFA (425): 5,253 sq. ft. (4,403 + 850) You will note that at this point the allowable GRFA for the secondary unit exceeds 40%. Per the code, if a unit was an older unit, each unit was then also allowed an additional 250 sq. ft., called a "250 addition." Both of the units took advantage of a 250 on this property. When you add in the 250 additions the allowable GRFA looks like this: Primary: 3,316.80 sq. ft. (57.7% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,436.20 sq. ft. (42.3% of total allowable) Total GRFA (425 & 250): 5,753 sq. ft. (4,403 + 850 + 500) In addition, the Town permitted "Interior Conversions" which allowed owners to use existing space, such as unfinished crawl spaces or attics, to be converted to livable area above the allowable GRFA. Interior conversions were not limited in the amount of GRFA that could be used. Nor were interior conversions subject to the 40-60 split as applied by the Town. When built, both units were very similar in size. Based on the Town's files, after some "250 additions" and "interior conversions" in the 1990s, the GRFA for each unit was constructed as follows: West Unit: 3,070 sq. ft. (49% of existing GRFA and 53% of total allowable) East unit: 3,180 sq. ft. (51% of existing GRFA and 55% of total allowable) Total: 6,250 sq. ft. (5,753 sq. ft. allowable GRFA) Though it appears that the units exceeded the allowable GRFA at the time, all the additions were legally done, approved by the Town of Vail, and were permitted by the Zoning Code of the time. The units were allowed to be nearly a 50/50 split on GRFA. II. 2004 GRFA Modifications In 2004, the Town undertook a massive overhaul of the GRFA regulations in all residential zone districts. The GRFA calculations were modified to increase the allowable GRFA for PS zoned sites. With the amendments, "250 additions" and "interior conversions" were no longer permitted in the PS zone 5 district. The thought was that the calculation would be increased to such a level that they were no longer needed. However, when the Town revised the GRFA in 2004, many secondary units which had legally constructed the 425 sq. ft. credit, a "250 addition" and an "interior conversion" were then rendered non -conforming with regard to the 60-40 split. This was despite the fact that these secondary units had been conforming and had been previously approved by the Town of Vail, but were now rendered non -conforming though they made no material changes to their properties. The non- conforming status was a result in a change of the code and causes a major infringement on the rights of the homeowner. In 2004, the modifications to the calculation of GRFA also changed how GRFA was measured, including measuring to the outside of walls (previously to the interior wall surface) and counting vaulted spaces above 16 ft.in height as floor area. The biggest impact to 775 Potato Patch had to do with the calculation of basement space. The goal at the time was to exempt underground space from the GRFA calculation, recognizing that it did not impact bulk and mass of a structure. The following is the 2005 methodology for the basement exemption: Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level's exterior walls. The following provides an analysis of the GRFA for 775 Potato Patch based on how the basement deduction was calculated in 2004: GRFA Analysis by Level with 2004 Basement Deduction GRFA Split on Allowable 1 43.23% 1 39.70% Remaining GRFA 1 1,232.011 21.50 1 1,254.51 Gillett - West Side ` Ryan - East Side Total Upper Level 1,588.00 11485.00 3,073.00 Main Level 1,355.00 1,170.00 2,525.00 Lowest Level 1,123.00 850.00 1,973.00 Basement Deduction -977.01 -637.50 -1,614.51 Garage 688.00 650.00 1,338.00 Garage Deduction -600.00 -600.00 -1,200.00 Total Existing GRFA 3,176.99 2,917.50 6,094.49 Total Allowable GRFA 4,409.00 2,939.00 7,349.00. GRFA Split on Allowable 1 43.23% 1 39.70% Remaining GRFA 1 1,232.011 21.50 1 1,254.51 As indicated in the above analysis, in this case, the West side was actually larger than the East side, making it the primary unit rather than the secondary unit, in theory. When Gillett purchased the property in 2005, the West unit was larger than the East Unit at 3,177 sq. ft. (52%) v. 2,917 sq. ft. (48%). The East side complied with the 40% requirement, and the remaining available GRFA was available to the West side. This basement credit definition allowed basement credit to be applied to each unit on the property and applied to the lowest level within each unit regardless of the relationship of the floor elevations of the two units (i.e., it was equitably applied). Available, unused, GRFA remaining would have been approximately 1,250 sq. ft. in 2005. III. 2016 Basement Amendment In 2016, Town staff made a change to the basement deduction, adding (1) a requirement that the credit is applied to the entire structure and no longer on a unit by unit basis and (2) adding in a requirement that to get a basement deduction, the lowest levels of an entire structure have to be within 6 vertical feet of each other. In other words, if one unit's basement level is greater than 6 ft. below that of the other unit, then only the lowest unit gets the basement credit. This is particularly problematic if there is any significant grade change across units, which is very common in the Town of Vail. The following is the current method of measuring basement space: Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the finished floor level with the lowest USGS elevation, including all floor levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. A multi -unit building shall be considered one structure. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any crawl space or attic. In this case, the change had a dramatic impact on the ability to take the basement deduction on the East side (Ryan). While the West side (Gillett) is able to take advantage of the deduction, the East side (Ryan) no longer has that ability, as the finished floor elevation of the West side (Gillett) basement appears to be about 8 ft. below the finished floor elevation of the East side (Ryan) basement. The following provides an analysis of the GRFA of 775 Potato Patch as current regulations require (no basement deduction for the East side): GRFA Analysis by Level 2016 Basement Deduction (none on East side) Gillett - West Side Upper Level 1,588.00 Main Level 1,355.00 Ryan - East Side 1,485.00 1,170.00 Total 3,073.0 :2,525:0d0 7 Gillett - West Side Ryan - East Side Total Lowest Level 1,123.00 850.00 1,973.00 Basement Deduction -977.01 0.00 -977.01 Garage 688.00 650.00 1,338.00 Garage Deduction -600.00 -600.00 -1,200.00 Total Existing GRFA 3,176.99 3,555.00 6,731.99 GRFA Split on Allowable 43.23% 48.37% Total Allowable GRFA 2,939 4,409 7,349 Difference from Existing -237.99 617.01 617.01 In this case, the East side (Ryan) is the larger unit and could therefore be considered primary unit. However, by making this declaration, the West side (Gillett) does not comply with the 40% requirement for a secondary unit, which makes it nonconforming. Available GRFA remaining is approximately 617 sq. ft., a significant reduction from what was allowed previously, before the basement definition was amended. Because these analyses are somewhat confusing, here is a current breakdown of the GRFA for 775 Potato Patch based on the changing regulations: West Side West West Side East Side East Side East Side Total Total Complied Allowed Side % of Allowed Existing % of Allowed Existing with Code Existing Allowbale Allowable 1986- 2,186 2,186 47.0% 2,466 2,466 53.0% 4,652 4,652 YES Original Construction 1999- 2,011 3,070 53.4% 2,291 3,180 55.3% 5,753 6,250 YES Additions to Units 2004 - GRFA 2,939 3,177 43.2% 4,409 2,917 39.7% 7,349 6,094 YES - East Amendments side was Secondary 2018 Current 2,939 3,177 43.2% 4,409 3,555 48.4% 7,349 6,732 NO Code Criteria for Review Section 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review for a variance. These criteria, along with an analysis, are provided below: N 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Response: 60-40 Split Variance The 60-40 split requirement has little impact on other existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. In fact, the property has never truly had a 60-40 split of GRFA. Due to the way 425 credits were applied after the 60-40 split was calculated, when the structure was originally constructed it did not have a 60-40 split of GRFA, as indicated below: Primary: 3,066.80 sq. ft. (58.4% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,186.20 sq. ft. (41.6% of total allowable) Total GRFA: 5,253 sq. ft. Futhermore, when both units constructed 250 additions and interior conversions in the 1990s, the West side unit was significantly greater than 40% of the allowable GRFA for a secondary unit. East side: 3,180 sq. ft. (55.3% of total allowable) West side: 3,070 sq. ft. (53.4% of total allowable) Total GRFA: 6,250 sq. ft. (Total Allowable GRFA was 5,753 sq. ft. plus Interior Conversion which was exempt from the calculation) As indicated above, actual constructed GRFA for the property was much closer to a 50-50 split and is a non -conformity created by the change in GRFA regulations. As a result, the variance from the 60-40 split has no impact to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Basement Deduction Variance Both of the units used the Interior Conversion provision of the code to convert existing crawl space into livable space. Interior Conversions were only permitted after the maximum allowable GRFA at the time (1990s) was maxed out. It did not count towards GRFA and was not subject to the 60-40 split. With the GRFA revisions of 2004, the reason presented for not counting basements towards GRFA was that below grade space did not have an impact on the bulk and mass of a structure and should not be subject to the GRFA limitations. The basement area existed within the structure, whether or not it was counted towards GRFA. The east unit could have dug the crawl space 2 ft. deeper in the 1990s, and the space would be deducted from GRFA calculations today. It was only the 2016 creation of the rule that the lowest level had to be within 6 ft. that created a situation where this space now counts as GRFA. As a result, there is no impact to other existing uses or 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. Applicant Response: 9 60-40 Split Variance The duplex at 775 Potato Patch complied with the GRFA regulation when originally constructed. Each side of the duplex legally constructed 250 additions and Interior Conversions through the Town's established process. Due to the various changes in the GRFA calculations since 2004, the secondary unit was rendered non -conforming, eliminating any development potential to that unit. The clear and stated intent was that the elimination of the 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversions would not create non -conformities. The staff memorandum to the PEC (September 8, 2003) specifically stated: The PEC has determined that the "250 Ordinance" and the "Interior Conversion" GRFA bonuses should be repealed in their entirety due to the inequities of property rights that are created by these regulations. In an effort to afford these bonuses to all properties and to not create non -conformities, the proposed GRFA calculation formulas have been increased over the current calculations to compensate for the elimination of these bonuses. The PEC recommendation of approval included two conditions regarding non -conformities, stating (underline added for emphasis) : (4) An amnesty clause should be adopted in conjunction with the adoption of the FAR regulations. The amnesty clause should have no time limit, waive the Town of Vail application fees, and prevent the creation of non -conform in a properties in regard to FAR. (5) Any loss of development potential currently allowed by the existing GRFA regulations that is caused by the adopted of the FAR regulations shall be considered iustification for a variance from the FAR regulations. (Note that the PEC was recommending renaming GRFA to FAR, which was not carried over in the final adoption) The clear intent by the PEC was that non -conformities would not be created by the changes to GRFA. However, in this case, a non -conformity was clearly created, as the secondary unit exceeds 40% of the current allowable GRFA for the property. This non -conformity is unique to the secondary unit on this property, and a variance is necessary to treat this property as all other properties in the vicinity. Per the conditions included with the PEC recommendation of approval of the repeal of the 250 ordinance and the repeal of the interior conversion, the loss of development potential on this property should be considered justification for a variance. Therefore, relief from the 40% limitation, allowing the unit to partake of the GRFA allowed for the property in not a grant of special privilege. Basement Deduction Variance Both of the units, using the Interior Conversion allowance, converted crawl space to livable area prior to 2004. This space, located on the lowest level of each unit, was not counted towards GRFA at that time because it was substantially below grade. However, the current GRFA deduction for basement space only allows the deduction for both basements if each level is within 6 ft. of the other. Though there is very little grade change across this relatively flat site, the structure steps with grade, as is encouraged by the Design Guidelines. This has created an inequity of treatment for the units: the west unit, being slightly lower in finished floor elevation, is able to deduct the basement from the GRFA calculation, while the east unit, being 10 8 ft. above finished floor elevation from the other unit, does not. As a result, 637.50 sq. ft. of the east unit's basement which is entirely below grade, is counted as GRFA. This was an issue when the basement deduction definition was reviewed by the PEC in 2016. In fact, many members of the PEC expressed concern about the 6 ft. limitation being arbitrary. On August 22, 2016, the PEC reviewed the staff's proposed changes to the basement deduction. The following comments were recorded in the minutes: 775 Potato Patch - the lot is generally flat in comparison to most lots in Vail. As is encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the structure steps with the natural grade. Commissioner Stockmar -feels choosing six foot separation allowance is arbitrary and is inclined not to change anything with GRFA at this time. Would like to have a bigger discussion dealing with all of GRFA. Commissioner Gillette - likes the application being applied to all zone district impacted by GRFA. However, six foot rule is arbitrary. Believes all levels that are subterranean should be deducted from GRFA. Commissioner Pratt - does not think this application solves the bigger problem and it contradicts the decision of the PEC on the Michael Suman application and appeal. Allows multiple levels but is not equitable between units. Each side should get credit for buried space. Feels the six foot rule meets the status quo being interpreted by staff, and will send this application to Council. Based on the review of the minutes, many of the concerns of the PEC were focused on the construction of new homes. However, this change had impacts on existing homes. It is common for duplex structures to step with grade. In fact, it is encouraged by the Design Guidelines. These steps often occur between units. There are few flat development sites within the Town of Vail and it is inequitable that the basement deduction is not allowed for both units, especially when the basement is below grade and has no impact on bulk and mass of a structure. It is clearly inequitable to treat half of an existing duplex different than the other half, simply because of the grade change over the site. It is therefore not a grant of special privilege to grant this variance. 11 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Applicant Response: Due to the nature of this variance request, there are no negative effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 12 Adjacent Properties POTATO PATCH PARTNERS RLLLP 785 POTATO PATCH DR VAI L, CO 81657-4480 CHAMBERS, JASON R. 3796 PARAN RDG NW ATLANTA, GA 30327-3026 WERTHEIM, HERBERT A. & NICOLE J 4470 SW 74TH AVE MIAMI, FL 33155-4408 JOHN H. DAVIE, JR REVOCABLE TRUST 776 POTATO PATCH DR VAI L, CO 81657-4477 RYAN, SCOTT T. & PAULA J. 2398 SW 76TH LN OCALA, FL 34476-6770 GILLETT, FOSTER L. 950 RED SANDSTONE RD UNIT 43 VAI L, CO 81657-4092 EAGLE DEN PROPERTIES LLC 6477 STRAWBERRY CT LONGMONT, CO 80503-7164 BARTLIT, FRED H. 1899 WYNKOOP ST STE 800 DENVER, CO 80202-1086 13 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0051) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0051 Staff Memo.pdf Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Applicant's Attachment A. Applicant's narrative with attachments December 16 2019.pdf narrative with attachments, December 16, 2019 Attachment B. Previously Attachment B. Previously approved parking floor plans June 29 2018.pdf approved parking floor plans, June 29, 2018 Attachment C. Page from original Attachment C. Page from original narrative concerning parking June 29 2018.pdf narrative concerning parking, June 29, 2018 Attachment D. PEC Meeting Minutes July 9 2018.pdf Attachment D. PEC Meeting Minutes July 9, 2018 Attachment E. Existing Parking Photos.pdf Attachment E. Existing parking photos. Attachment F. Correspondence Attachment F. Correspondence from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21 received January 7 2020.pdf from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21 received January 7, 2020 Attachment G. Correspondence Attachment G. Correspondence from Bruce Zivic with Vail 21 received January 9 2020.pdf from Bruce Zivic with Vail 21 received January 9, 2020 TOWN OF VAIL! Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0051) Applicant: Battle Mountain LLC Launch Development Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicants, Battle Mountain LLC, and Launch Development, Inc., request the review of an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Battle Mountain LLC, and Launch Development, Inc. are requesting three modifications to the previous approval for the construction of a new multifamily development with an automated underground parking system and other associated site improvements. These changes are: A request to eliminate the required parking requirement for the three onsite EHUs consistent with Section 12-23-3 D of the Vail Town Code. The three onsite units have a parking requirement per Chapter 10 of 1.4 parking spaces per unit. Section 12-23-3 D allows, at the discretion of the applicable governing body, variations to the parking standards subject to a parking management plan demonstrating an need for fewer parking spaces than would be required. Examples cited in the code include: a. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. b. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. c. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, car share programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. The applicants have proposed two alternatives to be articulated in the deed restrictions for the units. The two alternatives will be that the units will be leased/occupied by individuals without a vehicle or the parking association will allocate one of the "replacement parking spaces" to meet the parking demand. The "replacement parking spaces" are those spaces currently in existence on the site that are required to be replaced per Section 12-10-03 and as referenced in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (LRMP). 2. A request for a reconsideration of the quantity of existing spaces required to be replaced with the redevelopment of the site (replacement parking spaces). The previous approval required the replacement of 52 existing spaces. The applicants assert that the number of existing spaces required to be replaced was inaccurate as the survey was not fully evaluated at the time of the previous approval. The applicant contends that a critical evaluation of the existing condition finds that as many of 13 spaces are non-compliant for the following stated reasons: a. Nine (9) spaces encroach over the parcel boundary into the access easement b. Three (3) spaces were utilized for snow storage purposes c. One (1) space was a non -conforming use. Additionally, the applicants state that if the pre-existing parking facility had been striped in accordance with required dimensional standards, the number of spaces accommodated would only be 41 as opposed to the 52 being utilized. For these reasons, the applicants request that the required number of spaces to be replaced be reduced from 52 to 44. 3. A request to revise the internal layout of the parking components of the project including revisions to the arrival level and the reduction in automated parking levels form three (3) to two (2). The applicants have provided a narrative with associated attachments related to these requests. This narrative is included with this memorandum as Attachment A. Also included are the approved parking floorplans (Attachment B.), a page from the narrative provided with the original application concerning the replacement of existing on-site parking (Attachment C.), the minutes from the PEC meeting on July 9, 2018 when the project was approved (Attachment D), photos of the existing parking conditions (Attachment E), correspondence from Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21, (Attachment F) and correspondence Bruce Zivic, also with Vail 21 (Attachment G). III. BACKGROUND The subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail (Town) by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1969, which became effective on August 23, 1969. Vail/Lionshead Filing No. 1 was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Vail on April 27, 1970 and was subsequently recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder on May 10, 1970. In 1973 a two-level parking structure was built on this property and also built on the property immediately to the west to meet the parking demands of adjacent developments including Vail 21, the Lift House and the Lions Pride building, among others. Over the last 25 years, the property has continued to provide this parking, however the exact arrangements in regard to leases, easements or other legal instruments are largely unknown. The exception to this statement is Vail 21 whose rights and obligations related to the parking structure were resolved through legal action in 2007. The Town of Vail is not a party to any of these private agreements. Due to structural deficiencies, the top deck of the existing parking structure has been removed with the lower level re -graded and until redevelopment occurs. On July 9, 2018 the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved a Major Exterior Alteratio0n pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, vail Town Code for the construction of a new multifamily structure with below grade parking. This was the third meeting on the proposal. Also at this meeting, the PEC approved three related applications. These were a setback variance, a removal of the subject property and the adjacent property form the Town of Vail "parking pay -in - lieu" zones, and a final plat to reconfigure property lines between the development lots located at 500 and 534 East Lionshead Circle. The final plat was approved with the following condition that was reflect on the recorded document: Any major exterior alteration or other redevelopment of Lot 1A or Lot 2A shall include, at a minimum, 91 parking spaces for Lot 1A and 52 parking spaces for Lot 2A in addition to the requirements for the altered or redeveloped structures on said lots. Any approval to reduce the number of parking spots to be replaced will require a revision to this plat note through a future application before the PEC. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12, Zoninq Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) ARTICLE H — Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District 12-7H-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The Lionshead mixed use 1 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 1 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 1) Vail Comprehensive Plan (in part) Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan (in part) - The Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan is a visioning document that begins with a set of values that outline what is truly important to the community. The plan outlines goals for land use and development, parks and recreation, environment, housing, transportation, economy, community and public safety topics, including specific vision statements, long-term goals, and actions and strategies over the next 5 years to achieve those goals. LAND USE Goal #4: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. • Address the zoning regulations to provide more incentives for developers to build employee housing units. • Use employee housing fund for buy -downs and other programs that will increase the number of employees living within the town. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Goal #2: Energy Management in Buildings and Transportation: Reduce the town's 2007 baseline green house gas emissions. • Support employee housing initiatives in order to reduce trips into Vail. HOUSING Goal: 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. • Conduct inventory of all sites with development potential and pursue opportunities for acquiring undeveloped or underdeveloped properties. • Update the Vail Land Use Plan and identify more areas for employee housing. • Research parking requirements for employee housing and consider reducing requirements for employee housing developments. • Expand the number of employee beds in the Town of Vail ECONOMY Goal #3: Maintain a town -wide workforce in which at least 30 percent of people who work in Vail also live in Vail. • Support the local economy by working with the business community to address future workforce housing needs as they relate to business in Vail. Vail Land Use Plan (in part) — The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. One specific measure used to implement the recommendations of the Land Use Plan includes amendments to the Official Zoning Map. Other measures include changes to ordinances and regulations, or policies adopted by the Town. Chapter 11- Land Use Plan Goals / Policies (in part) 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. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan — The purpose of this plan is to define a strategy that consists of measurable goals, objectives, and actions that will help the Town coordinate efforts to achieve the environmental vision of the community. Goal #6 — Transportation — Reduce the environmental impact of transportation by supporting efforts within the Eagle Valley to decrease total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by commuters and guests by 20% by 2020. V. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: 534 East Lionshead Circle Legal Description: Lot 2A and Tract K, Vail/Lionshead Filing No. 1, a Resubdivision Lot Size: .314 acre (13,677 sq. ft.) Existing Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) Land Use Designation: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Mapped Geological Hazards: None UI VII Development Required by Town Proposed Complies? Standard Code West: Lodging/Multifamily Lot Size Min. 10,000 sq. ft. .314 acre (13,677 sq. Complies d ft.) Minimum Setbacks Front — 10' North: 10' Variance to west Side — 10' South: 10' setback approved with Rear — 10' East: 10' previous application West: 0' Maximum Height 82.5 ft. max 81 ft. max Complies 71 ft. averse 71 ft. average Maximum Dwelling 35 DUs/ per acre, or 9 dwelling units (28.6 Complies units/acre 11 units on a .314 du/buildable acre) acre parcel. GRFA Max. 250/100 24,590 sq. ft. Complies Buildable Site Area or 25,917 sq. ft. * Site coverage Max. 70% of site area 8,020 sq. ft. or 59% Complies maximum or 9,754 sq. ft. Minimum Min. 20% of site area 2,760 sq. ft. or 20% Complies Landscaping or 2,735 sq. ft. Required Parking 1.4 per unit or 17 57 spaces** Revision requested spaces *Although the Development Lot includes Tract K, per an agreement with a part owner of the tract, GRFA is limited to that associated with Lot 2A. **The proposed 57 spaces reflect an elimination of the required parking for the onsite EHUs (4.2 spaces) and a reduction in the number of pre-existing onsite spaces from 52 to 44. The original approval included 93 parking spaces that would have resulted in an excess of three (3) parking spaces over what is required by the development (17 spaces) and the replacement of the existing spaces (58 spaces) SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING North: Lodging/Multi-Family South: Mixed Use East: Welcome Center West: Lodging/Multifamily Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) General Use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) REVIEW CRITERIA -MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU- 1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; Staff Response: The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District are stated in Section 12-7H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code. As stated, the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District is intended to provide sites within the area of Lionshead for a mixture of multiple -family dwellings, hotels, fractional fee clubs, restaurants, skier services and commercial/retail establishments. The development standards prescribed for the district were established to provide incentives for development in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed amendments to the previous approval to eliminate the parking requirement for the on-site EHUs and the reduce the number of existing parking spaces required to be replaced do not bring the project out of conformance with this criterion. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; Staff Response: Chapter 5: Detailed Plan Recommendations Section 5.7.5 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan addresses specific recommendations for the Lions Pride Building and Parking Deck (Emphasis Added): 5.7.5 Lions Pride Building and Parking Deck The Lions Pride building and the parking deck across the alley are not in primary locations in the retail core but, because they are in very questionable condition (both visually and physically), their redevelopment and compliance with the Master plan should be considered a priority. An opportunity exists to convert the existing alleyway into a true arrival point for these properties and an enhanced pedestrian walkway. The existing parking must be replaced, most likely underneath a new structure, and could be accessed directly from East Lionshead Circle or from the alley. The proposed amendments, specifically the reduction in parking spaces to be replaced, call into question the project's conformance with this plan recommendation. Although some of the applicant's assertions may be valid, a reduction in required replacement spaces of the magnitude proposed (8 spaces) appears inconsistent with the requirement of the Vail Town Code and the recommendations of the LRMP that existing parking be replaced. Neither the Code nor the LRMP refer to the quantity of parking spaces in existence if the parking area was to be restriped in accordance with today's standards, but rather references existing parking and parking capacity. Staff finds this criterion has not been met. 3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and, Staff Response: The proposed amendments to the previous approval to eliminate the parking requirement for the on-site EHUs and the reduce the number of existing parking spaces required to be replaced doers not have a significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the Vail Comprehensive Plan to determine which elements of the Plan apply to the review of this proposal to amend the previous approval. Due to the limited scope of the proposed changes, staff does not believe that there are other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department provides the following recommendations related to the applicants' requests: 1. Elimination of EHU parking requirement: Community Development is supportive of the proposed amendment to eliminate the required parking for the onsite EHUs. The Vail Town Code allows the PEC flexibility concerning the parking requirement. Due to factors including the project's location, a parking management plan is appropriate. 2. Reduction in parking spaces to be replaced with redevelopment: Community Development is not convinced with the materials presented that the proposed reduction in replacement parking spaces from 52 to 44 is consistent with the Vail Town Code or the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 3. Modification to the arrival parking level and the automated system: Community Development is supportive of the proposed changes if the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the reduction in parking spaces to be replaced. Internal movements have been analyzed and found to be acceptable. As conditioned, the level will maintain accommodations for pedestrians to traverse the arrival level. Staff's recommendation is based upon the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Motion to Approve: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicants' request for an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC19-0051). This amendment reduces the required amount of existing parking spaces to be replaced from 52 to 44 and eliminates the required parking for the three (3) onsite EHU units." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicants' request for an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission imposes the following conditions: 1. Prior to submitting for building permit, the applicant shall revise the arrival level floor plan to provide paver detail the delineates a pedestrian path similar to the previous approval. 2. Prior to submitting for building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the PEC for an amendment to the approved final plat related to any reduction in the required replacement of existing parking spaces. 3. The Transportation Impact Fee shall be paid to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to issuance of any building permit. 4. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record deed restrictions, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, for the on-site employee housing units (EHUs) including a parking management plan. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 137 2020, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the proposed Major Exterior Alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the LMU-1 district as specified in section 12-7H-1 of the Zoning Regulations, and 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and 3. That the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood." Motion to Deny Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the applicants' request for an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicant's request for an amendment to an approved Exterior Alteration for the Launch Development, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to modify the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Tract E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC 19-005 1). " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 137 2020, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the proposed Major Exterior Alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the LMU-1 district as specified in section 12-7H-1 of the Zoning Regulations, and 2. That the proposal is inconsistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan,- and lan,and 3. That the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's narrative with attachments, December 16, 2019 B. Previously approved parking floor plans, June 29, 2018 C. Page from original narrative concerning parking, June 29, 2018 D. PEC Meeting Minutes, July 9, 2018 E. Existing parking photos. F. Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos with Vail 21, January 7, 2020 G. Bruce Zivic with Vail 21, January 9, 2020 Elevation Amendment to Exterior Alteration and Employee Housing Plan December 16, 2019 Introduction The purpose of this report is to describe proposed amendments to the Exterior Alteration approval for 'Elevation', a new condominium project located in Lionshead. These amendments modify the required amount of parking for the project, the design of parking facilities (interior to the building) and the project's plan for parking the Employee Housing Units. This application is submitted on behalf of Battle Mountain, LLC & Launch Development, Inc., owners and developers of the project. Information provided herein provides background on the 2017 approval of Elevation, a summary of previously approved and proposed changes to parking and employee housing, and evaluation of how the proposed amendments comply with applicable Exterior Alteration review criteria. Other information provided under separate cover include proposed plans, title report (Attachment E.), adjacent property owners list (Attachment F.) and other application material. Background on Elevation and Need for this Amendment Elevation is a small residential condominium project that received Town approvals in 2017. The project consists of nine for -sale condominiums, owner/project amenities, three on-site employee housing units, and mechanized underground parking structure. The project is located on a site that previously accommodated a two-level parking structure. Parking provided for the proposed project included parking required for the new development; and, in accordance with town codes, the replacement of existing parking. Over the last two years, the development team, and their design professionals, have gone about evaluating the structural, hydrological, and relational forces; and, their impacts upon the 'Elevation' Project and those existing/contemplated projects surrounding it. In order to accommodate enough parking to satisfy the current requirement, the project would need to excavate and construct a sub -grade three level mechanized parking structure. The unique forces at play with such a small/slender profile and footprint created design and sustainable construction challenges as expressed by the Structural Engineer of record, Raker Rhodes. Ultimately these challenges were determined to be developmentally unfeasible. Please see attached Structural Engineer letter (Attachment A.) as made a part of this application. Amendments proposed to the approved plans involve a change to the number of existing parking spaces to be replaced as part of the new development and a request to waive parking requirements for the on-site employee housing units. Details of these changes are described below. Required On-site Parking In 2017 the parking requirements for Elevation were determined by three factors: 1. Replacement of pre-existing parking, as per Section 12-10-3 of the Town's zoning code (52 spaces). 2. Parking requirements for the new for sale condominiums (12.6 spaces), and 3. Parking requirements for on-site employee housing units (4.2 spaces). A minimum of 69 on-site spaces were required as per 2017 approved plans. Based on the proposed amendment, the number of provided parking spaces would be 57. As further described below, the proposed change to required on-site parking is a function of reducing the number of existing parking spaces to be replaced by eight (8) spaces and a waiver to on-site parking requirements for the three employee housing units by four (4) spaces. Existing Parking to be Replaced Section 12-10-03 of the Town's zoning code states: "Off street parking and loading facilities used for off street parking and loading on the effective date hereof shall not be reduced in capacity to less than the number of spaces prescribed in this chapter, or reduced in area or number to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this chapter". The applicant purchased the garage structure site in 2017. At that time, 47 parking spaces were being utilized as per the rent roll attested by the Seller at the time of purchase by Battle Mountain, LLC. The survey (see attached) was not evaluated at the time of the entitlement submittal in 2017 and therefore a replacement of 52 stalls was determined to be the correct replacement number. The future parking obligation from the stock that existed in 2017 is 26 spaces the remainder of the original 47 spaces were verbal month to month rentals. A recent critical evaluation of the existing parking arrangement in 2017 determined that the survey includes spaces that did not conform to dimensional and/or other parking design standards. Please find attached survey (Attachment C.) at the time of purchase in 2017 showing the stalls as they existed, as well as a color overlay of those spaces that would have been non- compliant. As many as 13 spaces would be non-compliant for various reasons. They include the following: Nine (9) encroach over the parcel boundary, three (3) were utilized for snow storage purposes, and one (1) was a non -conforming use. As a secondary illustration, if you were to layout the same garage parcel using today's design standards, you could accommodate 41 stalls vs. the 52 being utilized (Attachment D.). Changes to Employee Housing Plan Approved plans for Elevation include three (3) on-site employee housing units which exceed the total square footage required. In addition to providing all required EHU's on the site of the project, it is providing one additional EHU than would be required for a project of this size. Currently, there are two (2) two -bedrooms units and one (1) one -bedroom unit. Each of these units is required to provide 1.4 parking spaces each, or a total of 4.2 spaces. In order to reduce the required number of on-site parking spaces, a request is made to waive the parking requirement for these three units. This request is made in accordance with Section 12-23-3 D. of the Zoning Code: D. Parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. 1. Exception For On Site EHUs: At the discretion of the applicable governing body, variations to the parking standards outlined in chapter 10 of this title may be approved during the review of an employee housing plan subject to a parking management plan. The parking management plan may be approved by the applicable governing body and may provide for a reduction in the parking requirements for on-site units based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include: a. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. b. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. c. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, car share programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. The creation of three new employee housing units in the center of Vail is an extremely positive community benefit and Elevation is uniquely located in a way that lends itself to a parking waiver. The subject site is located in the heart of Lionshead and is walkable, not just to Lionshead, but to much of Vail. The in -town bus stop is literally steps away and the regional/ECO stop is just a few hundred feet away. As such, occupancy of these units by people without cars is not only very realistic, it should arguably be encouraged. The parking management plan for these units is quite simple and as per the ordinance will be articulated in the deed restrictions for these units. The management plan will include two alternatives: 1) Elevation will agree that the units will be leased/occupied by individuals who do not have a car, or 2) The parking association will allocate one of the "replacement parking spaces" to meet the parking demands of these units. Precise wording of these alternatives will be coordinated with staff and reflected in the employee housing unit deed restrictions. Proposed On-site Parking Reauirement Based on changes to the number of existing parking spaces and the waiver of on-site parking for the employee housing requirements, the proposed on-site parking requirement for Elevation is 57 spaces: • 44 existing spaces to be replaced • 12.6 spaces for nine new for -sale condominiums • Providing a total of 57 spaces Proposed Parking Plan The entry and lower levels of the parking garage have been redesigned to provide the proposed 57 on-site parking spaces. As originally approved, a mechanical parking system is proposed. Arrival and drop-off will function very much as was originally designed. Please see attached circulation and parking drawings (Attachments B. & 13.-01) as well as the two lower levels of parking. Review Criteria Same criteria for an Exterior Alteration are used for an amendment. These include: 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: 1. In compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead mixed use 1 district, Response The purpose of the LHMU1 district is: The Lionshead mixed use 1 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple - family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 1 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a distressed property that is identified by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (the Plan) as a priority for redevelopment. The proposed amendments will not change this outcome. The project is very much consistent with the purpose of the LHMU1 zone district. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and Plans for Elevation approved in 2017 were deemed by staff and the PEC to be consistent with all applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed amendments do not change the exterior of the building. As such, the amendment is consistent with this criteria. 3. 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. Response Plans for Elevation approved in 2017 were deemed by staff and the PEC to have a positive effect on the surrounding neighborhood and to comply with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. The proposed amendments do not change these findings made in 2017. RtRAKER RHODES Engineering Ryan Osborn, CDT Launch Development, Inc. 9744 N Conant Ave Kansas City, MO 64153 December 16, 2019 Attachment A. The intent of this letter is to explain the hardships created with a third parking level (vs. two levels). The introduction of a third level increases forces and design complexity on an exponential scale. This complexity will lead to significant constructability issues. Consequently, it was strongly advised by the entire design team and general contractor, that the Elevation project remove the third parking level. The major items affected by the third level of below -grade parking: The Elevation building is very unique in stature; simply, it is tall and skinny. There are substantial seismic forces that create an overturning moment (tipping over) risk, that is extremely difficult to resolve with a 3rd parking level. In order to achieve parking minimums, based on the very small building footprint, a mechanical parking system is the only option; consequently, the building's foundation is essentially a hollow box. This significantly compounds the building's already unique and challenging stature. Traditional parking garages contain floors that serve to brace the foundation and anchor the structure. With increased depth, it becomes exponentially more difficult to prevent the mechanical garage's hollow box walls from caving inward due to major exterior groundwater and soil pressures. In confined urban areas, deep excavations create monumental constructability issues. With increased depth, horizontal soil forces increase significantly throughout the full -height of a foundation wall. Hydraulic pressures are substantially amplified at 3rd parking -level - depth. Cesare, Inc.'s geotechnical report encountered flowing groundwater at a depth of 38 ft. Maintaining a 2 level structure would largely avoid the groundwater. The Lions View project is maintaining a similar depth to avoid the significant structural and dewatering challenges with the water table. Sliding forces are increased exponentially by adding a 3rd below grade parking level. The Elevation and Lions View projects are maintaining a zero lot line. In this scenario, sliding forces cannot be resolved by friction (typical approach); instead, the Elevation building will require numerous deep foundation elements to resolve sliding forces. The quantity of deep foundation elements needed grows exponentially with the third below -grade level. The placement of those elements will be critical, and with a small building footprint, it would be enormously difficult to place all elements to substantially restrain the building. Regards, �,, � 4,1 Erik Raker, PE Raker Rhodes Engineering Des Moines, IA Iowa City, IA Fort Collins, CO Sioux Falls, SD www.rakerrhodes.com m 07'NlV1Nnon 3�11vo WM- e 0011VA NOUVA33 _z- NON - NOGNO] :,ON VH=A,(N=0,N�]dVGSNiO0 - OGN-O - HO— idOd— do, N ."OlV0 HO '1101-0 'SVIIVI 0-- NS- -VGGVOdVHd]V-9 < 8 d �'SiO3ilHO�JV NWW �T SH3NIHVd 18 SA3HHdWnH < HE "7 ---------- I — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - - — — — — - — — L - - - - Cf) I i I T 11 LL — - — - — - — - — - r=== r ------------------ .......... ------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- HE Cf) _MW', cf) (D o O I�-,� ❑ �� -„mo�.a d„rvom _` am,,,,,,,,coo a��ama«�:mew�o=�� e � m gg¢veeg®p�.�ar 07 'NIH1Nnon 3�11H8 s�6`e5 s`ap==�i 00 1IHn gg @vgE uag N e NOUVA33 3 o3H�°aNON .NooN w do, 0s o<<zs OlV0Ho'"01O —0 -SV, (Dao wwzm V dN�'SlO3ilHOaJV o� Q SH3NIHVd18SA3HHdWOH m a z z 0 z 0 w m a 7�� Mill TT VF11�4� ~_:==(Az ^® . 9«»a:m:e&e 2 ,z :y, va m4q\damoo—in/mm^ - : / \ m�aRs n._a a, s� x .m . :°§ : � � � � C RCE I H u \ C' Ln u L Ln .44'65 3,S9,ll,SS=H5 /�,]6' .C9'85=1 ,40"GIL=tl 3ng Sl0'04't3"E L£44.S1=v -_-------------___.t-_..____-.__ 3 TIF (N M a0 M +r N N to 6� C 0) J N — - " M O Ln N - Q > VJ +�+ m C C0 O 0 ^^ ED C Q 0 E '' vJ 0 CO 0 U U) of No4 5'53"W 90,00' 0 U m z '0^- vJ 0 i 1� V V R CL . A V 1 J Ln C RCE I H u \ C' Ln u L Ln .44'65 3,S9,ll,SS=H5 /�,]6' .C9'85=1 ,40"GIL=tl 3ng Sl0'04't3"E L£44.S1=v -_-------------___.t-_..____-.__ 3 TIF K:' €ya:� - Ln N - L� No4 5'53"W 90,00' K:' €ya:� --Lno),Vl ONIMVd 031VOdf1 - 13n31 dO1 a N L99L2 00 'TVA X ?11O OV3HSNOII 3t£9 LU - NOI LVn3l3 I EL L -4 T-- o Q �I 16,0 ° p 19,00' I a a ° 1900,. J w ° o U 0 j f °CL Q N ;I 26.00' 24' MIN I I ° N h I o I IN —�-o.as5—o00 w � W ~ ~ I 4� --------- ---- i Q EL EL u r= _ 1no, v� cJ ONIMVd 031VOdn 13n31 NO1109 L99L2 00 'TVA Lu _ -- ?110 OV3HSNOII 3 b£9 - NOI LVn313 S�0,0413� - 26.14' G 9,L1zS-NQ------ �--�"EIS 30, 6 29'69=2 ,LO'L13= S1 q'0 4'1 3 1 `I VAIL UO SNEAD -------------- --- 1 0 d I--------- 11 $II — — — — — — — 2773 22 I m __ _ co f o / ;,n I I I USP U �I O d li mw o0 !1 ���_--------------------- ----t l -- -----N0405'53"W 90:I _ N04°05'53''W� 26.00' dd a z of Y d O m m m LL y LL LL LL LL LL CO CO CO CO CO Q (n LL LL r BOO O O N MO m n O 00 O �aF N N O M p LLO OD J CO d LL LL LL LL LL LL V% W y W LL LL Cl) Cf)N af)�o COc4 � Cf) Cf) co co c4 o u> u> u> o u> O a p O p w w w w N N N N N N J U UQ UQ UQ UQ r M N N Nco N a Q a a a a a co co co co Z Im m m M O Owl N N N N mr O Mr � - O O (4 O r z ¢ UJ C - UJ a a a a U J 2rO O O OOOOOO p 0LL - YzY _ - zY z> OW 2 Z Y zY - 2 2 0 o r r cro w uri a C, N a a a a a a a o� o I -------------- ------------ 5 —.—. ---- 0 o � i I I I m I II I I I I I� I I I kCI �lll I I I � I _ I I I i I I W y0/ 'off a m z Os2 Qz r 2 OJ a w Q 2 0 �0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I i o(D 00 z z c4 Q J Q cn 70 U L._.—._.—._.—.—.—._. L.—.—.- W Q rC, r COLI-+egwnN 10OWd k /99L800 11VA m 810 0tl3HSNW 3 489 NOUVAE M3 LL y LL LL LL LL LL CO CO CO CO CO Q (n LL LL r BOO O O N MO m n O 00 O �aF N N O M p LLO OD J CO d LL LL LL LL LL LL V% W y W LL LL Cl) Cf)N af)�o COc4 � Cf) Cf) co co c4 o u> u> u> o u> O a p O p w w w w N N N N N N J U UQ UQ UQ UQ r M N N Nco N a Q a a a a a co co co co Z Im m m M O Owl N N N N mr O Mr � - O O (4 O r z ¢ UJ C - UJ a a a a U J 2rO O O OOOOOO p 0LL - YzY _ - zY z> OW 2 Z Y zY - 2 2 0 o r r cro w uri a C, N a a a a a a a o� o I -------------- ------------ 5 —.—. ---- 0 o � i I I I m I II I I I I I� I I I kCI �lll I I I � I _ I I I i I I W y0/ 'off a m z Os2 Qz r 2 OJ a w Q 2 0 �0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I i o(D 00 z z c4 Q J Q cn 70 U L._.—._.—._.—.—.—._. L.—.—.- W Q rC, r CO LL CO COLI-+egwnN 10OWd LL CO k /99L800 11VA m 810 0tl3HSNW 3 1189 LL NOUVAE M3 CO LL CO LL CO LL CO LL CO Q LL (o LL LL O¢ r yFp O O O O N O LL T m h co 0 ! 0] co O O M O � 3 li Y �i liIIII ya~ N N N N co0 J LL CO QJ OU mW LL p� LL d LL LL (n (n LL In LL In LL In LL co � 0 V% y> w LL LL co o in in in o in N d O �O (n > O c4 � c4 c4 c4 c4 N N N N N N a o J o w Q U¢ w w U¢ U¢ w U¢ r M N N N N d ¢ z a a co co m a a co co m m a co M Q Owl � 2E N N N N mO O MO � ¢ o r r r Or z Ircf, L - a a a a F- w �O 0 0 0 0 ¢ z o o z 7LL LL LL LU LU x D D w o _ Z Q LU (rpF- 2 2 C M N r r c a a h a a a a a a a a f.-------- — --- -- — — — — — yoo� z O X22¢ r OJ a Q x o O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY z I o ~ I I --F =L--r-�-- CARORTRUCK - �o _ w - LL i I � I I i I I I I I I I j � I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I I it I I I i� 3 li Y �i liIIII A i I � I I i I I I I I I I j � I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I I it I I I yoo z O X22¢ r OJ a Q 2 0 C- 0 O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY -L7---F — ? ----L_3 0 M I o ~ I ¢ I F ----L --r—�-- 18'-9" CARORTRUCK — — —.--- iF - -- -- ---- - --.-.-.- T I ----------i-- - i I I I I LL w COLI-+egwnN 10OWd LL k /99L800 11VA I��■� m 810 0tl3HSNW 3 1189 ��i NOUVAE M3 yoo z O X22¢ r OJ a Q 2 0 C- 0 O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY -L7---F — ? ----L_3 0 M I o ~ I ¢ I F ----L --r—�-- 18'-9" CARORTRUCK — — —.--- iF - -- -- ---- - --.-.-.- T I ----------i-- - i I I I I LL w LL LL LL LL I��■� i� LL ��i il_i� co �i=1 Iii F M =1 4a N N N N — ii li�■ O J LL O W O0 O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL d m�C � LL (n c4 c4 c4 c4 CO 40 N O CO CO CO cr (n N m m O a O O CO W W W W N N N NN coo N U U¢ U¢ U¢ Q N N N d Qd Z d d d a CO CO CO v7 CO m m m C 0 O N N N U ¢ ¢ °w� N N N N mF O MF � - w O O O J r Z �� O r a a OOOOOO Op za z U LL LL> r _za W LL O- 2LU 2 2 r r � O � (~Oa u~i a M N c � d a a a a a a yoo z O X22¢ r OJ a Q 2 0 C- 0 O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY -L7---F — ? ----L_3 0 M I o ~ I ¢ I F ----L --r—�-- 18'-9" CARORTRUCK — — —.--- iF - -- -- ---- - --.-.-.- T I ----------i-- - i I I I I a � I��■� i� ��i il_i� �i=1 Iii Hill will �IIIl IIPN�:= Il�lls��i�ll� il��■��Qiiiill�� ii, I ■ — ii li�■ a � CO co co co co LU W W W W CO CO CO CO CO O N N N m CO LL y COLI-+egwnN 10OWd LL k /99L800 11VA m 810 0tl3HSNW 3 1189 ON NOUVAE M3 CO co co co co LU W W W W CO CO CO CO CO O N N N m CO LL y LL LL LL LL LL ON M � (n (n (n (n (n Q m (n LL CO LL (n = SOF y F O 0 Oq 0 O N (O LL a h p CO O F cq M p m a N N N N C%O LJ LL 0 In J mC LL LL W 0- p pLU W LL C)O N a CO NO N N N W N W N NO N (gyp N O O M N N N N d - Owl J J N N N N mO O MO ¢ F- F- LU � LU O Op O O O O J O w 0 a J J F O O J w W LL r LL LL LL LL LL x LJL W - a Y o J F W F F Z ~ CO c LU in a M N a t� CO co co co co LU W W W W CO CO CO CO CO O N N N m CO ON M � O O O O - a a a a a a 70 yoo� z O X22 ¢ r 00 a Q x o O 17'-5" PARKING TRAY o c7 I o ~ I - z w CARORTRUCK - LLi Parking As outlined in a 1972 letter from the Town of Vail, the existing parking structure was built to provide parking for three adjacent projects. Elevation will replace existing parking and provide for the new parking demand from the proposed development. The existing structures and surface parking located on Lot A2 and a portion of Tract K (the Launch project) provides 52 parking spaces. Proposed development of nine condominiums and three EHU's requires 17 spaces for a total of 69 spaces. The parking structure will provide a minimum of 69 on-site spaces. Parking will be provided on three below grade levels and six additional spaces at the main entry to the parking structure. A total of 93 parking spaces are depicted on proposed plans. It should be noted that this is a maximum potential parking number. As project design progresses and more is known about structural, mechanical and other design considerations, it is anticipated that less than 93 spaces will be provided. However, under any circumstance a minimum of 69 spaces will be provided in order to meet zoning requirements. A fully automated parking system is proposed. A fully automated parking garage is a mechanical system designed to minimize area/volume required for parking vehicles. An automated parking garage utilizes mechanics made up of motors, chains, pulleys and pallets to transport vehicles within the parking system rather than the driver doing so. The driver pulls into a loading bay that looks very similar to a garage and parks their car on what is essentially a pallet. The driver then leaves their vehicle and using a nearby kiosk (with a fob or ticket) instructs the system to park the vehicle. The loading bay door then closes and the pallet and vehicle are automatically moved to its designated parking space. When the driver is ready to retrieve their vehicle, they will insert their parking ticket into the kiosk (or use their fob) which would trigger the retrieval of their vehicle. There will be monitors in the lobby that will let the driver know which bay their vehicle will be arriving in. The vehicle will be delivered facing out so that the driver does not have to back up out of the bay; this allows ease of exit as well as expedites the retrieval process. Six enclosed parking spaces are located next to the parking system loading bay. These spaces provide parking for users who want to park on-site but need time before using the parking system. These spaces will allow condominium owners or short-term renter to check in, unload personal items, etc. before parking. Site Design The building's primary pedestrian orientation is to the east with an entry stairs and front door located along East Lionshead Circle. Landscaping along the road is proposed to define spaces and "soften" the building. Pedestrian access is also provided on the south Elevation/534 East Lionshead Circle Development Applications Page 10 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAI0 July 9, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Brian Stockmar, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Ludwig Kurz, Pam Hopkins Absent: Rollie Kjesbo 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of variance from Section 12-6C-10, Landscaping 30 min. and Site Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the si)dy percent (60%) landscaping requirement, located at 5128 Grouse Lane/Lot 8, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18- 0026) ApplicantStanley & Karen Jeranko, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Justin Lightfield Lightfield introduced the project and described public comment received on this application, which are letters of support. He described the subject property and the access agreement for access on the rear of the property, which provides accesses for Eagle River Water and Sanitation to their property to the south. The access easement takes up about 15 percent of the site, taking away area to be used for landscaping. Minimum required landscaping is 60% of the site. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide less than the required landscaping. ERW SD needs the full 25' road width to allow truck access to the site. John Martin, Architect — Existing asphalt on the site creates a problem. We meet all other site requirements, and site already has some site limitations. Half of the parcel must take access from Grouse Lane, and the other unit will take access from the access road. Home is designed to separate the two dwelling units as much as possible. Majority of the front driveway is on Town of Vail property. Stockmar — Will you meet at parking requirements? Martin — Yes, we are meeting parking requirements. They will be on the site itself. Perez — Please describe the slope challenges of the site. Martin — Building steps down from Grouse Lane, and third level down still does not reach grade. We are working with the grades, but will still have retaining walls. Shape of the lot has more to do with the design than the slope. Lightfield — The height of the proposed residence is 32'-10", within the 33' height limit. Martin- If no landscaping variance, it's an unfair situation for this developer, which would not be the same as other lots without the existing asphalt. Public Comment — John Kuchar — 5124 Grouse Lane. Will this application provide less landscaping than required? (Lightfield, yes, landscaping proposed is 58%) We are not looking forward to construction traffic. Road was built with plans for minimal traffic. Lightfield —Access easement document highlights the construction, repair, and maintenance responsibilities. Kuchar — There is an existing access agreement, it's not clear if it's a 20 year agreement, which expires soon. Stockmar — You will need to ask that question to your own counsel. Perez — Explained in perpetuity means forever. Kuchar — Road is not designed for heavy construction, and in winter how will snow plowing be addressed. We are asking for a 90 day delay on this application. Stockmar — That question is not relevant to the Commission's purview. Chris Mont — Owner of Lot 3. He is in agreement with John on all his points. Who is going to clean the road each day? He is in construction, so he knows how much impact construction can have. He stated no one has done their 20% of maintenance. He uses the access road daily and echoes John's concerns. Perez — You should discuss the legal document with your counsel. Mont — What's wrong with waiting 90 days? Gilllette — The road is existing. It has nothing to do with the Town. There are more hoops for the applicant to jump through, including design review and a building permit. Mont — Not all homes on this road were built using this road. Commissioner Comment — Lockman —Appreciate the staff memorandum on this lot. Criteria for the variance has been met, considering that the site already has paving. It's a challenging site, but it's outside the Towns purview to negotiate on private property. Hopkins — OK with it. Perez — One of the criteria we must look into, the relationship to other structures in the vicinity. The PEC needs to take into account the impact the development has on adjacent property. The PEC also needs to look at physical hardship, and the issue on slope was determined not to be an issue. She has not seen any evidence that they have not been able to meet the standard. Perez stated the concern of granting a special privilege. We can not look at what we approved before. I'm not swayed that it's impossible to provide 388 additional square feet. Kurz — Concur with Lockman and Hopkins. The road can be a physical hardship. Most lots don't have a road built through their property. Most lots are allowed a certain amount of site coverage and landscaping based on lot size. Stockmar —Agrees with most of the other commissioners. The would not be an issue to meet the landscaping requirements if there were no existing road. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.2. A request for the review of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use 5 min. Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing maintenance facility with a new maintenance facility at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1278 Vail Valley D rive/U n platted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0027) Applicant'Vail Golf Course, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Justin Lightfield Lightfield introduced the project. No formal action by the PEC is required. Jeff Bailey -1287 Vail Valley Drive. Thank you for the communication, it has been great. Question on access to the facility, will it change? Bill Pierce — No access will change with the project. Scott O'Connell — No change to access to the facility. No changes to Vail Valley Drive on this site. Chris Wolder —Adjacent property owner. What time of day will construction take place? Roz Cochman -1328 Vail Valley Drive — Concerned about the noise level. Jack Hunn, Consultant — Hope to start late September and finish by April or May 2019. No commissioner comments. 2.3. A request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713- 45 min. 7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a new multifamily structure with below grade parking, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0016) Applicant$attle Mountain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this project is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The Transportation Impact Fee shall be paid to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to issuance of any building permit. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the Applicant shall execute and record deed restrictions, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, for the on-site employee housing units (EHUs). 4. The DRB shall review the snowfall conditions on the rear setback at time of review. Stockmar - for the record, there have already been two meetings on the project. Braun, representing Battle Mountain LLC, presented to the PEC and stated after the last meeting additional research has been done on the automated parking system. There are four applications today. First, is a minor subdivision (PEC18-0017). Second, Braun presented the "pay in lieu" parking map amendment (PEC18-0019). Third, is the setback variance/west wall (PEC 18-0018). The Launch building will confirm to the setback to the 0' setback line. Braun stated the west wall's plane will be determined at the DRB stage in the process. Fourth, is the exterior alteration (PEC18-0016). Braun stated staff is supportive of the new design and the application still must go through the Design Review Board for final design approval. Braun then presented the automated parking system. He stated the Town Code requires a minimum of 7' clearance. The elevation clearance proposed is 7'6". The system will hold 71 minimum spaces. 46 spaces for Vail 21 and Launch with 25 spaces leased to other users, including retail, real estate office, etc. There is no "rush hour" or "peak arrival time" from the residential users. Stockmar asked about the demand of the system. Perez - What percentage of the residential parking are short-term vs. long- term? Braun could not speak to how many permanent residents live in the building Braun mentioned vehicles pull off of the alley, and then enter a code into the key pad, which opens the garage in a matter of seconds. The user then exits the car and the car stages itself in front of the elevator, thereby not holding up any traffic. There are two elevators in the garage and the elevators can work simultaneously. Stockmar asked if the parking system reverses the car when the elevator returns the car to ground level. This would allow the car to pull out rather than backing out. Braun stated yes, the cars will pull forward rather than backing out. Braun stated automated systems have been around for a long duration and many years. The average turnaround time is 90 seconds for the elevator to park a car and return to the top. Braun showed on a site plan there are six spaces for cars to park and drop off supplies. On site staff will verify cars do not utilize drop off parking zones for long term parking. Braun then presented on elevator reliability. CityLift is on site quarterly checking the system and cleans the system quarterly. The system will be designed differently to handle the winter environment, which will be more resistant to moister. The system will also have a dehumidifying system to handle the environment. CityLift will have a contract with a local elevator maintenance company. In most cases, problems are solved in minutes. There has not been a repair prohibiting cars from leaving for more than a few hours with the system. Commissioner Comments - Hopkins — How you unload and load without affecting other cars entering the elevator? How does the circulation work? Braun — It will require some moving around of vehicles. There are six dedicated spaces in the drop-off area. Stockmar stated the normal turn -around, parking patterns, and turning radius analysis would help the PEC and determine when bottlenecks would occur. Stockmar stated he lived with an automated parking system in Tokyo and it never failed in two and a half years. based on past experiences with using similar systems, it works. Gillette — If there is not enough time to get items in or out of your car, the complex will have to hire an assistant. Hopkins — The drop-off and unload area is more likely to back up than the parking elevators. Kurt Rhoden, with Launch Development — Most often systems are using a public parking format. We have the luxury to have an educated parking environment within their community. The community with view a video on the system that CityLift produces. Lockman — Is the trash and recycling accessed inside the garage or in the alley? Braun — They will roll the bin out to the alley and likely go down to the end of the alley to service the other buildings. Perez asked if Braun obtained a height measurement within the Town of Vail regulations. Braun stated they meet the minimum requirements at 7'6". Lockman — Is emergency access available if the elevators back up and cars park in the alley? Braun — Restoring and having 22' of clear moving area. With a worse case scenario there will still be access back into the property. Public Comment - Stewart McNab, representing Lift House Homeowners Association, stated his client's interest is not in the parking garage beneath the Launch Development. His client's interest is in the Lazier section of the parking garage (upper level that has been removed). He mentioned PEC18-0017 replating application. Stockmar clarified McNab was addressing another application, not the current application, PEC18-0016. He asked for the permission from the Commission to proceed with comments since they are interrelated. McNab — The final plat is the appropriate place to address parking places that existed prior to earlier this summer when the parking structure was demolished. Lift House requests a condition that would require on Lot 1A that there be a condition for parking places that existed prior to demolition, that the parking spaces be replaced. McNab indicated the condition will preserve the status quo and will not affect the Launch site. It wouldn't change anything. Preserve the spaces that were there prior to development being proposed. Condition reads: "Any Major Exterior Alteration or other redevelopment of Lot 1A shall include, at a minimum, 95 spaces in addition to the requirements for the altered or redeveloped structure on that lot, so as to conform to the original permits and approval for the Lift House and the Lionshead Arcade buildings for which the parking existing as of June 1, 2018 on Lot 1A was intended to serve." McNab stated there are actually 91 spaces after speaking with Braun. The condition can change to 91 spaces rather than 95 spaces. This recognizes the demo for permit was granted without condition and adding the condition to the new plat will ensure preserving the status quo at time of development. It will not affect the Launch side, because parking is being taken care of. Condition would have the effect of preserving the spaces that were there prior to the development being proposed. Lockman — What was the total allocation of spots across 2A and 1A both top and bottom of the parking structure? Gillette — How did we get to 46 spaces? Braun stated Launch will provide there parking numbers as required and Lazier will provide their parking numbers. The 46 number is the number Launch has committed the residential users on their portion of the property. Gillette — How are we going to get to what we are replacing vs adding? Kurt Rhoden — There were 52 spaces before demolition. We need to replace those 52 spaces. There are also an additional minimum of 71 spaces needed for the development. The 46 is totaled by adding what Vail 21 and Elevation community would need. Perez — Clarified there will be 71 spaces on the eastern side 1/3 and 91 or 95 on the western 2/3. Braun stated 91 spaces existed before demo on Lazier's side of the development. Braun clarified demo occurred prior to the applications coming before the PEC. Braun explained the following in terms of history: June 1 (before demo) — there were 52 spaces at Launch and Lazier had 91. 143 spaces total. Launch is replacing their 52 and providing 17 more for EHUs and condominiums Lazier will replace 91 spaces and provide parking for his 23 units — 30 some - odd spaces. • 143 total spaces before deck was removed Perez asked who was the applicant for the demolition of the garage. Stockmar asked if there was a condemnation of the parking structure. Braun responded the parking structure was not condemned. Battle Mountain LLC was the applicant for demo permit. Battle Mountain LLC is part of Launch. Gillette suggested a change to the condition. Stockmar asked if the PEC needed to include the Gillette suggested change to the condition. Neubecker confirm the language is already highlighted in the Vail Town Code. McNab — The problem is there so no assurance that the project will happen any time soon, whether that be this year, next year, etc. Lazier — Stated that he is concerned of the terminology of the condition since he does not trust the motivation of the Lift House. He stated he hopes to present his proposed project in 30-45 days. He prefers the condition to be in the PEC's language, not Lift House's. He stated there are no traffic flow issues, without many cars coming in and out on a daily basis. The 91 spaces will be part of their proposal. Jamie Crosby, Vail 21 resident— Owns parking lots and apartment buildings. Concerns were the elevator maintenance and getting fixed. Mentioned lack of staging with cars and getting garbage trucks through the site. David Moe — Manager for Vantage Point Condominiums. Stated there was a horizontal crack that went the entire distance of the property. Vantage Point's concern is for their foundation and is seeking assurance that their property will not be affected by construction and building 3 floors underground. The structure was collapsing because it was moving to the south, especially being built 8' from the Vantage Point. Additionally, the proposed sidewalk along the north property line of Launch is a hazard. They believe the sidewalk is a danger due to the cliff of Vantage Point's roof. The area between the two properties is deadly, due to Vantage Point being 6 stories and the proposed building being 7 stories. Neubecker — This will be examined during the DRB review process. Moe — Never had snow falling on cars or people, but he has noticed tons of snow falling between the two buildings. The sidewalk is the main concern. Moe asked for a core sample of the soil 10' deep. Lazier responded well, but Launch did not respond as well Commissioner Comment - Lockman — Largest concern is that parking that was there, stays there. In the Lionshead planning documents, is there a number mentioned in the master planning document for parking? Neubecker —A number is not indicated on the master planning documents. Braun — The master plan specifically states parking must be replaced. He believes the parking condition is not required. Stated a condition is not required since this is an active application. Gillette— Indicated due to high construction costs, the building may not be built any time soon. The condition will verify it is not lost and the condition should be added to the plat and fee -in -lieu applications. Braun — Wanted to clarify conversations with Vantage Point. Braun stated the applicant will reconvene with Vantage Point once a construction team is selected. Stockmar — Clarified the PEC was in commissioner comment on PEC18-0018 and PEC18-0016. Commissioner Comment for all related applications - Gillette —Adding the condition to PEC 18-0019 and PEC 18-0017 makes sense to clarify what parking spaces are being talked about. Kurz —Aggress with Gillette's idea that all applications are appropriate. Kurz will support conditions if supported by Staff. Comfortable with the applications. Concerns have been thought about and addressed. Perez —Agrees with other commissioners and appreciates the background provided. Thanked applicant for addressing concerns made by the PEC. In favor of Gillette's proposed conditions. Hopkins —Agrees with adding parking condition. Also added for DRB to review the roof snowfall hazard to be looked at during DRB review. Lockman — PEC18-0016 applicant listened to the PEC and applicant did a good job describing the automated parking system. More comfortable with setback now. There is less parking now than there was J une 1, 2018. Prefers not to create additional regulations on different applications down the road and the condition should be placed only on PEC18-0017. Stockmar — This is PEC's third meeting on the issues and thanked the applicants. Based on all of the analysis, he is in favor of the development. Vail is a small town with big city problems. The site is challenging because of its size and surrounding buildings. He is comfortable in relying on the Building Department to review plans to address any safety concerns and eliminate structural issues. Comfortable with all four items and is not convinced Gillette's condition is necessary. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.4. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor 15 min. Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a subdivision to reconfigure the property lines between two (2) development lots located at 500 & 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0017) Applicantiazier Lionshead LLC & Battle Moutnain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Any major exterior alteration or other redevelopment of Lot 1A or Lot 2A shall include, at a minimum, 91 parking spaces for Lot 1A and 52 parking spaces for Lot 2A in addition to the requirements for the altered or redeveloped structures on said lots. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 15 min. regulations amendment to Section 12-10-16 Exempt Areas; Parking Fund Established, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to remove 1A, Lot 2A, Tract K, Tract L and Tract M of a Resubdivision of Vail Lionshead, Block 1, from the "parking pay -in -lieu" zones for parking regulations purposes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0019) Applicantiazier Lionshead LLC & Battle Moutnain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Any major exterior alteration or other redevelopment of Lot 1A or Lot 2A shall include, at a minimum, 91 parking spaces for Lot 1A and 52 parking spaces for Lot 2A in addition to the requirements for the altered or redeveloped structures on said lots. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.6. A request for the review a variance from Section 12-7H-10, Setbacks, Vail 0 min. Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rear setback of zero feet (0') where ten feet (10') is required for a new multifamily structure, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0018) Please see item PEC 18-0016 for the staff memorandum concerning this request. Applicant$attle Mountain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. June 25, 2018 PEC Results Stockmar stated Planner Lightfield's name is misspelled three times. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Lockman Absent: (1) Kjesbo 4. Adjournment Stockmar noted the final selection and interviews are taking place next week for the Director of Community position. He stated there is very little interactions between PECs around the state and country. Neubecker stated issues and challenges should be brought up first, then locations can be selected based on what communities have done before in the past. Gillette mentioned the PEC should generate a list of what the Town of Vail PEC has done well and poorly. Stockmar stated when the PEC's agenda lightens up is the ideal time to visit other areas. Exposing the PEC to other experiences is beneficial. Neubecker stated a retreat would be an ideal time to have a discussion. Gillette mentioned ski storage was a good example of learning through the PEC by talking with merchants and owners. 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 o. r rr� r q. r i' ` INK y Ann. - ` , -1 - 1414- ILI -J A' _ ti Received January 7, 2020 Dear Mr. Spence, (with copy to the other two board members of Vail 21, Rob Stephens and Linda Malaby) Although I have written to you before as an individual board member about this issue, this time I am writing on behalf of our association (Vail 21). Our association feels that having mechanical parking would be undesirable. We can envision inevitable malfunctions leading to missed flights and even perhaps abandoned rental cars and enormous inconvenience. The mishaps that mechanical parking will bring will reflect badly not only on the related buildings (Launch's, and Vail 21, but also perhaps Lazier's and Arcade, if Lazier's building ends up not being able to fit a ramp and is forced to mechanical parking) but also on Vail as a premier destination. We wish to repeat that it is possible for the town to achieve a low- cost temporary expropriation of the second -to -build property (Lazier's; by essentially forcibly renting for a short time the cubic volume corresponding to Lazier's fraction of the shared ramp) and to force common ramp parking. We feel that the Town of Vail's governmental powers must be deployed in this direction because the gain to be achieved would be very significant compared to the cost. I would be happy to discuss this further, by email or at my cell, 317.332.8213. Sincerely, Nicholas L. Georgakopoulos for the Vail 21 Board of Directors Jonathan Spence From: Bruce Zivic <bruce.zivic@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 7:42 AM To: Jonathan Spence Subject: Vail 21, Automated Parking Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mr. Spence I am in receipt of a recent letter sent to you from Mr. Georgakopoulos, Vail 21 Board member regarding automated parking. I wanted to add balance to his letter. Recently on December 13, 2019 at the Vail 21 HOA annual board meeting I was then president of the association. At that meeting Mr. Georgakopoulos as a Board member opened discussion to seek legal advise and to solicit the Town to force the two property owners in question to design and build a coordinated parking structure. At the end of this discussion there was no motion by the membership to pursue Mr. Georgakopoulos's proposed course of action. As such, I think its fair to say and it should be noted that Mr. Georgakopoulos in his letter to you does not represent the majority position of the Vail 21 membership. Respectfully Bruce S. Zivic Vail 21, Unit 307 Bruce S. Zivic 10 Wildwood Lane Scarborough, ME 04074 703-395-2777 1 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of 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 amend the circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Building, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Unsubdivided and setting forth details in regard thereto. ( PEC 19-0052) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0052 Staff Memorandum.pdf Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Project Narrative December 2019.pdf Attachment A. Project Narrative December 2019 Attachment B. Project Plan Set 11-21-2019.pdf Attachment B. Project Plan Set 11-21- 2019 Attachment C. MPB Traffic and Access Attachment C. MPB Traffic and Access Assessment TurnKey Consultinq LLC January 6 2020.pdf Assessment, TurnKey Consulting LLC, January 6, 2020 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for review of 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 amend the circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Building, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Unsubdivided and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0052) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc. in care of Vail Health, represented by Davis Partnership Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Clinic Inc. in care of Vail Health, represented by Davis Partnership, is requesting a public hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for a final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12- 9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, and Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to amend the circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Building, located at 108 South Frontage Road West. Upon review of the applicable elements of the Town's planning documents and adopted criteria for review, the Community Development Department is recommending the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, the applicant's request for an amended conditional use permit. Please find the following included as Attachments to assist in the review of the project: A. Project Narrative, December 2019 B. Project Plan Set, November 21, 2019 C. MPB Traffic and Access Assessment, TurnKey Consulting LLC, December 2, 2019 D. Link to Vail Valley Medical Center Site Specific Redevelopment Master Plan. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The pervious approval for the redevelopment of the east wing of the hospital removed the existing parking and drive aisle in front of the Medical Professional Building (MPB). Due to a change in programming within the MPB, the applicant has requested a revision the circulation plan to add a valet/drop off lane in front of the building. The schematic below illustrates the approved vs. proposed plan for that area: ffis DAVIS Condition Use Pe rmitAm.nd..W-Site Comparison Colorado Mountain Medical, a tenant within the MPB, will be offering an Urgent Care component, allowing those without appointments to visit the facility. The applicant believes that providing a drop-off and valet service will greatly improve the service to and the convenience of the patient's experience. Both the approved and proposed plans continue to provide a bus stop located out of the travel way, a bus shelter and a sidewalk through the area although the sidewalk is reduced from eight (8) feet to six (6) feet in front of the MPB. Due to a lack of boiler capacity, the proposed improvements will not be snow melted. BACKGROUND On March 17, 2015, the Vail Town Council approved Resolution No. 3, Series of 2015, The Vail Valley Medical Center Site Specific Redevelopment Master Plan. This plan, a component of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, is the guiding document for the redevelopment of the hospital campus. In tandem with this approval, the Vail Town Council also approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2015, which established a new land use category for the Vail Land Use Plan that corresponds with the Redevelopment Master Plan. Town of Vail Page 2 The first phase of the hospital redevelopment, the west wing addition and associated improvements, was approved by the PEC on March 23, 2015 and was completed in 2017. On September 11, 2017 the PEC approved application PEC17-0022 for the reconstruction of the east wing, including healthcare facilities, ambulance district facilities, heliport building and associated structured parking. The phase is currently under construction with completion anticipated in late 2020. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS VVMC Master Plan Please see Attachment D. Town of Vail Zoning Code General Use District (in part) 12-9C-1: Purpose: The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi -public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi -public uses permitted in the district are appropriately 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. 12-9C-3: Conditional Uses: 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.- Child itle: Child daycare centers. Equestrian trails. Golf courses. Healthcare facilities. Helipad for emergency and/or community use. Major arcades. Plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or other nursery products, grown, produced or made on the premises. Town of Vail Page 3 Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and uses. Public and private schools. Public and quasi -public indoor community facilities. Public buildings and grounds. Public parking structure. Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities. Public tourist/guest service related facilities. Public transportation terminals. Public unstructured parking. Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, activities. Ski lifts, tows and runs. Water and sewage treatment plants. 12-9C-5: Development Standards: recreational or cultural 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. V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING North South East: West: Town of Vail Existing Land Use Zoning District Mixed use Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District Residential Two -Family District Residential High Density Multiple -Family Streamtract Outdoor Recreation District Page 4 VI. VII SITE ANALYSIS Address: 181 West Meadow Drive Legal Description: Lots E, and F, Vail Village Second Filing, and Lots 2E-1 and 2E, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 and Medical Professional Building (MPB) parcel Existing Zoning: General Use Land Use Designation: Vail Valley Medical Center Site Specific Redevelopment Master Plan Geological Hazards: None Lot Area: 3.82 acres/ 166,269 square feet REVIEW CRITERIA Before acting on an amendment to conditional use permit application, the PEC 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. Staff Response: The redevelopment of the VVMC campus is governed by the VVMC Master Plan and Vail Town Code. The Master Plan identifies the goals and implementation strategies to be employed to achieve a redevelopment in keeping with the development objectives of the Town. Within the Master Plan (page 9) there is a list of 13 development objectives the Town identified as needing to be addressed with any proposed redevelopment of the campus. The development objective which is applicable to the revised circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Building is: Development Obiective #9. Define appropriate location for vehicle access off of South Frontage Road. An established goal of the Master Plan relates to the necessary improvements to the South Frontage Road. This goal was articulated as follows: Collaborate with neighboring properties to define and implement improvements to the South Frontage Road that will provide safe and efficient site access to VVMC, the Town Hall site and the Evergreen Lodge. The applicant has worked closely with the Town of Vail Public Works Department to design improvements to the Frontage Road that recognizes the different needs of the different properties. The approved plan, with the removal of the parking and drive aisle in front of the MPB, improved pedestrian safety in the area and provided ample space for the relocated bus stop, new bus shelter and significant landscaping. The new proposal maintains the bus stop and pedestrian access yet Town of Vail Page 5 introduces actual and potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and other vehicles. The new design also results in challenges related to snow storage and introduces unnecessary traffic to the Frontage Road. Upon completion of the new roundabout in the vicinity of the Evergreen Lodge, valet service will result in vehicles leaving the MPB site eastbound, reversing direction at the Main Vail roundabout, head west only to reverse direction again at the new roundabout before finally returning to the Vail Health campus to access the parking garage. Despite the challenges resulting from the new design, Staff believes that it is the best design that maintains the bus stop in this location while allowing the applicant to provide the valet service. As conditioned, if the plan results in unacceptable conflicts or adverse impacts to the Frontage Road, this component of the Conditional Use Permit may be reconsidered for revisions or discontinuation. Staff finds the proposed amendment meets this criterion, as conditioned. 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 Response: The addition of the drop off lane and valet service does have a minor impact on the Frontage Road transportation system, as noted under criterion 1, with an increase in volume anticipated to be, at most, 58 inbound/outbound trips on average, per day. Staff does not believe, other than as noted above, that there will be any impact upon the distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs as a result of this amendment Staff finds the proposed amendment meets this criterion, as conditioned. 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 Response: As noted under criterion numbers 1 and 2, the revised configuration does result in potential vehicle congestion, a possible reduction in pedestrian safety and increased challenges related to snow removal/storage. Although not as optimal as the original design, the proposal is the best alternative available that allows the applicant to add the desired drop off and valet service. If the revised layout does result in unacceptable impacts to pedestrian safety or the operation of the Frontage Road, this approval, as conditioned, may be revisited or discontinued. Town of Vail Page 6 Staff finds the proposed amendment meets this criterion, as conditioned. 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 Response: Although the proposal does result in a loss of planned landscaping and could create challenges with snow removal/congestion, it is not anticipated that the proposed use will have a significant effect on the character of the area. Staff finds the proposed amendment meets this criterion, as conditioned. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, 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 amend the circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Building, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Unsubdivided and setting forth details in regard thereto. 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, 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 amend the circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Building, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Unsubdivided and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this request; the Community Development Department recommends the Commission include the following conditions: This Conditional Use approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application(s). 2. All Conditions of Approval from the September 11, 2017 PEC approval remain in effect, as applicable. Town of Vail Page 7 3. Prior to applying for ROW permit through the Department of Public Works for the proposed improvements, the applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with the appropriate CDOT approvals. 4. The applicant shall demonstrate through the construction documents that the infrastructure for future snow melting of the drop off aisle and sidewalk will be installed. 5. If the operation and maintenance of the proposed improvements, including snow storage and removal, result in adverse effects on vehicular or pedestrian safety, the Town of Vail may initiate further consideration of this component of the Conditional use Permit and may require the closing of the valet until such time as alternative measures are implemented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 13, 2020 and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- The inds: The Amendments to the Conditional Use Permit is are in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the General Use District; 2. The Amendments to the Conditional Use Permit 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 Amendments to the Conditional Use Permit comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permit, Vail Town Code." VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Project Narrative, December 2019 B. Project Plan Set, November 21, 2019 C. MPB Traffic and Access Assessment, Turn Key Consulting LLC, December 2, 2019 D. Link to Vail Valley Medical Center Site Specific Redevelopment Master Plan. https://www.vailgov.com/Portals/0/docs/com m u n ity%20development/master%20 plan %20downloads/VVMC%20Master%20Plan %202015%20FINAL%20reduced. pdf?ti m estam p=1577730003703 Town of Vail Page 8 Vail Health Amendment to the East Wing Conditional Use Permit December 2019 Introduction The purpose of this report is to describe a proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Vail Health's East Wing. The proposed amendment involves adding a patient drop-off/valet parking lane immediately north of the Medical Professional Building (MPB). There are no changes proposed to the East Wing itself. This application is submitted on behalf of Vail Health. Information provided herein includes background on the East Wing approval, a summary of the proposed changes to the MPB, 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, survey, title report, traffic analysis, adjacent property owners list and other related material. Background on the East Wing A Conditional Use Permit for the redevelopment of the East Wing was approved in 2016. The initial phase of East Wing construction began in 2018 and involved the demolition of existing medical and related space and the east parking structure. The new East Wing is now under construction and will include over 100,000 square feet of medical facilities, a new parking structure, an on-site helipad and enclosed loading facilities. The East Wing will also implement a long-standing Town goal by moving the main entry to the campus from West Meadow Drive to South Frontage Road. The East Wing is scheduled to open in the fall of 2020. The East Wing represents the final phase of construction in the redevelopment and expansion of the Vail campus as described in the Vail Valley Medical Center Site Specific Redevelopment Master Plan. Medical Professional Building The MPB was originally known as the Vail National Bank Building and over the years was also referred to as the Weststar Bank Building and the US Bank Building. Vail Clinic Inc (Vail Health) acquired the building in 2004 and since that time use of the building has gradually shifted to medical uses and Vail Health operations. At the time the East Wing was approved, long-term plans for the use of the MPB had not been solidified. In 2016 uses in the building included space leased to a bank, a variety of medical/clinic uses, and offices used for Vail Health administrative/operational functions. Since that time the bank lease expired and currently the entire building is occupied by Vail Health or their affiliates (i.e. Colorado Mountain Medical and Vail Summit Orthopaedics). Vail Health/East Wing CUP Amendment Future Use of Medical Professional Buildi Upon completion of the East Wing all medical/clinic uses, with the exception of Colorado Mountain Medical, will be re -located to the East Wing. Colorado Mountain Medical will remain on Level 1 of the MPB. Current plans are to use the rest of the building for Vail Health administrative and operational functions. In addition to operating as a traditional family clinic, Colorado Mountain Medical will also offer urgent care services. The essence of urgent care is that no appointment is needed. An urgent care facility does not replace an emergency room, rather, the urgent care facility will offer the convenience of immediate health care services without the need for an appointment. 2017 Approvals for the Medical Professional Building A key element of the new East Wing is re -locating the main entry of the Vail Health campus to South Frontage Road. This new entry is located immediately to the west of the MPB (roughly in the area where MPB vehicular access and surface parking was located). In order to provide efficient and safe vehicular access to the campus, the pre- existing drop-off and diagonal parking area at the north side of the MPB is to be removed. Removal of this drop-off lane and parking area eliminated a conflict point at its intersection with the main access point to Vail Health. Plans for the north side of the MPB as approved by the 2017 CUP are provided below. Improvements also included the re -location of the bus stop and a sidewalk along VH's frontage with South Frontage Road. -•- \ h `rON ee oaNe ev DNn D 'AaP'E a&iGnriax9 - � \ HG \ axuexEx ersEaExarE rrsMr¢v_ � k�'F Llixl� IEXISTING MPB BUILDING r J (F - ) 2017 CUP approval showing changes on the north side of the MPB. Vail Health/East Wing CUP Amendment Proposed Amendment to the MPB During construction of the East Wing Vail Health has provided patient drop-off and valet parking for patients and visitors to the medical clinics at the MPB. Using the pre- existing vehicular drop-off lane, valet staff manage patient's vehicles by parking them in the diagonal parking spaces in front of the building or in the MPB parking structure. In providing this service Vail Health has learned that patients greatly appreciate the valet parking. In response, this CUP amendment would allow Vail Health to offer valet parking for Colorado Mountain Medical and the new urgent care (upon completion of the East Wing). From the standpoint of patient services, providing this drop-off and valet parking at the MPB will greatly improve the service to and convenience of the patient's experience. At their choice, patients will be able to self -park upon completion of the East Wing. The proposed changes to the north side of the MPB are depicted on the following page. These changes involve more than just the drop-off/valet area. Key elements of improvements planned for the MPB include: • Access to the new drop-off/valet parking area is from a new access point off South Frontage Road. This design maintains the traffic pattern to the main campus as previously approved by the 2017 CUP. A proposed site plan is found on the following page. • The bus stop and bus shelter along South Frontage Road is maintained. • The new sidewalk along the north side of the MPB is maintained. This sidewalk continues to the west end of the East Wing and also includes a crosswalk to the Vail Municipal Building. • The area in front of the MPB is re -graded such that the steps to the building are no longer needed. This will greatly improve the entry to the building. • The MPB is re -skinned with new, improved exterior building materials. A rendering of the building is provided on page 5. Vail Health/East Wing CUP Amendment The new treatment on the north side of the MPB provides a dedicated patient drop-off/valet parking area with access directly off South Frontage Road, bus stop and shelter, sidewalks and cross walks. The proposal maintains the previously approved design for the main entry to Vail Health and the entry to the new below -grade, parking structure. Vail Health/East Wing CUP Amendment MEE HE I, WIMILL"'L Onoloop.11. �■ OWN son pp e� 7' /.., w _ n� z Design and Use of the Drop-off/Valet Area A number of options were considered for how to most effectively and safely integrate a drop-off/valet area at the MPB. The key parameters that influenced the proposed design solution included: • Separate the drop-off from the main entry to the VH campus • Accommodate a pull-out for the bus stop along South Frontage Road • Provide drop-off space that is sufficient to meet anticipated utilization/ demand • Maintain pedestrian circulation, including the crosswalk to the Municipal Building The drawing below demonstrates how the proposed design addresses these parameters. Additional explanation of the drop-off/valet area is provided below. Medical Professional Building Design of the drop-off/valet facility and bus stop at the MPB. Users of the Drop-off/Valet The drop-off/valet area is intneded for patients of Colorado Mountain Medical and urgent care. All other visitors to the VH Campus will have drop-off/valet service at the main entry to the new East Wing. The Desiqn The design involves a counter -clockwise loop with vehicles entering just past the main entry to the Vail Campus and exiting to the east. The loop will provide right-in/right-out access only and the loop can accommodate four to five vehicles. The design provides a 6' -wide sidewalk across the MBP site. The bus stop includes a bus pull-out area separate from South Frontage Road travel lanes and includes a Vail Health/East Wing CUP Amendment shelter, ADA ramp and ADA bus landing area. The main entry to the VH Campus is unchanged from the 2017 CUP approval. Exiting vehicles will have adequate sightlines of eastbound traffic on the South Frontage Road at most times. Exceptions would be when buses are utilizing the bus pullout area. At such times exiting vehicles will need to delay their departure until the bus has left the stop. Signage advising drivers to yield to buses will be installed. Valet staff will also advise drivers to delay their exit until after buses have left the bus stop. Frequency of Use and Operations An assessment of the drop-off/valet facility was completed by Turn Key Consultants, LLC. Turnkey has provided traffic consulting throughtout the master planning process and the re -development of the West and East Wings. The main purpose of this effort was to evaluate the proposed design, to forecast utilization by patients and to understand the frequency of bus operations. This evaluation has been provided under separate cover. Based on surveys taken by valet staff this past fall, on average Colorado Mountain Medical generated 29 vehicles per day. This equates to 6 inbound and 6 outbound trips during the peak hour. Based on utilization of VH's urgent care in Avon, an average of 5 inbound and 5 outbound trips during the peak hour. No more than 2 buses will utilize the bus stop during the peak hour. Based on this analysis, the number of conflicts with exiting vehicle sight lines would be low. Subject to VH providing adequate valet staff to move vehicles, the proposed design and operation of the drop-off/valet facilitywill function adequately and not adversely impact the local road system. For more information refer to the MPB Traffic and Access Assessment by Turn Key Consultants LLC. CDOT Approvals The bus stop area is located on CDOT right-of-way and the entry/exit of the drop- off/valet area accesses CD OT's right-of-way. As such, CDOT approval will be required for this improvement. Application to CDOT will be made following approval of this CUP amendment. Vail Health/East Wing CUP Amendment Review Criteria 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 original CUP approval for the East Wing was unanimously approved and the project was deemed to be very consistent with the development objectives of the town. The proposed amendment to this CUP does not change the overall use of the East Wing approval. Rather, the patient drop-off/valet facility is proposed as a service to patients, be they visitors or residents of Vail. Improving services to guests or residents in keeping with the Town's development objectives. 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. Response Proposed amendments maintain the re -located bus stop along South Frontage Road, pedestrian walkways and cross walks as provided by the original East Wing CUP approval. The proposed amendments will have no adverse effect on 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 A number of options were considered for how to most effectively and safely integrate a drop-off/valet area at the MPB. The key parameters that influenced the proposed design solution included: • Separate the drop-off from the main entry to the VH campus • Accommodate a pull-out for the bus stop along South Frontage Road • Provide drop-off space that is sufficient to meet anticipated utilization/ demand • Maintain pedestrian circulation, including the crosswalk to the Municipal Building The proposed design provides a workable and effective way to provide the drop- off/valet service in this location. Refer to pages 6 and 7, and the MPB Traffic and Access Assessment prepared by Turn Key Consultants LLC (provided under separate cover) for additional information. Vail Health/East Wing CUP Amendment 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 amendment has no adverse effect on the considerations listed above. Vail Health/East Wing CUP Amendment r / pa LL V EIEJ L ate: \I � -77 r / pa LL V EIEJ L ate: \I � 1I9IHx3 sne ozs.o ooneo,o�.o�n os�3��os oboe u3� iwi aa,oyN��,�,oa;���,d A9V 49 1-0 NIliIVw NIl21V�/�J��� IN, 49 � IN] aa6ouoW y3@ro,d 9dW Hi�VIH TVA —NBoa � a � -111 �-N qw�N aor i oa f co Z - '�• G� —c Ewa ��aP °9 1 o � � I i i i i Ii a ° 5 X444 3—oa --1— ° No 1191Hx3 Sn9 wa��l3adwNnadw ozscs oawmoo'Nonv'ovz slins'avoa u»mva..ow �w�,a6�oy� �i iod�o���d AUV A8 1.1113 'E NIlNtlW NIlk1VW��/ �w� Ae uE-c 9dW HiIV3H IIVA woN aJo0 7w� T -,f., �aywnN aor ' - L�l I II, _ � l 1 t�l i Ob co I r , ---- - k - �� �4 i zLU > m I l I biro I—ND,= -N—zed-3sve-3\—\N— d31— --0— NOI—Oo ml— LL1vdtl3— 0— — Wd Zf-ZI 6l OZ '6l iaq—d-S 1— 1— — —d ■ L4918 00'I!�A'M Peoa a6e�umj'S 08L N NOIIVAONBN B NO11100V v b ``JNIMISV3 N31N301V0103W A3llVAlIVA v g v a o TurnKe Consulting, LLC 1885 Denver West Ct. # 1323 Golden, CO 80401 970-985-4001 MPB Traffic &Access Assessment TO: Tom Kassmel, PE, Town of Vail (TOV) FROM: Skip Hudson, PE DATE: Updated January 6, 2020 RE: Vail Health Reconstruction, Medical -Professional Building (MPB) Access The TOV approved plans for reconstruction of the Vail Health Facilities (Project), with recognition that the existing MP Building will remain in place after renovation is complete. That approval included a specific reconfiguration for the area in front of the MPB, as shown on the following figure and including a bus stop pull -off. Approved Configuration The existing configuration does not have a bus pull -off area, but it does have a one-way access road that provides a drop-off area for the existing medical clinic in the MPB. There are some angled parking spaces along the access road. The approved configuration did not include a drop-off lane for the clinic. But Vail Health intends to serve the community by provide new urgent care services within the medical clinic, and the drop-off lane is an important part of that plan. Therefore, Vail Health is proposing a modification to the approved plan, which still includes a bus stop pull -off. It also includes a patient drop-off lane without adjacent parking, as shown on the following figure. The TOV asked for a traffic & safety comparison of the approved plan and the proposed configuration. This document provides that assessment. Page 1 of 6 Proposed Configuration FFI e,WFANDNW HT VENUR WN VOTN MONUMENT G aNkm x1JCA , fl PfP pq BG9 f:IJG S MAUK f10jACT rJ' C!l PhR FW w:"- 7 �r�c;;:EP�u ME rb }I!f [ nCT 9, VTS RAA 1. rf3�x.4 lP1 hUX1 _ (x,Po-e IxIR �, ray tins 777 ql FM srAwwm , y CONCREFE VENICUAR RAW RE CJNL CONCMI[3TAASh NY K Bus Stop Pull -Off it lN6 ' 7 ixi i I: •lily :F .nn � � . 1 1 1 ti �iJf JXB .Y 4 ' � _ 11 + � 1 11iRAl FsrAhE BA�nAFR EXISTING MPB .o STONE BUILDING NO WJ L 1W [FFE P' 75 d, Clinic & Urgent Care Drop -Off Lane Estimated Traffic Volumes This assessment is based on the TOV transit service schedule, and the following traffic volume estimates for the clinic and urgent care center. Eco Transit buses do not stop at this location. Transit Travel Characteristics at This Bus Stop Location (Municipal Center) Existing Service — Vail Transit There are currently two eastbound bus routes that stop at this location, the West Vail Red Line route and the West Vail Express Line route. The West Vail Green Line route is shown on the bus route map, but it stops in the westbound direction only. Please see attached route information. West Vail Red Line. • Hours of operation at this stop in the highest frequency time: 6:00 am — 8:30 pm • 30 -minute headway (stopping eastbound at :40 min and :10 min mark of each hour) Page 2of6 • 2 buses per hour peak hour West Vail Express Line. • Hours of operation at this stop: 6:10 am— 10:20 am, & 2:10 pm -5:20 pm • 10 -minute headway (stopping eastbound at :34 min, :44, :04, and :14 min mark of each hour) • 4 buses per peak hour Proposed Service — ECO Transit ECO Transit busses currently stop at the on -road stop near the Four Seasons. However, the Town of Vail intends is to remove the Four Seasons Bus Stop and have ECO Transit busses use the Municipal Center Bus Stop. Based on information provided by the Town, there would be three eastbound bus routes that stop at this location, the Valley Commuter Route, the Hwy 6 Local Route, and the Vail/Beaver Creek Express Route. Valley Commuter • 20 buses per day • Assume 2 buses per peak hour Hwy 6 Local • 40+ buses per day • Assume 4 buses per peak hour Vail/BC Express • 8 buses per day • Assume 1 bus per peak hour. Collectively, the existing and proposed bus service would result in 13 buses per hour at the eastbound Municipal Center Bus Stop. Clinic & Urgent Care Trip Generation There are two parts of this calculation; 1) trips to/from the existing clinic, and 2) proposed trips to/from the proposed urgent care services to be offered by the clinic in the future. Trip Generation Part 1 - Existing Clinic Trips The current configuration in front of the MPB includes a one-way eastbound drop-off lane for the clinic and other uses in the building. There is a valet service that greets the arriving vehicles and then parks them in locations on the campus. There is one "greeter" valet and two "parker" valet staff available at any given time. Vail Health staff conducted traffic counts in the fall of 2019 and provided the following data. • Thursday, 9/26 - 10 clinic drop-offs (vehicles), with the busiest check-in time of 2 PM • Friday, 9/27— 32 clinic drop-offs (vehicles), with busiest check-in time of 10 AM • Monday, 9/30 - 34 clinic drop-offs (vehicles), with busiest check-in time of 2 PM • Tuesday, 10/1 - 30 clinic drop-offs (vehicles), with busiest check-in time of 9 AM • Wednesday, 10/2 - 37 clinic drop-offs (vehicles), with busiest check-in time of 9 AM The average of this data is 29 vehicles per day. Vail health staff also reported the following Page 3of6 information and observations. 1. Clinic hours of operation are 8am to 5pm, but they will be 8am to 7:30pm in the future. 2. Peak hours of Generator (clinic) are 9am to 10am and 2pm to 3pm 3. Peak hour of Roadway. There is very little clinic traffic from 8am to 9am or 4pm to 5pm 4. Nearly all the traffic was passenger vehicles 5. Traffic flow and dwell time in drop-off area: a. A vehicle enters the drop-off area and encounters the valet greeter. The first 2 vehicles dwell in the drop-off area for approximately 5 -minutes. Subsequent vehicles could dwell in the drop-off area for approximately 8 -minutes (longer time waiting for parking valets to be available). b. The valet drives the vehicle from the drop-off area to a spot in facility parking lots, and then returns on foot to the drop-off area. c. Upon completion of the clinic visit, patrons approach the drop-off area to request their vehicle. The valet retrieves the vehicle from the parking lot and returns it to the drop-off area, unless the vehicle is parked in the drop-off lane. d. The vehicles exit the drop-off area with little dwell time. e. The average number of vehicles in the drop-off area is 4-5, and the maximum number is 6-8 on occasion. This includes vehicles that are parked near the drop- off area. So, this may not be an accurate representation of the number of vehicles waiting for valet service. It is necessary to convert this information into the number of vehicle trips per peak hour. Each vehicle enters the drop-off area twice (initial entry and valet return) and leaves the drop-off area twice (valet parking and final exit). This equates to an average of 58 inbound trips per day and 58 outbound trips per day. Even though it was observed that few of these trips happen during the peak roadway periods, it can be conservatively assumed that the traffic is spread evenly throughout the operating period of 9 hours per day. This equates to an average of 6 inbound trips per roadway peak hour and 6 outbound trips per roadway peak hour for the existing medical clinic. Trip Generation Part 2 - Proposed Urgent Care Trips Vail Health has an existing urgent care center in Avon, and they reported the following information about the number of visits per month to this facility during an 11 -month period. • November 2018 = 338 • December 2018 = 867 • January 2019 = 928 • February 2019 = 965 • March 2019 = 1012 • April 2019 = 400 • May 2019 = 331 • June 2019 = 518 • July 2019 = 682 • August 2019 = 594 • September 2019 = 496 The average number of visits per month was 648. It was assumed that each visit represents Page 4of6 one vehicle, so there would be an average of 648 vehicles per month. This facility is open 7 days a week. Assuming 30 days of the average month, this equates to 22 vehicles per day. It is necessary to convert this information into the number of vehicle trips per peak hour when considering the operational characteristics of the proposed Vail urgent care facility. As previously described, each vehicle would enter the drop-off area twice (initial entry and valet return) and leaves the drop-off area twice (valet parking and final exit). This equates to an average of 44 inbound trips per day and 44 outbound trips per day. Even though it was observed that few of these trips happen during the peak roadway periods, it can be conservatively assumed that the traffic would spread evenly throughout the operating period of 9 hours per day. This equates to an average of 5 inbound trips per roadway peak hour and 5 outbound trips per roadway peak hour for the proposed Urgent Care Center. Total Trips Total trips are the sum of existing clinic trips and proposed urgent care trips. The total traffic would be an average of 11 inbound trips per roadway peak hour and 11 outbound trips per roadway peak hour for both land uses. Conflict Point Analysis There are four types of conflicts that could occur during bus stops and drop-off lane operations. Conflict #1 — Inbound Traffic Vehicles The drop-off traffic and the bus traffic will be sharing one inbound access and one outbound access, all flowing in an eastbound direction. All traffic must make a right turn and head east on the Frontage Road. For the inbound access, the bus stop length can accommodate one bus and leave enough space behind the bus for inbound Vail Health traffic to enter the MPB drop-off area. There should not be any vehicle conflicts at the inbound access. Conflict #2 — Outbound Traffic Vehicles There could be vehicle conflicts at the outbound access in a free-flow condition, but the number of conflicts would be relatively low. There would be no more than 13 bus trips in the peak hour (or any hour), regardless of the volume of Vail health traffic. This conflict can be mitigated by installing a stop sign at the exit of the drop-off lane, which gives the right of way to the buses at the Stop. Conflict #3 — Outbound Traffic Vehicle Sight Distance When the bus is occupying the stop area, the bus would block the view to the west for vehicles leaving the drop-off area. There won't be adequate "entering" sight distance for these vehicles when the bus is stopped. This is a common situation any time a bus stop is located upstream of a driveway or local road. In this case, the sight distance blockage can be mitigated by installing a sign at the exit of the drop-off lane, stating, "Wait for Bus to Leave Before Exiting." Even if this sign is ignored, the smaller vehicle can pull up to the edge of roadway to see around the bus. In this case, the bus would need to wait for the vehicle to clear. And the bus wouldn't be able to enter the Frontage Road any sooner than the car would be able to. This wouldn't cause any additional bus delays, which is controlled by gaps in eastbound Frontage Road traffic. Page 5of6 Conflict #4 — Vehicle & Pedestrians Regarding vehicle -pedestrian conflicts, bus riders will need to cross the drop-off lane on their way to/from the bus. This will occur at marked crosswalks in the drop-off lane. This situation won't be any different than pedestrians crossing other driveways. There is ample room on the bus stop island for pedestrians to wait for an adequate gap in the traffic stream before crossing. Impacts to the Public Road System There are two possible impacts to the South Frontage Road. Additional Traffic The outbound valet trips currently use a portion of the adjacent roadway on their route to the Vail Health parking lots, and this will continue in the future. There is an average of 6 vph doing this now and there will be an additional 5 vph doing this in the future. This low traffic volume is insignificant when compared to the total amount of traffic on the Frontage Road and would not create additional intersection delay. Drop -Off Vehicle Queue Spillback The drop-off lane will be able to hold 4 — 5 vehicles. If the drop-off lane is full, then additional inbound vehicles would need to wait on the South Frontage Road, in front of the main Vail Health access point. This would create additional vehicle conflict points for eastbound through traffic and would impede traffic to/from the main access, which is not desirable. In fact, the CDOT access permit will explicitly state that this situation is not acceptable, and CDOT would consider closing the MPB drop-off lane if the situation occurs. This means that Vail Health would need to provide a valet staffing and traffic operations plan that prevents this from happening. Summary - Comparison of Approved Condition to Proposed Condition There are a few ways that the approved condition is different than the approved condition. First, the approved condition includes a bus stop only and the proposed condition adds the urgent care drop-off lane between the bus stop and the front of the building. This changes a few things: • There would be more traffic in the area around the bus stop, but the traffic volume is relatively low (11 trips in and 11 trips out). • There will be a new conflict point between buses and vehicles leaving the drop-off lane. However, there would be no more than 13 buses per hour and a new stop sign is recommended to assign right of way to the buses. • Buses would occasionally block the sight distance for some exiting vehicles. This could be mitigated by installing a sign at the exit of the drop-off lane, stating, "Wait for Bus to Leave Before Exiting." • Bus riders will need to cross the drop-off lane on their way to/from the bus, but this is no different than pedestrians at other sidewalks crossing over driveways. Second, there is a possibility of impacts to the public road system. • A small amount (5 vph) of additional traffic would be added to the South Frontage Road, but not enough to create operational problems. • In order to avoid vehicle queue spillback onto the South Frontage Road, Vail Health must provide a valet staffing and traffic operations plan that prevents this from happening Page 6of6 f0/1 A A Q o Q� n m o u� sw v y N m r m o v a L o s m r m O N N Q A E. N t � O 6 a• Q u � N N i N O � N 0 a _ m v v �Y � v t ® U m_ N N w c r O 21 V N 0- mo N N 6 N — O s _ N O o V N d Q N N A c o N mO - V p Q a rn _o u7 � N N 0 N W WV U_ 0 0 0 0 0. z F (� o — . N � � N V � o � p rn o t r c U O `o o m o O N E `y 0 0 C N z (7 m LOLL- C=) O L L9 � � � ■■■mum ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■ / ). ) - 0 e m He City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 13, 2020 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 1.13.20.pdf [Attachment Al [Attachment Bl Vicinity Map.pdf 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 [Attachment Hl EIR Vail Public Works.pdf CPW Comment Letter 2019.12.03.pdf [Attachment Il Public Comments Prior to 12.9.2019.0f 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 12.9.2019 WAV11911ST1:114 Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 2020 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. Additional, specific conditions of approval may be added by the Commission based on the evidence and testimony presented. 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 3 This document is intended to provide a summary of the immediate needs and the long-term use of the Public Works site in the Town of Vail. The intention of this document is to provide a roadmap forward which guides the development of this site while remaining aware of anticipated costs and allowing for flexibility in the future. Employee Housing, Public Works Administration, Transit, Fleet Maintenance, Streets & Parks, and Facilities Maintenance are the Subjects of this Public Works 20 Year Master Plan Update along with Solar Energy Systems, Snow Dump/Storage, and Site Parking. Included are the strategic findings from the Staff Interviews conducted in search of additional building areas, site functions, additional housing, and overall Public Works operational needs along with additional site parking in support of Staff and Facilities growth over the next 20 years. It is generally understood that the growth throughout the next 20 years is driven by additional Public Buildings and Facilities to maintain along with other elevated Town Service levels. 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 0 6. Site utility upgrades This document includes 1. Existing site conditions, including hazards and site limitations 2. Summary of user group needs 3. Options for consideration to address user group needs and opportunities 4. Suggested path forward 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) 5 12-9C-1: PURPOSE: The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi -public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi -public uses permitted in the district are appropriately 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 7 submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or walls, landscaping or screening, and street dedication and improvement; regulation of vehicular access and parking, signs, illumination, and hours and methods of operation, control of potential nuisances, prescription of standards for maintenance of buildings and grounds, and prescription of development schedules. B. Variances: A conditional use permit shall not grant variances, but action on a variance may be considered concurrently with a conditional use permit application on the same site. Variances shall be granted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in chapter 17 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 16(1978) § 4(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.500) 12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use.- 1. 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 0 the following findings before granting a conditional use permit.- That ermit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this title and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 10(1998) § 9: Ord. 22(1996) § 3: Ord. 36(1980) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.600) 12-16-8: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT: Approval of a conditional use permit, or an amendment to an existing conditional use permit, shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. Approval of a conditional use permit shall also lapse and become void if the use for which the approval has been granted is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use. (Ord. 12(2008) § 26) 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 9 According to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, the following criteria shall be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district: 12-16-6: CRITERIA, FINDINGS Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed uses are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. Specifically, the proposed expansion of the Streets Department building is recommended in Phase 1 of the 2019 Public Works Master Plan. The Master Plan identified that more development area was needed at the Public Works site to meet the future needs of the community and to provide critical municipal services. The proposed retaining wall will 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. 10 Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The existing character of the Public Works facility will not 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 11 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. 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. Related to this project, but broader in scope, is the Vail Bighorn Sheep Habitat Restoration Working Group. This group, started in 2020, is comprised of Environmental Sustainability Department staff, the Town Manager, members of the Town Council, and the USFS. The goal of this task force is: 12 "To achieve consensus across multiple governmental agencies on a course of action, timeline, funding sources and short & long-range plan necessary to address critical habitat restoration for the East Vail Bighorn Sheep herd on both Town of Vail land and USFS land in East Vail." 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 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 This property is within a geologically sensitive area pursuant to Chapter 12-21 Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgment of receiving personal notice of the fact that said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 5 Construction of the shoring wall and rockfall berm shall be limited to the 13 months of June to November, unless a consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife reveals a need to adjust this window." 6 Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the continued prohibition of dogs, other than those required to be permitted by law, for Buzzard Park residents and visitors and employees of the Public Works site. 7 No outdoor recreation shall be permitted to occur north of the retaining wall and Buzzard Park during winter months and/or when sheep are observed in the area. 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 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 Public Comments prior to December 9, 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 From: Anne Esson To: PEC; Scott Robson; Kristen Bertualia Subject: Fwd: PEC Proposed Comments Dec. 9th Packet Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 3:39:13 PM First, congratulations and a big thank you to your newest member Pete Seibert for taking on the responsibilities for what may be the most demanding volunteer commission in Vail outside of Town Council --and thanks also to all of you! As a resident of Chamonix townhomes, Pete knows better than most what role the Town can play in resolving m part community problems. Karen and others have pointed out the why's and the unresolved policy issues leading to our recent community struggle with a housing project proposed on what was long considered to be open space. I received this 2 -pager this week from Bill Andree linking a need for EIS studies whenever master plans are developed for an area. It seems elementary now that they should be, self-evident after months of arguments. After twice watching the entire video of your last meeting on the Public Works expansion, I urge your reading of this instructive essay on EIS why's and conduct. I had sent Bill my proposed comments to let him know what I thought regarding the proposed expansion which should now be in your packets. Anne Esson ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bill Andree <801andree agmai1.com> Date: Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:00 AM Subject: Re: PEC Proposed Comments Dec. 9th Packet To: Anne Esson <a1esson055&gmai1.com> Cc: Blondie Vucich <runb1ondie49acomcastnet> Anne, I got Rick report last night from Blondie and have not read the entire report yet. I agree with your comments in the letter. Building the retaining wall for more storage area is not going to be a big loss (8/10 of an acre) to the sheep and the town could easily mitigate that loss in the adjoining areas around the town shops. Since I have not read all of Rick's report I don't know what he suggested for mitigation but it should not be a 1:1 ratio. I would have to look up the ratio we recommended for other areas but I know for just winter range it was 1.5 acres of mitigation for every acre impacted. I think the ratio for severe winter range and winter contention area was 5 or 10 acres to 1 acre impacted. Even with the limited impact from the wall and rock berm the town should do some mitigation around the town shops but the biggest bang for the buck would be doing work over by Booth Creek. I feel the issue is that the town understand the importance of having a Master Plan for town projects or development areas. So it should not be a stretch for the town to understand they need to have a master plan for wildlife impacts and mitigation. I believe I heard them say yesterday that they are looking at such a study. However the study needs to cover fairly large areas but I don't believe a Gore Valley wide study will provide the needed details. I would suggest that they look at smaller pieces say from the main Vail exit to Pitkin or Bighorn Creek (north of I-70). The reason for this area are plain to see with Booth Heights and the town shops plus the town has property within this area that they can start habitat projects on without waiting for the USFS. The idea for the wildlife plan would be to show the development potential at maximum levels and to show wildlife impacts at the worst case scenario. The plan would also allow for getting mitigation done prior to any new developments so the mitigation could be reviewed and evaluated on its effectiveness. The review of the effectiveness has to also allow for realization that the area may only receive limited use until the impact is developed but if the wildlife will use it before the impact then it is reasonable to believe they will increase use of it after the impact. This would also allow enough time (which could be up to 2-3 years for an EIS by them) to get the USFS to take action for habitat work on their lands. It also allows for the town to request funds from other groups (like Elk Foundation, Bighorn Sheep Society, and other recreation groups). The key is looking at the cumulative impacts from any developments or changes in recreation use of the area. The hard part is that all developments like to look at maximum development and then say we minimized the impact because we did not develop to the maximum. When in fact the difference in wildlife impacts between the two options maybe very small. They also hate to look at impacts to wildlife based on worst case because it will cost them more. But it is very difficult to say with any sort of confidence that reducing the development by 10% equals a 10% reduction in wildlife impacts. Unfortunately there are no studies that show a direct correlation with reduced density and wildlife impacts. There are studies that say the first houses have the most impacts and that housing has an impact of twice the impact from energy development. The last part of the wildlife master plan would be that all the wildlife species be considered in the mitigation. The need to do habitat projects in areas that aren't currently used by sheep would improve habitat for deer and elk and reduce the potential for deer and elk to use the areas improved mainly for sheep. It is very difficult to do a full review of every species and determine the impact from human development, especially if you don't have base line information of what the population was before the development. Relying on population levels now after years of impacts is not the best way to develop a master plan for wildlife. For those species without good baseline information you end up relying on is there habitat available for those species in the area, does the area contain all of the components required for that species to survive and lastly does the species still exist in the area. There has been some work done on what other species benefit from habitat projects done for big game and some work on how to improve the project to benefit other species (like treating areas outside of breeding/nesting for song birds). I hope this helps. I am not sure if I will be in town for the meeting on the 9th but I will try to be there. Take care. Bill On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:00 PM <alesson055(a4gmail.com> wrote: Sent from my Whone Begin forwarded message: From: Anne Esson <alesson055(4gmail_com> Date: November 30, 2019 at 4:16:10 PM MST To: Greg Hall <GHallna�ailgov.com>, Kristen Bertuglia <KBertuglia(cr�.vailgov.com> Subject: PEC Proposed Comments Dec. 9th Packet Please read and comment as soon as is practicable, esp. you Greg as I characterize here many of your often much -earlier statements. Also I may here reflect misunderstandings. Kristen, I hope for your candid commenting as well. For me, time is of the essence as my sister arrives for a busy holiday 6 days in Denver on Tuesday night. When she is safely in the plane on Dec. 9, I plan to drive up to Vail for PEC meeting, then return to Denver that day as I have a UCH doc appointment the next morning. Thank you both. Anne VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION December 8, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: TOV Public Works facility/Retaining Wall Variance request and Conditional Use Permit application Dear Chairman and Commission Members: As everyone now knows, the areas surrounding the Public Works site are the winter foraging range for the rams of the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. The rams have been using that area for many years, probably going back before the founding of Vail. The health and ultimate survival of the East Vail herd is directly dependent on the health and well-being of those rams. Yet, the staff memos for these two items only contain a single condition for the protection of the sheep and that condition only applies to the construction of the retaining wall.' This is notwithstanding a number of recommendations from both the EIR and CPW. We, therefore, write to request that there be additional conditions on both the variance and conditional use permit. Before getting to the specific conditions, it might be useful to note that the Master Plan for this facility does not dictate the actual development or prohibit the PEC from requiring steps to be taken for the protection of the sheep. It is only a planning guideline for development. Indeed, the Town Code makes clear that the PEC has the authority to impose "such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable." That provision is found in section 12-7-6 (A)(4) for variances and section 12-6-6 (A)(5) for conditional use permits. What we propose flows directly from the recommendations of the EIR and CPW and our view that these items are essential for the protection and well-being of the sheep. Although contained in the EIR and comments from CPW, for some unexplained reason, they were not included in the proposed conditions presented by staff. I. Timing of construction. Town staff proposed as a single Condition of Approval for the protection of the sheep that construction of the retaining wall be restricted to the period "roughly June to November." However, notwithstanding CPW's recommendation that due to "the increase in human activity and auditory disturbance associated with new construction" the same time limits should apply to the construction of the Streets building, no such condition was proposed by staff. As CPW rightly notes in its 1 While there are other recommended conditions for the conditional use permit, they are the typical boiler plate items that would be present in most approvals and do not address the sheep. 1 comments, human impacts are one of the largest threats to the sheep. Without question, the construction of this very large building will cause a great amount of visual and auditory impact in the surrounding area. And, as presently worded, if the Conditional Use Permit were granted with only the staff recommended conditions, Public Works could start construction of the Streets building way before June 1. That could be a potential disaster for the rams. The VHA, therefore, urges that the time limitation be made applicable to both the retaining wall and the Streets building.2 2. Visual Screening. To further protect the sheep from human impacts, the VHA urges that as additional Conditions of Approval the following be required: a. During construction, impervious construction fencing should be placed around the entire project. b. Permanent fencing should also be required around the entire project post - construction, including the incorporation of wildlife fencing into the design of the top of the retaining wall tied into eight foot (8') cyclone fencing for the rest of the facility. That fencing would serve to protect sheep from falling into the site from the top of the retaining wall and would restrict human access to the sheep's foraging areas. As both the EIR and the CPW recommended, human access should be restricted to the surrounding areas. Why that was not included in the staff recommendations was not explained. C. Native landscape screening should be required surrounding the entire site on the outside of the permanent fence. This would provide an added level of protection from visual and auditory human activity at the site. 3. A ban on all dogs. There should be a ban on all dogs at the site with zero tolerance for violations; only properly certified service animals should be allowed. As was discussed at length during the Booth Heights hearings, dogs can frighten the sheep causing great stress during a time when the sheep are already heavily stress from winter conditions. A ban on dogs was a condition of approval of that project and the same should be the case here. This was yet another recommendation of both the EIR and CPW that was not included in the staff recommendations. 4. Permanent closure of ram foraging areas. As recommended by both the EIR and CPW, there should be no recreational activities in the Ram foraging areas. That requires permanent closure of those areas with appropriate monitoring and enforcement and zero tolerance for violations. 2 Originally the Town also requested approval for the construction of a rock fall barrier on the slope above the retaining wall. That appears to have now been deleted from the application. 2 5. Foraging Enhancement. Both the EIR and CPW have recommended foraging enhancement as a means to protect the sheep. That should not be left to chance but rather made a specific condition of approval. 6. Further monitoring of the sheep. A GPS collar movement study of the entire herd should be required. While the Town is working on a management plan for the sheep, the PEC, in its role as an environmental custodian, should make it clear that there needs to be in-depth study of these sheep to inform future steps for their protection. Now, at the beginning of construction, is the time to implement these conditions. They should not be postponed until later stages of the project are proposed. And there is no need to rush these requests through. Construction should not start until June I, 2020, so there is plenty of time to get this right. After all, if the sheep are pushed to extinction, there is no chance for a do -over. ery truly your r_4 ' Ji Lamont E cutive 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 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 13, 2020 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. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 13, 2020 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. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 13, 2020 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. The applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: December 9, 2019 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 120919.pdf December 9, 2019 PEC Results 0 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: January 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: An informational update on the Town of Vail Housing Department including the 2018 Housing Policy Statements, the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan, and a snap shot of progress toward the goal. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Vail Board of Realtors Presentation 072519.pdf Housing Update 0 N O V-- - 0ry EO U) O � U O u) O O Dry 70 O U 0 }' N ry CU 070 Q.a U LL 0) E = -3 O O LL _ n C*4 w w ■ 10 v/ 0 0 � , I Q) Q) Q) 70 O U 0 }' N ry CU 070 Q.a U LL 0) E = -3 O O LL _ n C*4 METHOD ■moft i a WN WN O O �1 J 40101,01,11 9491446101 494 91 DI 040401640101 046161016191 810401010101 *14i,01,01 0401010101 0101D1D4 0101646101 0 0 0 0 � � E _ 4CID904CO: a CD r7 r ■ y � a f 40101,01,11 9491446101 494 91 DI 040401640101 046161016191 810401010101 *14i,01,01 0401010101 0101D1D4 0101646101 0 0 0 0 � � Old cm do E _ a CD r7 r ■ y � a f Ict C Old cm do 1::1 LLI uj z 4 -19 D LLI LLI 0 R J a E Re p :ir�E p � CL U E car, L o = r-Lmm m o• MM.2 M C J a 3 L L C) 0 p CL N L `� r V Q� .o - c 4 �'cn oQ Z -LE cm d L ca 0 o z0 J 0 E 0 m 0= i 0-0 W 0 0=— ++ 0 cm ol LLI� _ '❑ }r O L N L Q LO N r eo O O LL i ca cn tU N O U tU cm i tU El L M W) O M ti t0 40 E E 0 m 0 = L 0-0 W O N =_ *- 0 [m ol LLI� 2 �l t A U E 0 m 0 = L 0-0 W O N =_ *- 0 cm d 119 V N i N N O d d •C> > N AM -A �•�G� co > _ O = O O i _ O N 0 d N .> 0 o d d � v •v O U- 75 m cn d m 2 �l t A U E 0 m 0 = L 0-0 W O N =_ *- 0 cm d V i O N co d _ O = N � d d aO+ v •v � c� d LL N v = G1 N N i p V G� 0 d 2 �l t A U E 0 m 0 = L 0-0 W O N =_ *- 0 cm Ad #: 0000536158-01 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 1/10/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 1/10/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 1/28/2020. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 1/28/2020. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1 ME LIMP MEDINA FiATf apcutnzoo NOTARY til Rpi1�079i9A N`/ vCfi3.¢CGpM;XPlRI:GAUGil573,26�i' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JaruT=an yChambers B0 FM bers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Can to Order 1.1. Atu maaroe 2.Main Agenda 2.1.A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Coda, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Hrimary/Sedontlary Resident al zone district not exceed 40% of allowable Site GRFA, and a request for e review of avariaad from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for a variance to the stipulation that basement GRFA dedudicns appy only to floors within six Vertical feet of the lowest level of a strudu re, both in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Var- es, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Val Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-lX50) 30 min. Applicant: Such Ryan 8 Foster Gilled, represented by Mauriellc Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates 2.2.A request for review of an amendment to an approved ENerior Alteration for the Launch De- velopment, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Altemtirne or Motlrfications, Val Town Cotle, to m,day the amount of required parking and the design of the parking garage, located a 534 East Lionsheatl Gircla/LW 2A, a resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3 and Trac[ E, Block 1, Vail Lionsheatl Filing 1, and setting forth details In regard thereto. (PE019- 0051) 30 min. AppllcanL Battle Mountain LLC Launch Development Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.3. A request for review of an amendment t0 a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Seddon 12- 9,-3, Conditional Uses, Val Town Cotle, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Per- mits, Vail Town Code, to -and the circulation plan in the vicinity of the Medical Professional Buildingg lo- cated at 108 South Frontage Road WA VU nsubdmded and saving forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19- 0052130 min. Applicant Vail Clinic Inc Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Davis Partnership Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.4. 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 Coda, to allow for an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Town of Vail Public Works facility located st 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unpletted, and setling hath details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0039) 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Erik Gates 25. Area est fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a nedistrictboundary amend- ment, pursuant to Saction 12-3-7, Amentlment, Vail Town CW e, to allow fzor the rezoning of 2211 Noah Frontage Roatl West whidh is dumb osetl of Tract C, Lot 1 Lot 2, antl Lot 3 Vail Use Schone Filing No 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, from the Commercial Core 3 (003) District to the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District and setling forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0047) 5 min. This item will be heard candurently with PE019-0046 and PEC19-0048. The Applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. AppllcanL TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriellc Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 26. A request for a recommendation W the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Spe- cial 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 accom- modation units, convert 19 existing dwelling units to 19 limited service lodge units, create a 12 all EHU dormitory, remove office space, add conference space and build 16 unit employee housing apartment build ng, antl related uses and improvements, located W 2211 North Frontage Road West which is com- posetl of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Val Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 190048) This item will be M1eartl concurrently with PEC19-8047 and PEC19-0046. The Applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. AppllcanL TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriellc Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 27. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, ExtedorAltera- tions or Modifications, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for construction of a hotel addition and an EHU apartment builtling, located W 2211 Noah Frontage Road West which is composetl 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 foah details in regard there- to. (PEC19-0040) This item will be heard concurrently with PEG19-0047 antl PEC19-0048. The Applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the meeting of January 27, 2020. Applicant NREF III Bravo Vail LLewa C Witlters Group Inc., represented by Mauriellc Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. December9, 2019 PEC Results 4.Informational Up ate 4.1. An iachmtional update on the Town of Vail Housing Department including fire 2018 Hous- ing Policy Statements, the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan, and a snap shot of prop real toward the goal. 30 min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruth 5, Adipurnment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during egularof- fice hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public nvitetl to the the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public heading in the Town of Vail Ccmmunily Development Department Times and order of items are approximate, subject to cM1ange, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will nader an Rem. Please all (970) 479-2138 for additional Information. Please call 711 for sign language nterpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily on January 10, 2020. 0000536158 Ad #: 0000529964-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Mat Me Planning and Your account number is: 1023233 noda""hlch,,..1551.. darwewM .b. ' 12"-6, VaiI T—n Code, nj.nuM 13,202 at PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1:00 pm in Me Town of Vail Municipal Building. VAIL DAILY A request fareview of an amendment to an pproved E- ca All—g.n for die Launch STATE OF COLORADO Altere'dio s or'Modificatlone, Vail T -n Co l., Qeda odg..fl M..parW ;g.,ag.,Iac king and Me design the the p u.t al garage, hated at 534 East COUNTY OF EAGLE ,...head Circle /Lot 2A, a resubdiNsion of Lots 1, 2 tlsaM gforh' de'ack MIIelln rreg-thereto. Filing 1, (P EC 19-0051) Applicant: Battle Mounnein LLC Launch I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of Planner: Jonathan Spenw the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper in A request farreview of an amendment toaCordi- printed, whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, tional Use Persil Pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, oWitionalUee,Vail T-nON.,1.accardana.wIM T1tle 12, Chapter 16, Candid, .1 Use Permits, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; Vail Town Code, to amend Me ciralation plan in Me vicinity of the Medical Pralessbnal Building, lova ed that said newspaper has been published continuously and a1and endi108 ng torch duels Rln ar gard 1heret W.VUnso'v detl uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle fora period of (PEC19-0052) pPPli t Vail Clinic Inc. in care of Vail H.IM, more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the Planner: JmaMan Spence vis Paft—hip first publication of the annexed legal notice or The applications and informatics atwut the prapos- als areavallable for public inspection during office advertisement and that said newspaper has published the hours at Me Town of Vail Community Development ease Mine public pepm[ed [ot'a e5 dsite dsi¢a$Iall requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. 9]0-479-213. a visit www.vailg--planning 9 9 9 for additional infornadion. Sign language interpretation available upon reque t wiM 24-hour notif tion, dial 711. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, P 9 9 0Publiah0005209 December 2T, 20191n Me Vail Daily. 0000529964 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 12/27/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 12/27/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 12/27/2019. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 12/27/2019. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1Er�E �YM!J MEp!RdF r rnav0, zoo NOTARY til 2AIRI:Girg9i9g u`/ v.Cfi%¢CGON:XpAk3Gil57et.26x'