FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B o u l d e r B a y C o m m u n i t y E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m P r o j e c t E I S Table 8.5-7 Building Heights Measured as Viewed from Adjacent Washoe County Roadways Building Visible from Roadway Setback to Roadway Building Height Based on TRPA Calculations Measured Building Height at Viewpoint B Wassou 45 ft 75 ft 22 ft 2 B Lakeview 61 ft 35 ft 3 D Lakeview 33 ft 75 ft 49.5 ft 4 D Stateline 28 ft 39 ft 3 E Stateline 29 ft 65 ft 55 ft 3 Floors Comment 322-he: Comment Summary - What are the heights of surrounding properties in North Stateline that are within 1000 feet of the project area? Please see response to comment 93-b. Comment 322-hf: Comment Summary - What is the difference in the linear frontage of buildings proposing additional height over the existing conditions of just the one Biltmore Casino building? The linear frontage of buildings along SR 28 will increase under Alternatives C and D compared to the existing Tahoe Biltmore structure. Buildings G and H are located adjacent to the SR 28 frontage with proposed pedestrian facilities between the buildings and SR 28 edge of pavement. Under existing conditions, the linear frontage along SR 28 for the 76-foot tall Tahoe Biltmore building is approximately 240 feet. Under Alternative C, the linear frontage of the 56-foot tall Building H (located in proximity to the existing Tahoe Biltmore building) increases to 320 feet. Alternative C also includes the 45-foot tall Building G along SR 28 for approximately 160 linear feet. Comment 322-hg: Comment Summary - A new height ordinance should specifically address this property. What are the impacts of this ordinance with regard to other properties within the NSCP? Have these impacts been analyzed? Please see response to comment 93-b. The Crystal Bay Motel site is not included in the proposed height amendment. In addition, NSCP areas located outside of the Boulder Bay project area are not affected by the proposed Code Chapter 22 amendment. Comment 322-hh: Comment Summary - Where did a 10% land coverage reduction for increase height come from? If an accurate traffic study concludes an increase in VMTs, will the height amendment be rescinded? The 10% land coverage reduction for increased height is one of numerous findings included within the proposed height amendment, which adds a new section (22.4.E) to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 22. It is language developed for the amendment to require other environmental benefits or improvements beyond just PAGE 8- 122 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B o u l d e r B a y C o m m u n i t y E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m P r o j e c t E I S scenic improvements. To qualify for the additional height, the Proposed Project must demonstrate reductions in land coverage, improved pedestrian/transit oriented development, improved runoff and stormwater quality, participation in EIP projects within the NSCP, and a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. If a project does not demonstrate these requirements as listed in the amendment, additional height would not be approved. Comment 322-hi: Comment Summary - What specific environmental benefits are attributed directly to the proposed increase in height versus benefits that would be required as part of any project approval? The net environmental gain should be quantified. Benefits related to scenic and community design improvement are summarized in Table S-2 and include: undergrounding existing utilities located outside of the project area, creation of gathering spaces open to the public, providing setbacks along SR 28 greater than those required in the NSCP, and placing a majority of parking underground. Comment 322-hj: Comment Summary - The roof pitches for proposed buildings indicate almost flat roofs but the simulation shows more articulation and roofs that appear more steep. Are the pitched roofs mainly facades? Please explain the apparent discrepancy. An architectural rendering of each building facing Hwy 28 would be helpful. Please see response to comment 322-cp. Comment 322-hk: Comment Summary - DEIS should include shadowing study in EIS because buildings are relatively close together. There appears to be a safety concern from shadowing of Building D because it could potentially cause icy conditions on the Lakeview connector. Please see response to comment 169. Comment 322-hl: Comment Summary - What are the mitigation measures to prevent a tunnel effect from occurring to the pedestrians and travelers along the highway from Alt C showing 3 buildings close to Hwy 28? The construction of 2 and 3 story buildings setback a minimum of 40 feet from the SR 28 edge of pavement will not create a "tunnel effect" as documented in Figure 4.5-6. Proposed Alternative C building heights along SR 28 are compatible with the existing Crystal Bay Club buildings located on the east side of the highway. Comment 322-hm: Comment Summary - What are the night sky impacts of this project? What are the current effects as comparison? What will prevent this project from causing increased night sky pollution? Please see response to comment 322-da. Comment 322-hn: Comment Summary - What type of new signage is proposed with this project? Does the project propose multiple reader boards? New signage will be required to comply with NSCP Guideline 4.d that states: “Signs on buildings should be integrated into the overall building design. Architectural designs should anticipate the location and size of building signs. This may require changes or modifications to a sign design to achieve a sense of fit between sign and building. Building signs should be at an appropriate height and size to be read by pedestrians. This generally means sign mounting heights of less than 10 feet and sign area of 10-20 square feet. Building signs should not be oriented toward automobiles. This is the function of freestanding signs.” SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 123
Page 1 and 2:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 121: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
Page 190 and 191:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
Page 192:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
show all

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?