Name: TELLURIDE Date: 01/16/15 Scale: 1 inch= 4,000 ft.

Location: 03r 56' 20.35" N 1or 51' 00.41" W FIGURE 1

~(C) 2009 P.t Topo

.)::>

~ ~ ;$ f(\

"'G ..., 1'1

;/ . _/// ~ - --· ... _

_/- ... .. _ .. _____ ~~--~-\ ---:<-

- - ------ - --- ·1 -- I

.... -

I '""'~"" I ;:-=::=.::.:=.:~::=-..::_:::_:

""=----~ =-...:.~?::::-.::.:::s~

~- . ~ _ .. . ·-·· . -,

. ~~~--;--.1~ ~~-~~~\-----,-,---rr--::-.R-M-, ~--r-r~·-~--t--,--, .. -r-~---~ -'l';

;: ~::: :"·~-­: ... +

"

j

\ .} -· ·· . ·-·

I \ I

J' f I i I

. 11/ ' ,/ I

'- ll • .] f

,(/' ' /i i 'II /

I ' I I I I

ci!' :

'I L ! --~- .

I .... ... ....... /

·/ / _..-/ ;

/ /

/ ., '

/

6-;;libre · Gab in

Ski Run ' ----,

-..._

------Legend

CJ o:::::r= -c=::J -~= = , << ·~;~ ,_ ..

-1'. '/ . ·<::~ -- - >: .·· .

_ _ -·/•'

_.._Shoo --­New v.hkaAooesa

-~ - eur..n

Woaandl\o,.,.in

-:-_L:::::..

Town of Mountoin Villoge. CO

~

..:p.

~ ~ 3

(""(\

c. -l lv

AMBULANCE ENTRANCE

CROSS-SECTION VIEWED SOUTH TO NORTH

MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING

WETLANDS

EAST WALKWAY

*FILL THROUGH GRADING AND DISCHARGE OF SUITABLE STRUCTURAL FILL I® Wetland Fill I 75 37.5 0 75 Feet

MOUNTAIN VILLAGE TOWN HALL PARCEL Figure 4

Typical Cross-section ,....-------------. Horizontal scale measured from plan view drawings. l Claffey Ecological Consulting, Inc. J Vertical scale is approximated. MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, CO

December 2014

~ ;+:

~ 2. --1

-£:..

N

A Alternatives

TELLURIDE MEDICAL CENTER ALTERNATIVES

December2014 MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, CO

1.:00 eco o 1.:<:oFoet

SCofo- 1:14,400 1 Inch • 1 ,200 Feet ot Lotter Lcyout

Source: ESRI World lmagGI)' 2011 Datum: NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_13N

GIS PrePDI'IKI by Csll Crumb I - - - - - --- -1 Claffey Ecological Consulting, Inc.

Figure 5

! (/) w

i > ~ z 0:: w !:i 0 <( 1/) {.)

41

0:: ~ w-w CIS (!)

1- c <( ..... z 41 ...J ::: ...J w < > ()

-1 J: z <( c ~ 0 () ~ z 0 :J

CIS 0 w ..J

:E == w 0 a:: ::> -1 -1 w 1-

Telluride Medical Center Individual Section 404 Application

Table 1. Alternatives and Elements Considered for Practicability · ... • •.,:: ~ -;,.~~:·: ,.·r:- ·~;s;;~'"'::·,.; :·;c,;.-:~;~..,..,o:(~ :-~--.z:-.,'"::-'~:;,;,;_;;.; ~: ~" · • ;;:~.~-~: ·' ·:"c·.-: ..:;~:i.:.~~~tTERNATIVE'SrrES:~.~-;:-.- :~i;;~~-:--:0~,~-~~,;;r,;-~:':@~~~-.~:~-;.f~-'~·~~4~:_ I i~(~)ia~~~s'ili~~ ~-.,~·.._,!L(;& .. h_~..:;-:&.~B.i~~ ~~- ,,r;,-t':J" • .,, .. ,~..;''I't~=-- .,l.:~'·:"'~~;. .. ,J.~)i'\~.('~'WI.).,_'l":'l';~:•;.t,',;";C.;_;•.> ···~-· .... :··~-..... :.;:o-r~,.-: ....... ~·:•· ; ........ ;,·~'';!:lfloJ.•l'-~'\:1"•'f."Jf..,..,.. ... ,,. .. ('~

~~-~::u~:.:~~0~:~~~}:~f.~·- . ~- --~~ .... _ ~: oM ·:tawson·HJII! ~ · ... h •··"e, ~-~~~ ·~~nams Hanit 1. :·,;:: · ....... ; -~~ Mnt-VIllllle...lx,own' Hall-i.~.·-~:.;:. • ·. --.. ~ "''1:··.•.-,. ~-:· •. ' .... >or ,t~-~ ..,._._,-___ .-,-..... ...... ·-"" ._ ~-_,.1.::_ .. - • -~ ...,_'-'".Jl,. ; ;o.·~·.,....,. .. _ · - ~ 1, •.' •. -- ~-· .,\.\,•· ••• :.«·,)_ . ._ ' .. •~ • '"'Cllt.~-.......-...._ ~ ~~ ... ,..,;.:.....,./" .. <'.::...:...".:

3.5 million for acquisition, 17.3to 22.2 million 2.5 million plus 1.7 million forfuture expansion, Zero acquisition costs, 17.9 to 20.9 million

Costs- acquisition and construction, addit ional, with the highest approval and second highest approval costs, 20.5 to 24 mil lion additional for construction, lowest cost on

permitting and approvals permitting costs due to rezoning and the overflow additional for construction, development parking lot approval costs

permitting and approvals

Private security needed for Detox and may be at Lowest long tenn costs as no need for private

Private securi ty needed and extra funding for bus higher level than Big Dog site due to proximity to security, no need to fund extra bus routes as

Long Term Costs- operational routes, second highest long tenn costs

school, extra funding for public transportation required by county, and TMV is funding the bus schedule, minimally higher than Big Dog Site. routes during the shoulder season when gondola Highest long term costs closed

Costs for Future Expansion High due to development approval process, but Very high due to underground parking and Lowest and only actual contruction costs incldued, ranked second highest as not as costly as Lot H& I additonal property purchase and parking is already present. Scores Highest

Enough space on lot, but would requi re new PUD The LHPOC has not approved f ut ure expansion, Future Expansion Possibility through County, not practicable due to lack of and they do not want to see a larger building. Is Yes, up to 25,000 sf

certainty not practicable forth is element. _I Deemed not practicable due to lack of certainty,

Low est score of the three as LHPOC has not Highest potential, expansion will be incldued in Future Expansion Security but would score second on this e lement as H&l

has a rejection already approved future expansion at this point in time the first apprvoal process

Approval complexities highest for Big Dog Parcel. Unknown on how the County BOCC considers this Minor and project supported by town council and I

Approval Complexities Rejection if even one of the owners may not project, but approval required from County, and approve, also requires two government and the Town of Telluride for water and sewer. Second publicin TMV Lawson Hill HOA company approvals lowest complexity of the three

Helipad Not zoned, but possible Yes Yes I

Wetland and Aqauitc Resource No, but proximity to river and potential for

Yes, and scores t he lowest, 0.44acre of impact to No, top score of the three sediment and erosion impacts put this slightly

Impacts lower in score than Big Dog.

wetlands

Yes, but only bus route and would be slightly Yes, and highest score due to bus route

I

Public Transportation Yes, on bus route, and schedule could be changed lower than Big Dog, and schedule could be

availability right at the parking lot at Town Hall, to every hal f hour for patients and employees changed to every half hour for patients and

employees and the gondola.

I Tied with LotH & I but considered much lower Tied with Big Dog but consi dered much lower I

Pedestrian Access than Mountain Village site as only 6% of than Mountain Village site as only 6% of Highest score due to the gondola and proximity to

population base would have pedestrian access population base would have pedestrian access population density

::p.

~ ~ \'I\

Tied with Bog Dog, does not meet the Highest score due to the gondola and proximity to 1

Quality of Care- related to ease of Tied with H&l, does not really meet the practicability test as patients, particularly those population density. People in the major

access practicability test forth is e lement without their own vehicle would reduce number population centers in the region would have very

of doctor visits easy access via the gondola, and would visit the

I doctros office as needed can be constructed but not practicable due to

Second highest score, can be constructed but proximity to Mountain School and potential for

Highest score as police department next door to OetoxRoom adverse public opinion during county review

requires private security process, thus less certainty that this elment could

building and no other land use conflicts

be developed

~ 22 cr-

t ~ ~

~ N

~ A ~ -.l

January 2015

TELLURIDE MEDICAL CENTER

Project and Mitigation Site Locations

MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, CO

Scola- , :14,400 1 lneh • 1.200 Foot at Lotter Layout

Source: ESRI World Imagery 2011 D::otum: NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_13N

GIS Prepsred by cSll Crumb

I Claffey Ecological Consulting, Inc. I Figure 1