Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Eleni Zneimer Lot 1 (3)
Planning and Environmental Commisson ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 7M ff VAL A0FV $ 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 - - - -- tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 C0"JJxrYCEVEuo W web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: WELTNER EXEMPTION PLAT PEC Number: PEC070015 Project Description: Participants: FINAL APPROVAL FOR AN EXEMPTION PLAT FOR A BUILDING ENVELOPE CHANGE OWNER WESTPORT -NALL INVESTORS LP 03/13/2007 4520 MAIN ST STE 1000 KANSAS CITY MO 64111 APPLICANT SCOTT TURNIPSEED, AIA 03/13/2007 Phone: 970 - 328 -3900 1143 CAPITOL STREET, SUITE 211 PO BOX 3388 EAGLE CO 81631 License: C000001848 ARCHITECT SCOTT TURNIPSEED, AIA 03/13/2007 Phone: 970 - 328 -3900 1143 CAPITOL STREET, SUITE 211 PO BOX 3388 EAGLE CO 81631 License: C000001848 Project Address: 1677 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: Subdivision: ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISIO Parcel Number: 2103 - 122 - 1500 -1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: Viele Vote: 4 -3 -0 (Jewitt, Pierce, Cl Date of Approval: 04/09/2007 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Cond: 113 All development applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of `/ Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007, this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications. Cond: CON0008837 The applicant shall replace all trees removed by the construction of the stucture and the associated driveway on Lot 1 as depicted on the tree survey attached to the memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 9, 2007, labeled, Attachment C, identifying all aspens on the lot that are at least 3 inches in caliper. The trees shall be replace one for one with the same caliper of tree as those removed. The landscaping plan provided in conjunction with the design review application shall depict this replacement requirement. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $650.00 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 2007 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road /Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07 -0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner, represented by Scott Turnipseed Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, Doug Weltner, represented by Scott Turnipseed, is requesting final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road. If approved, this request would result in the recording of Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. Lot 1. Town Of Vail, County Of Eagle, State Of Colorado depicting the change to the platted building envelope on Lot 1. Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Doug Weltner, represented by Scott Turnipseed, is requesting final review of an amended final plat, Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, Lot 1, Town Of Vail, County Of Eagle, State Of Colorado pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road. The proposal does not change the overall square footage of the currently platted building envelope (5,462 square feet); however, it does change the configuration of the envelope to accommodate the home design preferred by the current owner. The applicant wishes to amend the platted building envelope in order to provide an increased separation between the structure to be developed on Lot 1 and the structures to be developed to the west on the remaining lots within the Eleni Zniemer subdivision. A description of the request from the applicant is attached for reference (Attachment A). A vicinity map of Lot 1 is attached for reference (Attachment B). A reduced copy of the site plan and proposed amended plat is attached for reference (Attachment C). BACKGROUND The Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was annexed into the Town Of Vail from Eagle County by Ordinance 9, Series of 1987 which became effective on April 29, 1987. It was previously identified as Phase VI of The Valley Subdivision. The Valley Phase VI was approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Eagle County jurisdiction in the fall of 1980. That plan included 42 townhouses with a total GRFA of 77,150 square feet. When the plan was annexed into the Town of Vail, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. In that same ordinance Residential Cluster Zoning was applied to the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. On October 22, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County. The amended development plan included the ability to construct 13 single - family dwelling units with the ability to construct a caretaker /employee housing unit in conjunction with each single - family dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 single - family dwelling units and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the 13 potential caretaker /employee housing units. On August 30, 1990, March 31, 1994, and June 6, 1996, the plats establishing Lots 1 -7 of the Lia Zneimer Subdivision were recorded. The Lia Zneimer Subdivision is located on the south side of Buffehr Creek Road. On February 19, 2003, the plat establishing Lots 1 -6 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was recorded. The seven lots created in the Lia Zneimer Subdivision and the six lots created by the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision completed the platting of the 13 single - family lots approved under the October 22, 1990, approved development plan. On October 19, 2005, the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed new building envelope and curb -cut access proposal for Lot 1 on a conceptual basis and unanimously agreed that the proposed relocation of access was a better site design solution than taking access on the existing driveway through the retaining walls. They believed the proposed design would have less impact on the site. On November 14, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed and approved a proposal for amending several elements of the Eleni Zneimer subdivision. The proposal was comprised two applications to accomplish several goals. The applications and accompanying goals included the following: • An application to amend an approved development plan in order to increase the allowable GRFA on the Lots 1 -6, obtain a new building envelope on Lot 1, and new vehicular access to Lot 1; and • An exemption plat to adjust the platted building envelope on Lot 1 and amend the plat restrictions on GRFA for the Lots 1 -6. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Exemption Plat Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat. Specifically the code states in Section 13- 12 -3C, Review and Action on Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13 -3 -4 of this title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Section 13 -3 -5C, Vail Town Code, which reads as follows: Within ten (10) days the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission on the final plat shall be transmitted to the Council by the staff. The Council may appeal the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission within seventeen (17) days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing(s). The Council shall have thirty (30) days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, and the Council shall conduct the appeal at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TOWN OF VAIL ZONING CODE TITLE 13: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (in part) 13 -2 -2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT: The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within the definition of a "subdivision ", as contained in this section. 13 -12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES 13 -12 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. (Ord. 2(2001) § 1) 13 -12 -2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats ", as defined in section 13 -2 -2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title 12, chapter 12 of this code. 13 -12 -3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The procedure for an exemption plat review shall be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13- 3 -6B of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator and /or the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. B. Public Hearing: The administrator will schedule a public hearing before the planning and environmental commission and follow notification requirements for adjacent property owners and public notice for the hearing as found in subsection 13 -3 -661 of this title. C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement 4 M r between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13 -3 -4 of this title. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VI. Zonin NA Residential Cluster Residential Cluster Residential Cluster SITE ANALYSIS VII Development Standard Allowed /Required Existing Proposed Lot Area Lot 1 Land Use North: Forest Service East: Residential West: Residential South: Residential Zonin NA Residential Cluster Residential Cluster Residential Cluster SITE ANALYSIS VII Development Standard Allowed /Required Existing Proposed Lot Area Lot 1 15,000 sq. ft. 218,235 sq. ft. No Change Lot 2 15,000 sq. ft. 92,957 sq. ft. No Change Lot 3 15,000 sq. ft. 95,788 sq. ft. No Change Lot 4 15,000 sq. ft. 83,286 sq. ft. No Change Lot 5 15,000 sq. ft. 28,357 sq. ft. No Change Lot 6 15,000 sq. ft. 22,476 sq. ft. No Change Tract A 15,000 sq. ft. 393,303 sq. ft. No Change Frontage Per the approved development plan, Lots 2 -6 within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision were to gain access off the extended driveway which has been constructed per the approved plans. Lot 1 was approved to gain access directly from Buffehr Creek Road. This proposal does not change the access to any of the lots. Site Dimensions Per the approved development plan, each lot was platted with a building envelope. Pursuant to the approved development plan the platted building envelopes are permitted to take on new dimensions; however, the new proposed envelope cannot shift more that 15 feet from is platted location and it must contain the same amount of square footage of buildable area as the platted envelope. The applicant is proposing to shift the building envelope on Lot 1 in one area approximately 45 feet to the east and 25 feet to the north. The existing building envelope on Lot 1 measures 5,462 square feet and the proposed revised (shifted) building envelope would measure 5,462 square feet. Side Setbacks Per the approved development plan the platted building envelopes were located as to maintain desired spacing between the structures. All physical improvements to the sites other than grading and landscaping must occur within the building envelope. In addition, there is a 15 -foot setback off of the perimeter of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. GRFA Allowed VIII. Lot Existin Proposed Lot 1 5,267.4 sq. ft. No Change Lot 2 5,267.4 sq. ft. No Change Lot 3 5,267.4 sq. ft. No Change Lot 4 5,267.4 sq. ft. No Change Lot 5 5,500 sq. ft. No Change Lot 6 4,180 sq. ft. No Change Tract A No development Potential No Change APPLICATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, is intended to ensure that the proposed subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The criteria for reviewing an exemption plat shall be as contained in section 13 -3 -4 of this title which are as follows: (1) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed amended final plat and found it to be in compliance with all applicable elements of Vail Comprehensive Plan. As stated previously, when the Eagle County approved development plan was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1987, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. On October 22, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County. The amended development plan included the ability to construct 13 single - family dwelling units with the ability to construct a caretaker /employee housing unit in conjunction with each single - family dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 single - family dwelling units and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the 13 potential caretaker /employee housing units. As Planning and Environmental Commission review of this application to amend the building envelope is required by annexation agreement and not Code, the only evaluation criteria to be used is to compare the existing, approved plan, to the proposed plan and determine that the intent and goals of the currently approved plan are being maintained. The approved development plan from October 22, 1990, included provisions for platted building envelopes on each of the six lots located within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The following is the text from that approved development plan discussing the platted building envelopes: M "Building envelopes indicated upon the approved site plan may be modified with approval of the DRB based upon detailed review of an individual dwelling unit. The DRB shall find that the modification to any building envelope does not substantially result in any negative impacts upon the site, adjoining property, or have any adverse impact upon required geologic hazard considerations. If an association of homeowners within the project is formed, any modification of a building envelope shall also conform to the rules and regulations adopted by the association. Any modification shall not exceed 15 feet and in no case shall any structure be built in the 20 foot setbacks shown on the approved development plan." Staff has made the interpretation that the modification of an envelope of 15 feet or less can be made if the DRB makes the findings stated in the above paragraph. However, the resulting modified building envelope must be no more square footage than that of the platted building envelope. The structures currently constructed and under construction on Lots 5 and 6 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision went through the process described in the paragraph above. This proposal includes a request to shift a portion of the platted building envelope on Lot 1 on the northeast corner of the platted envelope approximately 45 feet to the east and 25 feet to the north. The existing building envelope on Lot 1 measures 5,462 square feet and the proposed revised (shifted) building envelope would measure 5,462 square feet. The proposed building envelope change is attached for reference (Attachment C). Staff believes the intent of the approved development plan and the platted building envelopes is being met. The existing and proposed building envelopes are identical in total square footage. Staff agrees with the DRB that the proposed envelope will allow for adequate protection of the existing aspen grove on the lot. (2) The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Title, as well as, but not limited to, Title 12, Zoning Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable; and Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed amended final plat and found that all submittal documents were received and the resulting lots will comply with all applicable portions of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. (3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and Staff Response: The proposed amended final plat modifying the platted building envelope on Lot 1 will not negatively affect the workable relationship among land uses as the proposal will maintain the current land uses, low density residential. (4) The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and Staff Response: The proposed amended final plat modifying the platted building envelope on Lot 1 will not negatively affect the future development of the surrounding area as the development potential remains consistent. (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and Staff Response: The proposed amended final plat modifying the platted building envelope on Lot 1 will not negatively affect the elements identified in the above criterion. (6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under -sized lines; and Staff Response: The proposed amended final plat modifying the platted building envelope on Lot 1 will not affect the currently level of utility service required in the vicinity. (7) The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed amended final plat to modify the platted building envelope for Lot 1 will continue to allow for the orderly growth of the community and serves the interests of the community as the owner of the lot will be able to construct a structure which will have less impact on the site and neighborhood than the previously platted envelope and driveway configuration. (8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the proposed amended final plat to modify the platted building envelope on Lot 1 will result in any adverse impacts to any of the items listed in the above criterion. Staff asked the applicant to perform an analysis of how the trees on the site would be impacted. Through a study comparing the approved building envelope to the proposed building envelope it was determined that the new design removed approximately five (5) more trees than the approved design (Attachment C). If the proposed building envelope is approved and a subsequent Design Review application is submitted Staff will encourage the Design Review Board to review the accompanying landscape plan to verify that that any proposed plantings mitigate the trees to be removed. (9) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and /or Council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and /or granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed major subdivision: (1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13- 3-4A, Vail Town Code; and (2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with, and suitable to, adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, of the request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road /Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Lot 1 Town Of Vail County Of Eagle, State Of Colorado, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the building envelope on Lot 1 within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road /Lot 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this final plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: M I` That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 3. That the application to amend the building envelope on Lot 1 of the Eleni Zneimer subdivision has been determined to meet the intent and goals of the approved development plan. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Request B. Vicinity Map C. Reduced Copies of Site Plan and Amended Final Plat D. Notice to neighboring properties E. Letter from concerned neighbor dated April 4, 2007 10 Mr. Warren Campbell Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 April 4, 2007 Re: Building Envelope Amendment Request 1701 Buffehr Creek Road; Lot 1, Filing 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Dear Warren, Thank you for considering our request of an amendment of a building envelope at the referenced address. The applicant, Doug Weltner, represented by Scott S. Turnipseed, AIA, is requesting an amendment to the building envelope located at 1701 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot 1, Filing 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The request involves a reconfiguration and shift to the East of the 5,462 square foot building envelope, which was originally platted in the early 1990's as part of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The relocation of the building envelope is being requested in order to provide increased distance between the envelope on Lot 1 and the envelopes of the neighboring properties to the West. At over five acres in size, the neighboring properties to the East will not be affected negatively and an increased amount of land, landscaping, and therefore screening will be provided between Buffehr Creek Road and the new building envelope location. The proposed building envelope is located uphill of the existing aspen grove to the South. It should be noted that the location of the proposed envelope will likely result in a similar amount of site disturbance, because the site is uniformly steep across its entire width. The centerline of the originally platted driveway will remain. The proposed reconfiguration would result in the same size building envelope which remains at 5,462 square feet. Thank you in advance for consideration of our client's request. Best Regards, — 5 �k - Scott S. Turnipseed, AIA APB' 0 2007 lip TOWN OF VAIL 1 Attachment: A , ll� Y R�rhfi�d$Ys ' ¢"} S : ;'r%' r p 5 Fx �„p " IR a W - k, 4 3 Yr r'k {x �y."j,� 4'" tY�,•,e ,�}�! "5'� '�► Q <' 4 di 6 r x� r r 7 1 l • ��?4�a i r q �, *.d ��.Fa t . s Y R �� ' _ 4 R�S R. bd i{s�hC!! e,��iy" ' k %' * Zi .� i - ���� tl � ; 'S R, ? t � �'�t'} , �' " � ' '� o- �' gyp°' �+ 4.ir �` �s,.$;% �' `� �7 �' • h�!:'�i -1,�'� "�.a , r " "e�r'6�trrv�.��t"a� af�.�.��,: �.: TM �.�.:3'.a . ��a',�����1 �t'a�.',,. r '� f fi � � ,. �. ' o- • ti r � 6 \,r t +i.'�rtai �'t� � 'd, _ °_ '� lI Y Alf %�' ��6 � Q G • .. P ,d ' '�` ti. r i Ska.. j ^At �� M ,� • 8` �j J �t•• lYk tp~1. �!- A d ' ap'N,p r '= �.� S KS '� d a <t ti `��t�R'� '" "ta S� ��� ."'A''�"�'a •,a .. • S r _ �i"t a { S x �G , a t .J Y• Rr 4 k� r_ � �F �'t > r' s r't r, 'tL w: r'�r#c.,•91'iw<- "fYrr3"�.�'sa�' ?, r }. "9 ?� k' �. • . x?'� ��� d,q�u r xti.i, E t S • � �v v w'� , • , a 3 i � y „j t3 >, k`.. � �Y f � F � *'S"+.��F��'��� s'�wr "'tket .� n� • y.+ f x a iSaY*+tr �c ` j j 1 a�t`ix�°� 'R R, "! t � 77 , � ri � t � r � � •� � a` a � 1 � 44 ,t $ � � �, {� b s � ..yn,gyt �y��� � Po � • �� +f+�`�S ca ,�`s'w.y.. �'1 �E" .,� r���. x �4��t Y` �'� �,. �ka t�` k s.F"`.,�s'C,rd y,e G i r � I rr Z`" a CU LU • . "`� nd t,.. �, }M Tit ,�7 %its r',3fr,R+�2 yY` u z `Y :e� 4 A a� 'Fi4 � sl �, r '� _ +..� �r , ,.�,tK., rA .. �. aR .. r r',•. P'i �'+ ?.� JAc f� �. ". ��� µa ,t �: -{"i^, aL' " p $ S Al x� } t j � hR� 1 'V' .:lf'�'4fi°i :�,irs3t4',1Sri eais,6 ��_,rk 5. r,. �;y'S, ".'r4 , �,;; ^n �,'§. � r �. �,y Z! . 9 � .; $� � -'�"yY �`+ ' �� "� "'� r, :�r'"'7G A c a� E t v m w Q EW .c F ' i o S E t`-5 seo RE gg m o c o m o_ g� 4�T oEI V 1 " v� m5 d c 90 25 t2 E B j ` 3 m taam�$m °s _E� dm •-c t�_ o c° a -° om�g$m u c�Q `S c�1moL c U YN V W5 uaB -.1 n w IJ 0 z O ( O V / O LLJ Q V 1 J W __ z CD Q (L \11 1L O �_I 11 1 F) m —� O z _ W W Z N O $ Ea c U z J ;� w o a zS W � O z O z o U 4 � m ° ® E c' • 9 U m� g�° � c n a o L �yyo_ m u rd " _a a a i5w ouWw m1 U u m �m m ffi >rom &y ,y�y�.• � g m E c -.0 I�3°- i. Z $s9 m 3 m o 3 m° F o ¢ a a ° R EW .c F ' i o S E t`-5 seo RE gg m o c o m o_ g� 4�T oEI V 1 " v� m5 d c 90 25 t2 E B j ` 3 m taam�$m °s _E� dm •-c t�_ o c° a -° om�g$m u c�Q `S c�1moL c U YN V W5 uaB -.1 n w IJ 0 z O ( O V / O LLJ Q V 1 J W __ z CD Q (L \11 1L O �_I 11 1 F) —� O z _ W W Z N O U z J ;� w Q W � O z O EW .c F ' i o S E t`-5 seo RE gg m o c o m o_ g� 4�T oEI V 1 " v� m5 d c 90 25 t2 E B j ` 3 m taam�$m °s _E� dm •-c t�_ o c° a -° om�g$m u c�Q `S c�1moL c U YN V W5 uaB -.1 n w 4 87 'o �V E 8 N N I w 0 t" o a a a .st n d f �aa � � U h o h a g } a S IZ s d V a U to a _ B 5 E E 8 gR 3d m F w Z o h II A I� 12 N f— O J m� a� Z� ° z Q ja tlO n\ QWKS r\ 1 O 3 v / O ^ < ' W z o¢ :o i w N 0 1 Q 0 \ I V) gr `c7n -N < p p'reN � OJU�U\ awrrxz Z 1 3 I � 3 I �lr in M � Q� � J w �m a = ^ � ^ v aj aQ? v> `n QQ rnr O O 0 w � ;� �j ��p►U •� �� gyp 1 ■ ■ ■v� 4 87 'o �V E 8 N N I w 0 t" o a a a .st n d f �aa � � U h o h a g } a S IZ s d V a U to a _ B 5 E E 8 gR 3d m F w Z o h II A I� 12 N f— O J m� a� Z� ° z Q ja tlO n\ QWKS r\ 1 O 3 v / O ^ < ' W z o¢ :o i w N 0 1 Q 0 \ I V) gr `c7n -N < p p'reN � OJU�U\ awrrxz Z 1 3 I � 3 I �lr in M � Q� � J w �m a = ^ � ^ v aj aQ? v> `n QQ rnr O O 0 Fox!n r ' L it S8 �S X v 1V J v e o J p�+ V ,µ p, Fox!n r ' L it S8 �S X v 1V J v e o J p�+ V ,µ ++ C t v a a r j r ++ C t v a F Z 106C9LS'OLd 19006C9ZCOL6tl tote WobpJ,."�, Lois 00V9070J `IIVA LOZIS 30NVNO3'8 { sBEf>q O'd'IILWMS'j— ,SpWo7S /11 NOIstA109Ns 93W13ML IH3ld'I 0Nnu U07 101I ONO33W i tow. "M N3311 NH3l1:1910L 1 RF.KI ONLL33W Y 9NE'01 NOM ven MONO] VIV'poesdluinl'S 14 9ONFIGIS91T TI9[d17gM :.,p 1- Q .2! LO - ZI - £ IM!WgnS 32-gD adOlanug 8mplmg w I I , 1 ^ N l J r •� C I LU 2 Z O I , W W ' � N ' Ni � o fit I �z Q Z Q -Nrn I I W 00 II II N II I N C) (f) °u I I t m JUOo o a Q �� ® 00 , °• rnLO ;n s`b N N e m II II � II cn v s �� Q II C) �� o /OE000�� �000m I 1 v � ' a Q' O J h I O 1 W a 9� h I O ^� Z C 1 m o LLI m a .7 1 `�` I w 1 a, cD o Q t\ I Z I Z 0 I N O °� ° , ° n '_ O O (.0 CY) O ;� b) I I � rn � II II r7 II Z w U� Q II II - a- 0 - j a I ir' � 0 JUOC) uj 'S i I X 00 I Z < LLJ Q ' >Vl z 00 I O'000m wF ° i I Zm N 00 M F O Z Q U U Q H > F o W Attachment C Z �w ,� I� 1 1 {v a- 1 z v Iz } D � tl )-8 0 V E. O C p � Z d. Q 1 g N V v �A 4 19 3 a 33f` Z -Z 2 �2 \ J d p 714 A o� 1 � W G s 3 d 0 ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE I N%a Il�G IJ I,GIZGU 1 %.71 V that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12 -3 -6, Vail Town Code, on, April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12- 7A -12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07 -0012) Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12 -3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12 -6A -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20 %, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1 -15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07 -0013) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1 -15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07 -0014) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07 -0015) Applicant: Doug Weltner Planner: Warren Campbell Page 1 Attachment D A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07 -0017) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planners: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970 - 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24 -hour notification. Please call 970 - 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily. Page 2 Telephone: 970.476.0300 970.476.6500 Telecopier: 970.476.4765 E -mail: Art.Abplanalp @earthlink.net Law Office of Arthur A. Abplanalp, Jr. L.L.C. Post Office Box 2800 Vail, Colorado 81658 -2800 4 April 2007 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Physical Address: Suite 301 Vail 21 Building 472 East Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Proposed Amended Subdivision Plat and Relocation of Building Envelope Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Members of the Commission: This Office has been engaged by James Andretta, the owner of Lot 3, Lia Zneimer Subdivision, to communicate to this Commission his concerns regarding, if not his objections to, the application for approval of an amended subdivision plat (changing the building envelope) for Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision ( "Lot 1 "), which is directly across Buffehr Creek Road from his residence. The history of the location of the building envelope assigned to Lot 1 has relevance to the proposal now under consideration by the Commission. Part of that history is as follows: 1. The original building envelope on Lot 1 was located at the southwest corner of the property and relied for access on the road which serves the other lots in that subdivision. The configuration of that original building envelope (as well as the location of Mr. Andretta's property) is found on the original plat of Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, part of which follows this letter as Item 1. That original building envelope is also identified as the broken line identified as such on the plats identified as Item 2 and Item 3 following this letter. 2. In 2005, a proposed amendment to the building envelope of Lot 1 came before this Commission, by which that building envelope was to be reconfigured a bit up the hill and to the east, in order to facilitate service from a new driveway coming in from the east. That proposed change is identified on Item 2 following this letter. At that time, Mr. Andretta had concerns regarding (a) incursion into the undeveloped area (protected by the original subdivision plat's location of the building envelope) north Attachment: E of the Andretta residence and (b) the possibility of a significant retaining wall directly north of the Andretta residence. At that time, Mr. Andretta did not feel that the effect on the undeveloped area and his view warranted objection to the amendment, although the question was a close one. The new proposal does not seem to be available at the Town office in the form of an actual amended plat. We understand that what is available is a topographic map locating only the original building envelope and not the 2005 proposal. We are uncertain whether the 2005 proposal was actually approved and recorded, but the information on the topographical map now available indicates that may not be the case. The part of the map identifying the new proposal (in a scale comparable to the 2005 map mentioned above) is identified as Item 3 following this letter. Warren Campbell, the planner assigned to this proposal, has indicated that the staff intends to recommend approval, based at least in part upon the fact that the new proposal would have less impact on the grove of trees on the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. When the impact of the relocation of the building envelope is analyzed based upon the information available, it is unclear whether the relocation of the building envelope will lessen the impact on these trees or effectively eliminate an even larger part of that grove than did the earlier proposed locations. The reason for this observation is the fact that, unlike the 2005 proposal, the current proposal does not identify the location of the relocated driveway and parking area. The east wing of the new proposal will clearly push the driveway farther south and into the grove than the driveway location on the 2005 proposal, because that east wing would be located across more than half of the width of the 2005 driveway location. If the parking area is to be located south of the center of the new building envelope, then, based upon the size of the parking area in the 2005 proposal, the retaining walls for the driveway, if not the driveway itself, will cut farther into the grove. The first concern of Mr. Andretta is, therefore, the fact that, without a depiction of the location of the driveway, parking area, and related retaining walls, the effect on the grove of trees cannot be determined, and action on the application should be deferred until that information is available. The second concern of Mr. Andretta is the fact that the current application indicates a continuing migration of the building improvements to the east of what was originally the consolidated location of all building envelopes in the southwest section of Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, protecting the upper and eastern parts of the subdivision from development. Item 4 is a second copy of Item 2 with the latest boundary overlaid on it. Item 4 roughly or specifically contains all three building envelope configurations 2 and best illustrates the migration of the building envelope easterly and up the mountain. The currently proposed revision of the building envelope extends a significant distance to the east of the 2005 proposal, twice the distance to the east as the movement of the 2005 proposal in comparison to the original. The impact of the change in the building envelope now proposed clearly would be significant, although, as noted above, it is difficult to accurately evaluate that impact without information regarding the location of the Lot 1 driveway, parking area and related retaining walls required by the proposed relocation of the Lot 1 building envelope. In any event, even if it is determined, after further information is provided regarding associated structures, that the location of those features is no more aggressive than the 2005 proposal, Mr. Andretta wishes to emphasize that, if those impacts under the current proposal are marginally tolerable, any further movement to the east beyond the current proposal would be unacceptable. For the reasons noted in association with the first concern of Mr. Andretta, i.e., the lack of information related to the impact of the change in building envelope on the Lot 1 driveway, parking area and related retaining walls, the application before the Town of Vail should be tabled until that information is available, and, if that information is not provided, then the application should be denied based upon the fact that the impact on the terrain and the vegetation on the property, as well as adjoining property owners, cannot be determined. If the Commission or the staff has any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact me. Thank you for your consideration of Mr. Andretta's concerns related to this matter. spectfull , Arthur A. Abpl xc: Mr. James Andretta �I co M � , J � �D H Q Z A �� V I , m Z N ` Ln C Z D z c C1 `� r*m c g Z \ D �(A r vl 1 ^) \ m0 o 0 a i zo \ ° 1 1 ad _ w 1 f� l� r I 2 -�, II It If z ; If If i C. (D rT, 00 Z c o - rn 0 -4 0 C M . < MF r- 2 0 --4 -0 z C) co m m ul m r O Un a I I I I I �— m I I I �\ � ��, �� I I\ I I i l i a ; II \ \ /�� 1 1 \ � `�' I 1 1 1 \ I 1 111• 1 1 '10 m z _0 rn \ `\ 1 \ \ I \ \ \ N a) mo -0 Z n 'D M . --I P m 0 a) 00 K) Ln (0 U O \\ \ WU ON M: m > r z m mo r- 00 00 \ �� o► cn D ` \\ �� ;/ �\ I I I � l I i I � ol W 1 \ � N G7 \ A m A, z 0 , v, C \ $N C> 6 z n > v �s N Of N 1 II X I z Z " Vf Z C OIr- -n4 -o Z 1 :- m c) N m o ° m ( n Z c O r - m O S 00 I 1 Z v I I �o I� I ry� W •S�, � O m 2 O / A m Nm y/ c ao A N � m W J 1 s0 O 1 1 0 �1 W 1 \ � N G7 \ A m A, z 0 , v, C \ $N C> 6 z n > v �s N Of N 1 II X I z Z " Vf Z C OIr- -n4 -o Z 1 :- m c) N m o ° m ( n Z c O r - m O S 00 I III UL r OD CD cr l rq t 00 m Oo m �' �� m \C. 00 Z I � I \ '� I � � d i Ul MZ c Z co I I _ I ' 11 � ;I ' m o v I 1 ' � ; i � � _ I � i I I I I l i ��m � ` I f j ' iTt I J i j i i ,� I I i ' I � I � I I I I rn� � � � I O � i i I ' �r i � j i i j � I I I � j I I ! � I/ 1 � I I I I I � ! i j Al Ln ! i; � li � I � J + _ I r r ��,. ,III I � � _ _ � I _I _ . -� I P , I I. r n m 0 co 0 K / M \ > r z m X r 't> Vii! Co (DO I O C) ' T O-• h• � r N {� 4 1 'V r �) ,D z m 6 1 a • Z Z 2 'F CL . Q l f r r ' r • 4 r " � s a� J o j V} r 7 vJ ve �. l Sl 1 \ n U � \ � O CL 0 i i d 7i Z �'�'�.r y.s�, -- - - - .L: -�:. _.,,y.�t tea i �'. �-� -� . s "; ,,,. rr"� ''1 YG;,r'i {bt�, �++ '�tatrirti,.t »J i�S .a.t - �_.}1" -:i �.r_�t is z ;• a Q Q U � Y � Q D — sr Q 0 D 0`''— o -� ( 7 N O 0 J l OV�Al Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com 19 MAR 12 1007 D General Information: )F VAIL All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and /or the Design Review Board. Type of Application and Fee: 0 ❑ Rezoning $1300 ❑ Conditional Use Permit $650 ❑ Major Subdivision $1500 ❑ Floodplain Modification $400 1p ❑ Minor Subdivision $650 Exemption Plat $650 ❑ Minor Exterior Alteration ❑ Major Exterior Alteration $650 $800 ❑ Minor Amendment to an SDD $1000 ❑ Development Plan $1500 ❑ New Special Development District $6000 ❑ Amendment to a Development Plan $250 ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $6000 ❑ Zoning Code Amendment $1300 rl ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $1250 ❑ Variance $500 (no exterior modifications) ❑ Sign Variance $200 NJ Description of the Request: e - i x-10 b �li e: c U N G E a Location of the Proposal: Lot: Block: F I Subdivision: CI.-e- t t.NtE CV Physical Address: t l ° ` t3 F t= F t+ V2. c-9- c�- � o - a "� Parcel No.: 21 °3 t ZL t5 ° e t (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970 -328 -8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: Name(s) of Owner(s): Mailing Address T f ,uw L,.rvE wh c d oo ,JL., L—CI- 'W 7 ��.,c�a ups / 452n w+A� cYXt'1' qN S G o, V P one: Owner(s) Signature(s): Name of Applicant: 5 n F- Nt e s Err Mailing Address: F. � vt-r CIO - et Cam Phone Ct^jD D0 E -mail Address: Sc b 4wvt �ktC4 �x " -1 ° ' '' I 3 Ct o For Office Use nly: ( S Fee Paid: vv Check No.: (� By: Meeting D ate: C41. PEC N o • 7 / C Planner: i i'S7' Project No.: F:\cdev\ FORMS \Permits\ Planning \PEC \exemption_pl at. doc Page 1 of 6 12 -28 -05 TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement Statement Number: R070000268 Amount: $650.00 03/13/200708:23 AM Payment Method: Check Init: JS Notation: 11031 /SCOTT TURNIPSEED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit No: PEC070015 Type: PEC - Exemption Plat Parcel No: 2103 - 122 - 1500 -1 Site Address: 1677 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD Total Fees: $650.00 This Payment: $650.00 Total ALL Pmts: $650.00 Balance: $0.00 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts -------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- PV 00100003112500 PEC APPLICATION FEES 650.00 Properties Adjacent to 1701 Buffehr Creek Road Lot Vail, CO 81657 Buffehr Creek Partners PO Box 305 Minturn, CO 81645 Physical Address: 001687 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Lot:2 James Andretta PO Box 1608 Kingston, NY 12402 Physical Address: 001714 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Lot: 3 Patrick & Patricia Ranallo 400 E. North Ave. Stream Wood, IL 601107 Physical Address: 001695 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Lot: 6 Town Of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Physical Address: 001659 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Desc: Tract A Open Space Crack Of Noon LP 1505 Rim Road El Paso, TX 79902 Physical Address: 001722 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Lot: 5 William Jensen, Cheryl Jensen- Armstrong, Vail Assoc. INC. 1718 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 Paul & Nancy Rondeau Trust 1710 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 Physical Address: 001710 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Lot: 2 Buffehr Creek Vail, LLC 2 Peregrine Littleton, CO 80127 Physical Address: 001706 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Lot: 1 Susan Tjossem PO Box 2975 Vail, CO 81658 Physical Address: 001632 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Elk Meadows Subdivision Lot: 5 Physical Address: 001718 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail Area Sub: Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Lot: 4 02- 05 -'07 07;57 FROM- T-710 P002/009 F -404 Land Title Guarantee Company Date: June 25, 2006 WESTPORT -NALL INVESTORS, LP, A MISSOURI A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4520 MAIN ST. SUITE 1000 KANSAS CITY, MO 64111 Enclosed please find the title insurance policy for your property located at 1701 13UPl HIZ CkE EK RD A / ELM,41 ZNEIMER SUI3DIVISION LOT 1 'VAIL CO 8165 The following endorsements are included in this policy: Deletion of r:ixeeptions 1 -3 Deletion of General Exception 4 Please review this policy in its entirety. In the event that you find any discrepancy, or if you have any questions regarding your final title policy, you may contact Title Department Phone'. 970- 476 -2251 Fax: 970- 476 -4732 Please refer to our Order No. 'V50014075 Should you decide to sell the property described in this policy, or if you are required to purchase a new title commitment for mortgage purposes, you may be entitled to a credit toward future title insurance premiums. Land Title G;Uarantee Company will retain a copy of this policy so we will be able to provide future products and services to you quickly and efficiently. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, Land Title Guarantee Company 02- 05 -'07 07;57 FROM- American Land 'Title Association OWNER'S POLICY (10- 17 -92) CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE T -710 P003/009 F -404 COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE 13 AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, herein caged the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss of damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the inswpd by reason of: 1, Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien of encumbrance on the title; 3. Unmarkelability of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and sealed as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, the policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized signatory. EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay lessor damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of; I. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (ij the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land: (g) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; Gtr) a separation in ownership or a change in the d or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (Iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien orencumbrance rosulting from B violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Dale of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but riot excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knuwiedge. 3. Defects, liens. encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed it) writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (di attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (o) resulting in less or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy, 4. Any clam, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bsnkfuplcy, state insolvency. or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based an: () the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this poicy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, o r (q) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed preferential transferexcept where the preferential transfer results from the failure: jai to tmely record the instrument of transfer; or $I of such recordalion to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. Issued through the office of: LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY I09 S FRONTAGE RD W #203 VAIL, CO 91657 970 - 47132251 Authorized Signature CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a fo� i AO.CH1(Form 8256) Cover Page I of 3 02-05-'07 07:57 FROM- CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in this policy mean: (a) "insured ": the insured named in Schedule A, and, subject to any rights or defenses the Company would have had against the named insured, those who succeed to the interest of the named insured by operation of Jaw as distinguished from purchase including, but not limited to, heirs, distributees, dsvtseer, survivors, personal representatives, next of kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors. (b) "insured claimant ": an insured claiming loss or damage. (c) "knowledge" or 'known" actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason of the public records as defined in this policy or any other records which impart constructive notice of matters affecting the land, (d) "land ": the land described or referred to in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto which by law consliluta real property. The term "land" does not include any property beyond the limes of the area described or referrod to in Schedule A, per any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting slrests, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways, but nothing herein shall modify or limit the extent to which aright of access to and from the land is insured by this policy. (e) "mortgage ": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security Instrument, (f) "public records "; records established under state statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. With tespecl W Section l (a)INI of the Exclusions from Coverage, "public records" shag also include environmental protection liens filed in the records of the clerk of the United States district court for the district In which the land is located. Igl "unmarketability of the title"; an alleged or apparent matter affecting the title to the land, not excluded or excepted from coverage, which would entitle a purchaser of the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be released from the obligation to purchase by virture of a contractual condition requiring the delivery of marketable title- 2, Continuation of insurance After Conveyance of Title. The following coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of an Insured only so long as the insured retains an estate or interest in the land, or hotdt an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given by a purchaser from the insured, or only so long as the insured shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made by the insured in any transfer or conveyance of the estate Or interest. This policy shall not continue in force in favor of any purchaser from the insured of either (i) an estate or interest in the land, or fd) an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given to the insured, T -710 P004 /009 F -404 (c) Whenever the COmpany shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as required or permitted by the provisions of this policy, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the tight, in its sale discretion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or order. (d) In all eases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceedingr the insured shall socure to the Company the tight to so prosecute or provide defense in the action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of the insured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the insured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid (i) in any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effscting settlement, and fit) in any other lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desjreable to establish The title to the estate or interest as insured. If the Company is prejudiced by the lanais of the insured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall terminate. including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the platter or matters requiring such cooperation. 5 Proof of Loss or Damage. In addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations have been provided the Company, a proof of lass or damage signed and Mofn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the Company within 90 days after the Insured claimant shag ascertain the facts giving rise to the lass or damage. The proof of loss or damage shall describe the defect in, or lien or encumbrance on the title, or other matter insured against by this policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shag state, to the extent possible, the basis of cb1oulating the amount of the loss or damags. if the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to provide the required proof of loss or damage, the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter at matters requiring such proof of loss or damage. In addition, the insured claimant may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable limes and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third patty, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the insured claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the admjnistralian of the claim. Failure of the insured claimant to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission 10 secure reasonably necessary information tram third parties as required in this paragraph shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim. 3. Notice of Claim to be Given by Insured Claimant. The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (il in case of any litigation as set forth in Section 4(a) below, (d) in case knowledge shall came to an insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the title to the estate or interest, as insured, and which might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue o f Of this policy, or (iii) if title to the estate or interest, as insured, is rejected as unmarketable. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, than as to the insured all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless thtt Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and than only to the extent of the prejudice, 4 Defense and Prosecution of Actions; Duty of Insured Claimant to Cnoparate_ (a) Upon written request by the insured and subject 10 the option contained in Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations, the Company, at its own cost and without unreasonable delay, shall provide for the the defense of an insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim adverse to the title or interest as ihsuted, but only as to those stated causes of action alleging a defect, lien or encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy. The Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the tight of the insured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the insured as to those slated Causes of action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by the insured in the defense of those causes at action which allege matters not insured against by this policy. (b) The Company shall have the right, at its own cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest, as insured, orto prevent or reduce loss or damage to the insured, The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this policy. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. fi Options to pay or Otherwise Settle Claims, Termination of Liability. In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall have the following additional options: (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amoun of I To pay or Is payment of the amount of insurance under this policy together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant, which were authorized by the Company, up to the time of payment or tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of this option. 411 liability and obligations to the insured underthis policy, other than to make payment required, shall terminate, including any liability or abligation to defend, prosecute, or continua any litigation, and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation. (b) Ta Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Than the Insured or W ith the Insured Claimant. (i) to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim insured against under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' foes and expenses Incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the we of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay: or (jj) to pay or otherwise settle with the insured claimant the loss or damage provided far under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fans and expenses incurred by the insured c18'imant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company Of either of the Options provided for in paragraphs (b)(i) or liil, the Company's obligations to the insured under this policy for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation. AO.Cffl.2 Cover Page 2 of 3 02- 05 -'07 07:57 FROM- 7. Determination, Extent of Liability And Coinsurance. This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has tuffered loss or damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy and only to the extent herein described, la) The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the least of: (i) the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A; or, (ii) the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as insured and the value of the insured estate or interest subject to the defect, lien or encumbrance insured against by this policy. (b) In the avant the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the Date of Policy is less than go percent of the value of the insured astate or interest or the full consideration paid for the land, whichever is less, or if subsequent to the pate of Policy an improvement is erected on the land which increases the Value of the insured estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, then this policy is subject to the following: (i)where na subaequent improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the lose pro rata in the proportion that the amount of insurance at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured estate or interest at Date of Policy; or WI where a subsequent Improvement has been made, as to any partial lass, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that 120 percent of the Amount of insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the sum of the Amount of insurance stated in Schedule A and the amount expended for the improvement. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy, and shall only apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate, 10 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, (c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations, 0. Apportionment. If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one or more of the parcels but not all, the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each soparato parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the Company and the insured at the time of the issuance Of this policy and shown by an express statement orby an endorsement attached to this pOGey. S. Limitation of Liability. (a) If the Company establishes the title, or removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access 10 Or from the land, or cures the claim of unmarketabili(y of title, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed Its obligations with respect to that matter and shall nor be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby, (b) In the event of any litigation including litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title as insured. Ic) The Company shall not he liable for loss or damage to any insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without the prior wrilten consent of the Company. 10 Reduction of Insurance Reduction or Termination of Li ability. All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pre Canto. 11. Liability Noncumulative. It is axprozsly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter executed by an insured and which is a charge or lien on the estate or interest described or referred to in Schedula A, and the amount so paid shall be daemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner. 12. Payment of Loss. (a) No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorsement of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company, (bl When liability and the extent of lass or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shall be payable within 30 days thereafter, T -710 P005/009 F -404 13. Subragation Upon Payment of Settlement, (a) The Company's Riehl Of Subroeatiek whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this policy, ail right of subrogation shall nest in the Company unaffected by any act of the insured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued. If requested by the Company, the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all tights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The insured claimant shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the insured claimant and to use the name of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the toss of the insured claimant, the Company shall be subrogated to those rights and remodies in the proportion which the Company's payment bears to the whale amount of the loss. if loss should result from any act of the insured claimant, as stated above, that act shah not void this policy, but the Company, in that event, shall be required to pay only that part of any losses insured against by this policy which shall exceed the amount, if any, lost to the Company by reason of the impairment by the insured claimant of the Company's right of subrogation. (b) The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. The Company's right of subrogation against non-insured obligors shall exist and shall include, without fimitatian, the rights of the insured to indemnities, guaranties, other policies of insurance or bonds, notwithstanding any terns or conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subrogation rights by reason of this policy. 14. Arbitration. Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance of $1,000,000 or less shag be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insuranco is in excess of 51,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured. Arbitration pursuant to this policy and under the Rules in effect on the date the demand for arbitration ismade or, at the option of the insured, the Rules in effect at Dale of Policy shall be binding upon the parties. The award may include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located permit a court to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules. A copy of tho Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. 15 Liability Limited to this Policy: Policy Entire Contract, (a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Company. In interpreting any plOVition of this policy, this policy shall be construed as a whole. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, Mother or not based on negligence, and which arises apt of the status of the title to the estate or interest covcred hereby or by any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this policy, (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, orvalidating officer or authorized signatory of the Company, 10, Severabilk. In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision and all other provisions shall remain in fug force and affect. 17. Notices. Where Sent. All notices requited to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy and shall be addletsed to the Company at the Issuing office or to: Chicago Title Insurance Company Clams Department 171 North Clark Street Chicago, Illinois 60601.3794 AO.CHI.3 Cover Page 3 of 3 02- 05 -'07 07;58 FROM- T -718 P0061M r -404 02- 05 -'07 07;58 FROM - Form AO /CHI Chicago Policy No. 72106 - 1401222 _ Our Order No. V50014075 Schedule B T -710 F00'(100!3 r -4N4 LTG Policy No. CTAI50014075 f This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will noc pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: General Exceptions: Rights or claims of parties in possession noc shown by the public records_ 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any Iion, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofoze or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. 2006 TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE. 6. RIGI4T OP PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1909, IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 542. 7. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCRES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATIENT RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1909, IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 542. 8. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF PLANNED UNIT Dl✓VELOPMENT PLAN AND DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS RECORDED MARCH 27, 1980 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 197147 AND RE- RECORDED APRIL 10, 1980 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 197803. 9. EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO LION'S RIDGE WATER DISTRICT AND VAIL VILLAGE WEST WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 22, 1981 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 219971, 10, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST 1ANDICAP PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1972, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 443 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT 02- 05 -`07 07:58 FROM- Form AO /CHI Chicago Policy No. 72106- 1401222 Our Order No. V50014075 Schedule B T -'r10 Fl WS1Idly 1~ -41 4 I LTG policy No. CTAI50014075 I RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1972, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 565 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1974, YN BOOK 233 AT PAGE 53 AND AS AMLNDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 1, 1983, IN BOOK. 362 AT PAGL 804. 11, AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAYVEL ENVIRONMENTAL LAND COMPANY AND MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PROVIDING FOR TELEPHONE INSTALLATION AND SERVICE THROUGHOUT LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING N0.2, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1973 IN BOOK 231 AT PAGE 291. 12. EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2- 13. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEA:, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HANDICAP PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 05, 1992, IN BOOK 590 AT PAGE 722, AND FIRST AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEMENT RECORDED TUNE 6, 1994 IN BOOK 642 AT PAGE 116, AND SECOND AMENDMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 6, 1995 IN BOOK 677 AT PAGE 744, AND THIRD AMENDMENT RECORDED JUNE 17, 1996 IN BOOK 697 AT PAGE 497 AND RECORDED JULY 12, 1996 IN BOOK. 699 AT PAGE 586, AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RECORDED JULY 30, 1999 RECEPTION NO. 7 0415 1, AND FIFTH AMENDMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1999 AT RECEPTION NO. 713020. 14, EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE ELENI ZNBIMER SUBDIVISION PLAT RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 2003 RECEPTION NO- 824582_ 15. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WI4ICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRMNATE AGAINST HANDICAPPED PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 2003 RECEPTION N0, 824581 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 2003 UNDER RECEPTION NO, 861486 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 26, 2004 UNDER RECEPTION NO 895609. 02-05-'07 07:58 FIIOM- Form AO /CHI Chicago Policy No. 72106 - 1401222 Our Order No. V50014075 Schedule B 1 - 7110 1 1 010y /00y 1 I 'LTG Policy No. CTAT50014075 1 16, TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OP APPLICATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED MAY 28, 2003 AT RLCEEPTION NO, 834852. 17. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF VACATION AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 13, 2006 AT RECEPTION NO. 200609494, 18. DEED OF TRUST DATED MAY 31, 2006, FROM WESTPORT -NALL INVESTORS, LP, A MISSOURI A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF COMMERCE BAND, N.A. TO SECURE THE SUM OF $250,000.00 RECORDED JUNE 05, 2006, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 200614847. ITEM NOS. 1 THROUGH 3 OF THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS ARE HtRnY DELETED. ITEM NO. 4 Op THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS IS DELETED EXCEPT AS TO ANY LIENS RESULTING PROM WORK OR MATERIAL CONTRACTED FOR OR PURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF WESTPORT-NALL INVESTORS, LP, A MISSOURI A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. ROCRFALL MITIGATION DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS THE VALLEY, PHASE VI, VAIL, COLORADO Prepared For Mr. Ed Zneimer Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado September, 1990 ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 222 Fast Gothic Ave. Gunnison, Colorado 81230 303 - 641.3236 September 22, 1990 Ed Zneimer The Zneimer Company, Inc. Box 1075 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mr. Zneimer: The enclosed specification of rockfall mitigation design at the Valley Phase VI Subdivision has been prepared as we discussed last week. I have already discussed the mitigation concepts contained in this report with Duane Piper by telephone, as you requested. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Encl. Mass Wasting • Avalanches • Avalanche Control Engineering 1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS This analysis of rockfall mitigation techniques and performance specifications of mitigation design was requested by Mr. Ed Zneimer and has the following objectives: a. Calculation of design rockfall bounce heights, velocities, and momentum at three locations requiring rockfall mitigation design; b. Calculations of the failure probabilities of rock - fall defenses at various locations, and C. Specification of the locations, sizes, and possible forms of rockfall protection. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are site specific, therefore they may not apply at other sites. Further- more, any substantial changes to building positions from those shown on Figure 5 of this report may invalidate the recommenda- tions of this study. Some of the conclusions of this study and the application of the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) depend on observa- tions and field measurements made on June 21, 1990. These observations were reported in the "Rockfall Hazard Analysis, The Valley, Phase VI, Vail, Colorado," submitted to Mr. Ed Zneimer on June 25, 1990. 2 APPLICATION OF "CRSP" AND ROCRFALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Rockfall mitigation design requires information about rock size and mass, rockfall velocity, and rockfall bounce heights at the position of the mitigation device. These design parameters are determined by field observations and through application of the CRSP computer model, a stocastic model that outputs a statistical distribution of rock behavior at positions along the rockfall path. Design rock size, rockfall source location, slope inclina- tion, and ground hardness and roughness must be measured and estimated in order to apply CRSP. Design rock size was deter- mined to be a 2 -foot diameter rock during the field inspection of June 21. During the field work the rockfall source locations were located, the slopes of the most likely rockfall paths were surveyed, and the ground roughness and hardness were estimated. Historic (and pre- historic) rockfall runout distances were also mapped and used to calibrate roughness and hardness. Three analysis positions were considered for mitigation and used in the CRSP application: (A) a possible catching -fence location 60 feet above building envelopes 3 and 4, (B) the uphill walls of buildings 3 and 4, and (C) a possible berm location near the bottom of the valley. These positions are shown in Figure 5. Definitions of rockfall bounce heights and velocities are defined diagrammatically in Figure 1. The statistical distribution of rockfall bounce heights and velocities at each of the three mitigation positions are summarized on Figures 2, 3, and 4. The bounce height and velocity distributions are given as "excee- dence" probabilities, therefore the probability that a random rockfall event will exceed a given value has been shown on these graphs. For example, the bounce - height graph on Figure 2 indi- cates a 25% probability that bounce height will exceed 4 feet at the fence location but only a 10% probability that it will exceed 6.5 feet. Velocity probabilities have been similarly determined and graphed. The distributions shown result from 100 simulated 2 -foot diameter rockfall events along the paths determined in the field survey. The computer printouts for the 100 rockfall simulations at each analysis position are given in appendices A - C, at the end of this report. It must be emphasized that the probabilities given in Figures 2, 3, and 4 apply to the 2 -foot diameter "design" rock only. Smaller rocks will also roll down the slope, but will attain lesser velocities and bounce heights; many small rockfalls will stop on the upper slopes and not reach the proposed building locations. Rockfall design specifications are based on the 10% exceedance probabilities shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. This means that there exists one chance in ten that the design rockfall event will exceed mitigation design capacity. This is a reasonably conservative approach because the design rockfall event is expected only once in several decades and when this rare event does occur there is a 90% chance the mitigation will work. Of course, an even greater level of protection can be achieved by insisting on a smaller exceedence probability. 3 ROCRFALL MITIGATION FOR BUILDINGS 3 AND 4 Two forms of external rockfall defenses have been considered for protection of these two building sites: (A) a "flexible- post" fence, and (B) rockfall -wall barriers. (A) FLEXIBLE -POST FENCE The flexible -post fence could be located as shown by line A - A on Figure 5, approximately 60 feet north of the buildings. Fence design parameters, based on the 10% exceedance probability are: bounce height = 6.5 feet; velocity = 37 ft /sec. Fence height, therefore, must be 7.5 feet (measured vertically), and is equal to the bounce height (6.5 feet) plus the rock radius (1.0 feet). The fence will stop 2 -foot diameter rocks or will reduce their speed so they will not cause damage. The fence posts (at approximately 30 -foot intervals) consist of a bundle of cables (similar to 3/8" or 1/2" guy wires) encased in 4 diameter galvanized steel tubing (Figure 6). A section of the cable bundle approximately 12" to 18" long is open and allowed to flex upon impact. The rock momentum, therefore, is dissipated gradually as the fence bends downslope at impact, instantaneous impact forces are reduced, and massive, expensive structures are avoided. Although these fences are not in widespread use, prototypes have been tested extensively by the Colorado Highway Department and have been very successful in stopping rockfall. Estimated costs for a 7.5 -high fence is $60 - $100 per foot of fence length. A 330 -foot long fence as shown in Figure 5 would cost approximately $20,000 to $33,000. The fences are not mass produced at the present time. Raw materials would need to be purchased and assembled at the site. (B) ROCKFALL WALL BARRIERS Rockfall -wall barriers would eliminate structural damage from the design (10 %- probability) rockfall event if built on the uphill sides of buildings 3 and 4 (Figures 5 and 7). These barriers must be 6.5 feet high (5.5 -foot bounce height plus 1.0 -foot rock radius). They should consist of steel frames covered with coarse wire mesh and filled with unconsolidated gravel and small rocks. The structures should be approximately 2 -feet thick. Pre- fabri- cated " Gabion" baskets, in common use along highways, could be substituted. Similar to the flexible -post fences discussed above, the rock momentum will be dissipated by the barrier and damage to the wall eliminated. Construction and installation of the rockfall -wall barriers could be done locally. Protection of buildings 3 and 4 would require an estimated 70 feet of length and a volume of 45 yd per build- ing. Costs would depend upon local construction costs and the cost and transportation of the unconsolidated gravel fill materi- al. As noted above, Gabion rock - filled baskets could be substi- tuted. Local cost for these baskets, which should maintain the height requirements, have not been determined. BUILDING -WALL REINFORCEMENT A third alternative form of protection for buildings 3 and 4 is to allow rockfall impact with the uphill building walls and design internal wall structural members to resist rock impact. As in the above systems " A " and "B," the major construction elements in the building (beams, cross - bracing, etc), must absorb rockfall momentum. For flexible construction, structural deflec- tion must be considered in computing the impact force, P. Equating the boulder kinetic energy with work expended in bending deflection yields the relationship P = (M V 2 K) .5 (1) where M is boulder mass (691/32.2 = 21.5 lbs -ft /sec'), V is velocity (36 ft /sec at 10% probability level [Figure 3]), and K is a stiffness factors. For a simple beam, K = 48 EI /L ( 2) where EI is beam stiffness and L is beam length. The relation- ships expressed in (1) and (2) indicate that flexible structural members are more efficient in resisting impact than stiff ones. The actual expression for stiffness, K, will probably be differ- ent than (2), depending on structural - engineering details. In general, rockfall protection at buildings 3 and 4 must a. avoid windows within the lower 6.5 feet; b. assure structural elements can resist P; and C. assure rocks will not penetrate walls between the beams. The additional cost for reinforcing the building walls will depend on structural - engineering and architectural details which will become known in final design. Of the 3 structural- mitigation options discussed in this section, only the flexible -post fence will prevent rocks from reaching the buildings. The other two options (rockfall -wall barriers and building -wall reinforcement) obviously allow rockfall impact with the building and would also allow rocks to roll between the buildings and across Lions Ridge Loop. The residual risk to persons in the area, therefore, is larger with the latter two mitigation options. Even this residual risk is small, however, because major rockfalls are expected to occur only once every few years or less, thus the probability of encounter with a person who may be outside and exposed just when the rockfall. occurs is very small. 4 ROCKFALL MITIGATION FOR BUILDINGS 9 - 13 Buildings 9 - 13 are located across the flat valley floor, near the southern limit of rockfall potential (Figure 5). No rocks which could be clearly identified with the source outcrop on the hill could be found at the proposed building locations, and the CRSP simulation indicated that only 350 of the rocks rolled as far as the buildings. The simulated rocks that did reach the buildings were rolling (not bouncing above the ground), with typical rolling velocities of approximately 20 ft /sec or less (Appendix C). Rockfall events of this character could dent the lower part of building siding, but would not endanger the struc- ture or its occupants. Furthermore, such major events are expected only once every decade or longer. Because rockfall energies will be small at the mid - valley loca- tion, therefore the fill bank on the north side of the proposed subdivision road, located directly north of Lots 9 - 13, will stop almost all rocks. In my opinion, this road is sufficient mitigation. Additional structural mitigation for these rare, relatively low - energy rockfall events is not recommended unless occupants of these buildings demand complete protection from rockfall. If such complete protection is desired, it can be attained by building a 3 -foot high rockfall barrier near the center of the valley, as located on Figure 5 and diagrammed on Figure 8. The rockfall barrier shown on Figure 8 consists of a retaining wall with a vertical face toward the rockfall direction consisting of railroad ties or similar weather - treated timber of large cross section. These ties should be braced on the uphill side with steel fence posts driven into the ground at approximately 4 -foot intervals, and should be filled on the downhill side. This will stop the 10%- probability rockfall event (Figure 4), which has a bounce height of 1.2 feet and a velocity of 26 ft /sec. 5 SCALING: REMOVAL OF ROCRFALL SOURCE This type of rockfall mitiga active rockfall source areas rocks can clearly reduce the rocks could be completed abo within 10 - 15 man -days of work. bedrock outcroppings and lowe loose rock could probably be rocks loose and forcing them control on the Lions Ridge Lo during scaling. sometimes used where obvious, identified and removal of Removal of all the loose proposed subdivision, probably Field observations of the indicate that most of the by blasting and /or prying down the slope. Traffic would obviously be required Although scaling would reduce rockfall risk to an acceptable level immediately after the work is completed, it is not a permanent solution at this location. In time, the normal weath- ering process will produce additional source material and the rockfall hazard will gradually increase with time. With the houses in place, additional scaling to reduce the rockfall hazard could not be completed. Report submitted by, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. tion is can be hazard. ve the r slopes removed to roll op road H Vf w H 1U F W W W W W W xxx wow 000 woo �n •-na AAA rnr a •F Rock trajectory r own \ Local Velocity Bounce Height Analysis Ground Point Surface FIGURE 1 . Definitions of velocity and bounce height at the analysis point. The statistical distribution of these values are computed by the CRSP rockfall model and are shown for 100 simulated rockfalls of 2 -foot diameter rocks at 3 different slope positions in Figures 2, 3, and 4. ��I- W W W W W W X IA 1A N 000 an O O N N It _aaa N N H N N (4 0 n 4 -' w x U O w x O 51" Q UI 4 u U 0 a� U O bD —I m 0 Q 10' 5 50f t/ s 4. 30 20 10 0 25 50 75 100% Probability of exceeding velocity FIGURE 2 . Exceedance probabilities for bounce heights and velocities of 2 -foot diameter rock at possible fence location, approximately 60 T _i - _, a ) 0 25 50 75 l00% Probability of exceeding bounce height N N N F H H W W W W W W XXX 0 N N 000 vf00 �n a aa N N N C N N 0 bjD a� x a� U 0 x U O 40 .r-i N Q CH U O r-I x v 0 a m 0 Q loft 5 IN] 50f t/ 4.0 30 20 10 0 100% 0 25 50 75 100% Probability of exceeding velocity FIG_ URE 3 Exceedance probabilities for bounce heights and velocities of 2 -foot diameter rock at possible house locations at Lots 3 and 4. 0 25 50 75 Probability of exceeding bounce height 0 F F F W W W W W W _ _ = N VI IA h00 .� M a ^v H A N nnr 0 n •F 4-1 5 ft 4 CD x 3 U O 2 PQ x U O R W 0 Q 40ft/s 30 CH 20 U O O O 10 bD U Q I 0 25 50 75 100% Probability of exceeding bounce height 0 25 50 75 100% Probability of exceeding velocity FIGURE 4 . Exceedance probabilities for bounce heights and velocities at berm location in valley bottom to protect Lots 9 - 13 . FIGURE 6 . Flexible -post rockfall fence located 60 feet uphill of buildings 3 and 4. Exposed cable near base of fence posts enable fence to flex upon rock impact and reduce forces on structure members and foundations. Design fence height (7.5 ft) is based on 1 exceedence probability at location plus design rock radius (1.0 ft). LUAU. W W W W W W NH N1 000 h O O - C'/ _aoa N/YN N C H 0 6 4" diameter galvanized steel tube of 3/8" or 1/2" gable Y1 N N I- I.- &- W W W W W W xxx vaa rrr C14NN 0 a c � Rock Trajectory Energy- absorbing ' •' Barrier House Requiring Protection .r pp,0 •:•(00 o d.QOr Flexible °e Frame or .o `p:u Wire Mesh C) ()- F. o G C). 0 Gravel, n: Small rocks c Q � O. O (well draine * 66 00 0 n 6.5 ft 6.000 0voo 0� *OOH �p � p o00 D o 0 og oo 0 _ O, ° c. 2.Oft FIGURE 7. Rockfall protection at uphill walls of houses on Lots 3 and 4. Rockfall protection barrier should consist of unconsolidated, coarse - grained, well - drained gravel and small rocks that will absorb rock momentum. Design height (6.5 ft) is based on 10% exceedence probability at location plus design rock radius. H H � F F F W W W W W W xxx N IA N coo �OC4 Rock a v a A N N CV N CV 0 n • f t FIGURE 8 . Optional rockfall barrier to protect units 9 - 13• Vertical uphill face is made — of railroad ties or similar material and is braced with vertical fence posts at a spacing of 4 feet. Appenalx A . lunbk' Output for aeslgn of IiexiDle - post rocKxaLl fence located 60 feet above buildings 3 and 4. COLORADO ROCF:FALL SIMULATION PROGRAM FILE NAME \rocksite \zneimer•? ROCK: STATISTICS 691 LEA SPHERICAL ROCf: 1 FT RADIUS NUMBER OF CELLS 11 NUMBER OF ROCKS 100 0 •ANALYSIS POSITION 200 INITIAL Y ZONE 475 TO 485 INITIAL X VELOCITY 1 FT /SEC INITIAL Y VELOCITY -1 FT /SEC TANGENTIAL SURFACE COEFFICIENT CELL # 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1() 11 ROUGHNESS 1.5 .5 1.5 1.5 1 .5 .1 • •J .7 : NORMAL COEFFICIENT RESTITUTION . 'S .42 . ?5 5 . ?5 BEGINNING X,Y 0 47i � 76 410 88 408 11B ?85 199 _T2 288 , 285 ?77 252 '92 2 426 244 446 , 236 546 27= ENDING X,Y 76 , 410 88 408 118 , ?e 199 , 3:3 2B8 2e ?77 2'5 ?92 24 } 426 24 446 2? 546 2.' 587 , FILE NAME: \rock:site \zneimer.3 ANALYSIS POINT X= 20o Y= - - - TI MAXIMUM VELOCITY 52 FT /SEC AVERAGE VELOCITY '2- FT /SEC MINIMUM VELOCITY 4 FT /SEC STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) 10.54 AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT z FEET MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT 11 FEET MAXIMUM KINETIC ENERGY 29198 FT LB BOUNCE ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION HEIGHT 11 4_ N - 74- 1 C_) — 9 4 z 8 4 –I b 4 3 3 Jr' 4 4 7 9 4 a 1 4 � a ( Rolf�p 1 C) (j 30 40 50 FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION b 4 £ 5 4 £ 4 £££ 4 ££ £ CEC C £ £ £ 4 C£CC££ C C ££££ C£ £ ££ 1 4CC£ CC£CCCCC££CCCCCCCCC££CCCCC£CC C £CC £ C 1 4 VELOCITY I 2E3 i I i ) 52 M FILE NAME: \rock:site \zneimer.3 BOUNCE BOUNCE HEIGHT GRAPH HEIGHT 1? 4 11 4 1i) 4 CC 9 4 Cf CCC CC CC C 8 4 [Cc CCCCCCCCC CCCCEC 7 4 CCCE C C£Cff£CfCCf£fCCCCf 6 - CCCfCCCCCCC£C£C£Cff£ff£CCCCC 5 4 fCCf£f£fCC£C£ff£££CC£CCC£CC£ f£ f 4 4 CC£ffCCCCCCC££CCC££C£Cf££C £ f£C££C£ CC CC C££f f£ C£ ££C££CCC££fCfCC£C£Cf£££f£fCCC££ C£ £ ff££C re£ fefffe£CC££fffff££ffffef£Cef£CC f£Cc i �C£££C f£C f £Cf£f£ff£cffef£CC££ffffC££f£f£f f£f££fe££f 97 195 ^9:T 391 489 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE VELOCITY GRAPH VELOCITY 65 4 61 4 C 53 4 fC C£Cr C C£C C 49 4 C ECCf£CCC CCCCC C Cff 45 4 CC C£C££££Cfff£f££CCf££CC£££CfC £ f CC 41 4 £ CCC£fCCf£CCC£C££fCCf £ fC£££CC£CCf£CCCCC£C 37 4 fCCfCCC f£ CC£ C£CCfC££CCCCCff££C££fCCCCCCCC£f C£CCCCC£CCCCC£ffff £ fLCCCCCf££C£C £ f£££CC£CCC£CC£ - 13 9 4 CCC£ CCCf£ CfC C£ f£ CCCf CCfffCCCCCC£CCCff£f£fCCCCCCf£Cf 5CCCCCCCCCCC£CCCCCCCCC£C£Cf£CC £ fCCf£CCCCCCCCfC£CCf.f££C£ 2`1C££CCCCCCC££CCCC££C£ CCC££Cfff££CC££C £ f£C££CC £ f£f£CC£CC£C 17 4CCCCC£C£ CCC EECCCCCCC CCCC CC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC£CCC 13 4CCC Cc[ CC£CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CC ICE C£CCCfCCCCCCCCCCCCCcCCC££C£CCc i) 97 195 X93 91 489 587 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FILE_ NAME: \rock:site \zneimer.3 DEVIATION BOUNCE VELOCITY MAXIMUM AVERAGE CELL # VELOCITY VELOCITY 10.47 11.52 (FT /SEC) (FT /SEC) 1 1 48 27 6.5 0 6.95 44 18 0 3 49 23 4 52 23 5 59 . ^T 6 5? 26 7 50 31 8 41 23 9 46 28 10 24 10 11 13 7 X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED 0 TO 10 FEET 15 10 TO 20 FEET 1 20 TO 3 0 FEET 1 30 TO 40 FEET 1 60 TO 70 FEET 1 70 TO 80 FEET 1 6 0 TO 90 FEET 1 1 20 TO 130 FEET 1 140 TO 150 FEET 1 150 TO 160 FEET 1 170 TO 18 0 FEET 2 2 00 TO 210 FEET 1 240 TO 250 FEET 1 260 TO 270 FEET 1 270 TO 2 80 FEET 1 280 TO 290 FEET 1 480 TO 490 FEET 5 490 TO 5 00 FEET 5 500 TO 510 FEET 7 510 TO 521 FEET 12 520 TO 530 FEET 8 530 TO 540 FEET 11 54 0 TO 550 FEET 4 5 50 TO 5 60 FEET e 560 TO 570 FEET 570 TO 580 FEET 1 580 TO 590 FEET 1 STANDARD AVERAGE DEVIATION BOUNCE VELOCITY HEIGHT (FT) 9.88 7.92 9.62 10.47 11.52 1 6.69 1 6.98 0 6.5 0 6.95 0 0 0 G� MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) 10 3 7 9 � 4 5 1 6 1 o 3 and 4 . COLORADO ROCKFALL SIMULATION PROGRAM FILE NAME \rocksite \zneimer. ROCK STATISTICS 691 LB SPHERICAL ROCF•`.. 1 FT RADIUS NUMBER OF CELLS 11 NUMBER OF ROCKS 100 ANALYSIS POSITION 260 INITIAL Y ZONE 475 TO 485 INITIAL X VELOCITY 1 FT /SEC INITIAL Y VELOCITY -1 FT /SEC TANGENTIAL NORMAL SURFACE COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT BEGINNING END: CELL # ROUGHNESS RESTITUTION X,Y X,Y 1 1.5 .8 .31 0 470 76 , .5 .8 . _ 76 410 i 88 _ 1.5 .8 .3 88 408 118 4 1.5 .8 .3 118 385 199 5 1 .8 ._ 199 33 2 88 6 .5 .8 ._ TSB 285 377 , 7 .3 .83 .35 377 2 5 2 392 , 8 .1 .9 .42 39 244 426 , 9 .? .85 .35 46 , 244 446 , 10 .3 .85 .35 446 236 546 , 11 .3 .85 .35 546 230 587 , FILE NAME; \rocksito \zneimer.2 ANALYSIS POINT MAXIMUM VELOCITY AVERAGE VELOCITY MINIMUM VELOCITY STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT MAX IMUM KINETIC ENERGY BOUNCE HEIGHT 9 8 4 7 4 6 4--3 5 4 4 4— . 3 71 3 2 4 1 � X =.260 Y= 300 52 FT /SEC 2? FT /SEC 4 FT /SEC 10.45 2 FEET 9 FEET 29198 FT LB ANALYSIS POINT- BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION N =72 (16 to 22 0 1 �r 20 FREQUENCY FREQUENCY 7 4 6 4 5 4 4 4 4 2 4 £ 1 4c ccccc Eli '0 40 50 60 ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION c c c �- c c c c c ccc cc c c ccc ccc c cc cccc cc c cccccccccccc cccccccc cc £r c c c VELOCITY 28 5 FILE NAME: \rock:site \zneimer.2 BOUNCE BOUNCE HEIGHT GRAPH HEIGHT 12 4 11 4 1 4 C C 9 4 ££ CCC CC CC C 8 4 £CC CCCCC£CCC CCCCCC 7 4 CCCC C £C££Cf££CC££Cf£CC£ 6 4 CC£££C£C££CCC££CCC£CC££C££CC 5 ££fCC£CCCCCCCCfC £ ff£CC£££££C f£ 4 4 £ fCC £f££CCCC£C£CCCf££Cf£C££££CC£C£ 4 CC££ CCCCCCCCCCC£CCCCCCCCEECCCCCCCCf 2 4f C£ CC CCC£C£CfCCC£CC££CCC£CCCCfeCC££f 1 4CCCCCCfCCCCCCCCCCCffCCfCCCCC £ fCCCCCL G 97 195 29' HORIZONTAL DISTANCE VELOCITY GRAPH VELOCITY 65 4 61 4 C 57 4 CC f 53 4 CC CfCC C CCC C 49 4 fff 45 4 £C CC££C££££CCCf£CfCCfff£CCC£C££f Cf 41 4 f CCC CCC£ CCC £CCCC£f£CCCfCCC£CCCfC£fCC£C£CC =7 4 fCffC£ fC£ f£ C £C££C£CCCCCfCCCCCC£C£C£££CCCCCC __ 4 £fffCf£CCCCCCCfCC£CCCCCCCC£Cf £ fCC££CfCCCCCC££CC 29 4 CCCCCCCCC£Cf£C££CC£££C£C££££fC £ ff£££fC£CCCCCCCC£CCC 25 C£ f£ CC££ L" C£ fCCCCCffffffCC £CCC££CC£C£££ffCCCC£CfCCCC£CC 21 CCf££ Cf£ CCCCCCC£ C£ Cf CCCCCCC ££££fCCC£CCC£CC£CCCCCCfCCCCC£ 17 ACC££ ffffffefffeffffffeffffffefefCfffffffffefffffffCffffff 1 3 CCf£f£Cf£CfCC£C£C£ ffffff£ CC£ £Cf£C££CCCCCf£C££CCCC£C££CCC£CC i� 97 195 293 ?91 489 587 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE 71 TV i FILE NAME: \rocksite \zneimer.2 15 10 TO 20 FEET MAXIMUM AVERAGE STANDARD AVERAGE MAXIMUM CELL # VELOCITY VELOCITY DEVIATION BOUNCE BOUNCE 70 FEET (FT/SEC) (FT/SEC) VELOCITY HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT (FT) 1 48 27 9.Be 2 10 2 44 18 7.92 0 3 _ 49 23 9.62 2 7 4 52 23 10.47 2 10 S 59 23 11.5 1 9 6 53 26 8.45 1 4 . 7 SO 31 6.69 1 S 8 41 23 6.98 0 1 9 46 28 6.5 0 6 10 24 1 0 6.95 0 1 11 13 7 0 0 0 X INTERVAL ROSES STOPPED 0 TO 10 FEET 15 10 TO 20 FEET 1 20 TO 30 FEET 1 30 TO 40 FEET 1 60 TO 70 FEET 1 70 TO BO FEET I 80 TO 90 FEET 1 120 TO 130 FEET 1 140 TO 150 FEET 1 150 TO 160 FEET 1 170 TO 180 FEET 2 200 TO 210 FEET 1 240 TO 250 FEET 1 260 TO 270 FEET 1 270 TO 280 FEET 1 280 TO 290 FEET 1 480 TO 490 FEET S 490 TO 500 FEET S 500 TO 510 FEET 7 510 TO 520 FEET 12 520 TO 530 FEET B 530 TO 540 FEET 11 540 TO 550 FEET 4 550 TO 560 FEET 8 560 TO 570 FEET 3 570 TO 580 FEET 1 580 TO 590 FEET 1 Appendix G . C:H6f output for design of rockfall barrier for protection of buildings 9 - 13• COLORADO ROCKFALL SIMULATION! PROGRAM FILE NAME \rocksite \zneimer.1 ROCK STATISTICS 691 LB SPHERICAL ROCK NUMBER OF CELLS NUMBER OF ROCKS ANALYSIS POSITION INITIAL Y ZONE INITIAL X VELOCITY INITIAL Y VELOCIT`( CELL 0 1 In 4 5 b 7 8 11 1^ SURFACE ROUGHNESS 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 :t 1. 1 FT RADIUS 1 1cc-, 540 550 TO 560 1 FT /SEC —1 FT /SEC TANGENTIAL COEFFICIENT .8 .P B 8 85 .92 .85 .85 NORMAL COEFFICIENT RESTITUTION . 4^ 5 t , 5 .35 BEGINNING X,Y 0 , 545 44', 51 99 , 47° 171. , 449 260 ^85 v 347 145 , 3 Q-' 3 58 , 311 432 4 282 448 ?68 481 268 519 X57 i 586 n 251 ENDING X,Y 44 51 99 , 47? 1:1, 1 ' , 448 ^ii0 , ?99 ^85 9 ?47 .%45 , ?15 355 , T1? 432 , 481 ^6B 519 ?57 586 , ^51 6445' FILE NAME: \rocksit.e \zneimer.1 X= L 540 Y= ^55 ANALYSIS MAXIMUM POINT VELOCITY J-15 35 FT /SEC AVERAGE VELOCITY 18 FT /SEC FT /SEC MINIMUM VELOCITY STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) 1.8 AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT FEE; MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT KINETIC ENERGY 1 ?FE FT LB BOUNCE ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION HEIGHT 2 1 —' 0 .z'_ 'lo Cis 30 40 50 FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 4 4 Cf c 4 C CEC E L f. 4c CE CL rc CC 1 4C Cf t CE CCC C C 1B VELOCITY 5 ITY mm FILE NAME: \rocksito \zneirHEIGHT BOUNCE CE GRAPH HEIGHT i s :1 r r 12 4 11 4 CfC £_CC 10 4 CCCC CC CC E EC E l 9 4 {{ CCCCCf£££CCC C C{{{ Cc e £ CCf£ffrCe£fffe_f£CCeC£ fC CC 7 Y CC£CCI. CC £CCfffC C Cf£££f£�C£ { r{ b ££Cff {£ £L£C£f£ffffffffL_f££ CC[ C 4 f_£Cffff.ft££ {£ { { { { {{ { { { { { {L r{{ EEC 4 4 CLL££fftff£C£C£ff£££f£CC££CfCC£ C EEC ff££fCfffff£f£ff£Cff£C£f£f £ fCf£ Cffffff£ C C££{{ CCfff£ fCCf £C£f£fCCffCCCCC££££CCCf£CC£{ EEC i£CC£C£CfCf£ CCCC £f££f£fC£ffC£CC£Cf£C£C£CCCCC CCCC CC i; 107 2 14 322 429 536 644 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE VELOCITY GRAPH VELOCITY 58 4 { { f 54 4 CECCC C C CC 0 4 f££CCCCCCCCCCC EEC C 46 :L CCCfC£Cf££f£CffC£CCCf Cf EEC 4^ fCCfCCffff£fCC£fff£££ffC C{ f £ CCf 38 efe£fr_feCCee£eCC£C {£CCC ffff£CCCff C 74 4 C£CCCCC C£ fffe£ fce CCCCCCCCfCC£CC£CCffCCfffCff£f_C f fCfC£££ CCfC_ ffC£ fC£ t. � C£ fC ££CfffCf£££ffCCf£CfCCff f h £l., C£ Cf££ CfC£ f£ fCfCf£ CCf£ ff £CCfff£ffC£ffC£ff.££CCfff 12 4f CCCCf£ f. CC£C fCC£ CfCC£ CfL'£ C£ CCf £CC£CCCfffCCf£CC 18 C_££ fCCCCCf{£ fC c£££ Crr{{{ r { { {£f { { f££££££CCC£Cf££C££fC C££ £C £f 14fC£C£Cf£LC! "f_££ CCCC££ CCCC fCfCCCfCCfff£CfCL £ fCff £ fCC£CffCi =CC C; 107 2 14 322 429 5 36 644 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE^ FILE NAME: \rocksite\zneimer.1 f3 10 TO 20 FEET MAXIMUM AVERAGE STAN DARD AVERAGE MAXIMUM CELL # VELOCITY VELOCITY DEVIATION BOUNCE BOUNCE 50 FE (FT/SEC) (FT/SEC) VELOCITY HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT (FT) 140 TO 150 FEET 8.41 150 5 160 FEET 45 24 10.37 180 FEET a 190 58 28 10.97 220 TO 230 FEET 4 230 TO 240 FEET 1 240 TO 250 FEET 1 250 TO 260 FEET 260 TO 270 FEET 7 36 18 9.61 280 TO 8 4o 27 6.Oq 300 FEET 9 4e 36 , 310 2 10 34 22 TO 330 FEET 6 330 TO 340 FEET 6 340 TO 1.2 �� ��~ �^ �.�� .� 6 � � 1" �� �� 9 4,95 C) 0 X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED 0 TO 10 FEET f3 10 TO 20 FEET 4 20 TO 30 FEET 30 TO 40 FEET 1 TO 50 FE TO 60 FEET' 140 TO 150 FEET 1 150 TO 160 FEET 1 170 TO 180 FEET 1 190 TO 200 FEET 1 220 TO 230 FEET 4 230 TO 240 FEET 1 240 TO 250 FEET 1 250 TO 260 FEET 260 TO 270 FEET 270 TO 280 FEET 280 TO 290 FEET 290 TO 300 FEET 300 TO 310 FEET 2 310 TO 320 FEET 4 320 TO 330 FEET 6 330 TO 340 FEET 6 340 TO 350 FEET 4 610 TO 620 FEET 1 620 TO 630 FEET 1 630 TO 640 FEET 640 TO 650 FEET Omb IL �.1 iL - l\ I 1 a. • + O L : OD 00 �0 1 No no LP j ;J 1� fTl CYS r I � as � p _ cal i o H o r n 0 a r a IJ m w _ b Fl � C7 d � � ° i n P \ Co ° m PJ 0 0 H 1 \ • H ri ° frt r Ft rTl 0 � H � \ U cr � l �. • • m - m ° w b 1 I� a � 0 to \ •' � (D ? f AP V' / o LT C� o Ar - IMF i . .o 0 Nos ;E7 1/ 44 BEY No TF ro ' 46 A r ora O P4C 4 cR F 4 G 7 1176 * 4 3 2 300 1 5'00'w 670.00 ii' I CA 815 LT C� o Ar - IMF i . .o 0 Nos ;E7 1/ 44 BEY No TF ro ' 46 A r ora O P4C 4 cR F 4 G 7 1176 * 4 3 2 300 1 5'00'w 670.00 ii' I C s KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ACKERMAN RESIDENCE LOT 1 LIA ZNEIMER SUBDIVISION VAIL, COLORADO Prepared for: Paige & Charles Ackerman 819 West Forest Road Vail, CO 81657 pi Job No. 05 -166 October 5, 2005 DENVER: 12364 West Alameda Prk Suite 115, Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 989 -1223 A VONISIL PER THORNE: (970) 949 -6009 October 5, 2005 .lob No. 05 -166 04163m KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SITE CONDITIONS 3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 4 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION 4 INVESTIGATION 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 RADON 7 MOLD 7 GROUND WATER 7 .EXCAVATIONS 8 SHORING 9 FOUNDATIONS 9 FLOOR SLABS 12 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE 13 LATERAL WALL LOADS 13 RETAINING WALLS 14 SURFACE DRAINAGE 15 IRRIGATION 16 COMPACTED FILL 17 LIMITATIONS 18 VICINITY MAP Fig. 1 LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 3 LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 4 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figs. 5 and 6 SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 7 TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 8 TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 9 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Table I I October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. .lob No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers SCOPE This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed residence to be located on Lot 1 in the Lia Zneimer Subdivision in Vail, Colorado. The approximate site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Fig. 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed residence. This report includes descriptions of subsurface soil, bedrock, and ground water conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and recommendations for foundation systems, allowable bearing capacity, and design and construction criteria. This report was prepared from data developed during our field and laboratory investigations and our experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions in the area. The recommendations presented in this report are based on a residence being constructed on the lot at the approximate location indicated on the Locations of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. We must be contacted by the contractor and/or owner to review our recommendations when final plans for the structure have been completed. A summary of our findings and conclusions is presented in the following paragraphs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings varied across the site. The subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory boring TH -1 consisted of very dense, gravelly, clayey sand to a depth of 18.5 feet. Underlying the gravelly, clayey sand, to the maximum depth explored of 23.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of very hard I October 5, 2005 Job No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers sandstone bedrock. Practical drill rig refusal in sandstone bedrock was encountered at a depth of 23.0 feet in boring TH -1. The subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory borings TH -2 and TH -3 consisted of approximately 1.0 foot of topsoil overlying stiff to hard, sandy, gravelly clay to a depth of 22.0 feet in boring TH -2, and the maximum depth explored of 14.0 feet in boring TH -3. Underlying the sandy, gravelly clay in boring TH -2, to the maximum depth explored of 35.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of very dense, gravelly, clayey sand. Practical drill rig refusal on sandstone bedrock was encountered in exploratory boring TH -3 at a depth of 14.0 feet. Laboratory test results indicate that the natural, sandy, clay has low swell potential. 2. At the time of this investigation, no free ground water was encountered in any of the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 35.0 feet. 3. We anticipate that the subsurface conditions at the proposed foundation elevation will consist of gravelly, clayey sand, sandy, gravelly clay, or sandstone bedrock. In our opinion, the gravelly, clayey sand, sandy, gravelly clay, or sandstone bedrock will support spread footings for the proposed residence. However, if both soil and bedrock are encountered within the foundation excavations for the residence, special precautions should be followed. Refer to the FOUNDATIONS section of this report for more details. 4. The subsurface conditions encountered at the proposed floor slab elevations consisted of natural, gravelly, clayey sand or sandy, gravelly clay. In our opinion, slabs -on -grade may be constructed on the natural, gravelly, clayey sand or sandy, gravelly clay with a low risk of movement. Refer to the FLOOR SLABS section of this report for more details. 5. Open cuts and excavations require precautions as outlined in this report in order to maintain the stability of slopes and sides of excavations. Refer to the EXCAVATION section of this report for additional details. 6. Because cobbles and very hard sandstone were encountered at this site, heavy -duty excavation equipment may be required to complete the required excavations. If encountered, pockets of very hard sandstone may require blasting or chiseling in order to complete the necessary excavations. Refer to the EXCAVATIONS section of this report for additional details. 2 October 5, 2005 .lob No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 7. Due to the anticipated depth of excavation along the north side of the proposed residence, shoring of the excavation may be required. Refer to the SHORING section of this report for additional details. 8. Drainage around the residence should be designed and constructed to provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of water adjacent to foundation walls. Refer to the FOUNDATION DRAINAGE section of this report for additional details. 9. The potential for radon gas is a concern in the area. Building design should include ventilation systems for below grade areas such as crawl spaces and basements. Refer to the RADON section of this report for additional details. 10. The potential for mold is a concern. We recommend that the contractor and /or owner contact a professional Industrial Hygienist for specific recommendations on how to prevent and /or mitigate mold. Refer to the MOLD section of this report for additional details. SITE CONDITIONS The proposed residence will be located on Lot I in the Lia Zneimer Subdivision in Vail, Colorado. Access to the lot will be from the east and a new driveway that will branch off from Buffehr Creek Road. At the time of this investigation, the lot was undeveloped. Vacant land borders the site to the north and east. Bordering the site to the west is an existing retaining wall and the driveway used to access Lots 2 through 6 of the same subdivision. Bordering the site to the south is Buffehr Creek Road. Topography of the lot slopes steeply down towards the south at an approximate grade of 42 percent. Vegetation on the lot consists of grasses, weeds, shrubs, and aspen trees. 3 October 5, 2005 Job No. 05 -166 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geolechnica! Engineers Based on a conversation with a representative of Fritzlen Pierce Architects, we understand that a two - story, single family residence with a walkout lower level and attached garage will be constructed on the lot. The finished floor elevation for the lower level will be 8269. The proposed residence will most likely be of wood frame construction with cast -in -place concrete foundations and slab -on -grade floors. We understand that a three tiered retaining wall system will be constructed adjacent to the driveway. We anticipate that excavations up to 35 feet may be required for construction of the proposed residence and attached garage. In addition, cuts up to 12 feet and fills up to 4 feet may be required for the construction of the driveway. Access to the residence will be from the east and a new driveway that will branch off from Buffehr Creek Road southeast of the proposed building site. Maximum column and wall loads were assumed to be those normally associated with residential structures. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION A geologic hazards investigation was outside the scope of this investigation. We recommend that the owner review the Town of Vail regulations to determine whether a geologic hazards investigation has been performed previously for this subdivision or site. If a geologic hazards investigation has not been performed for this site, we recommend that a professional geologist be contacted to perform this service. 4 October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions at this site were investigated on September 19, 2005 by drilling three exploratory borings with a four -inch diameter, continuous flight, solid stem power auger mounted on a tracked drill rig at the approximate locations shown on the Locations of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. Initially, we planned to drill four exploratory borings. However, due to the steep topography of the lot, and the presence of a large growth of Aspen trees, access to boring locations was extremely limited. An engineer from our office was on the site to observe the drilling of the exploratory borings and visually classify and document the subsurface soil, bedrock and ground water conditions. A description of the subsurface soils and bedrock observed in the exploratory borings is shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 3; and on the Legend of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 4. Representative soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings were tested in our laboratory in order to determine their natural moisture content, gradation properties and swell - consolidation potential. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 3; on the Gradation Test Results, Figs. 5 and 6; on the Swell- Consolidation Test Results, Fig. 7; and on the Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Table I. 5 October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings varied across the site. The subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory boring TH -1 consisted of red - brown, dry to moist, very dense, gravelly, clayey sand with scattered cobbles to a depth of 18.5 feet. Underlying the gravelly, clayey sarid with scattered cobbles to the maximum depth explored of 23.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of red - brown, dry, very hard sandstone bedrock. Practical drill rig refusal in sandstone bedrock was encountered at a depth of 23.0 feet in boring TH -1. The subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory borings TH -2 and TH -3 consisted of approximately 1.0 foot of topsoil overlying red - brown, white, green, slightly moist to very moist, stiff to hard, sandy, gravelly clay with scattered cobbles to a depth of 22.0 feet in boring TH -2 and the maximum depth explored of 14.0 feet in boring TH -3. Practical drill rig refusal on sandstone bedrock was encountered at a depth of 14.0 feet in boring TH -3. Underlying the sandy, gravelly clay with scattered cobbles in boring TH -2, to the maximum depth explored of 35.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of the red - brown, moist, very dense gravelly, clayey sand with scattered cobbles. Laboratory test results indicated that the sandy, gravelly clay has low swell potential. At the time of this investigation, no free ground water was encountered in any of the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 35.0 feet. Cel October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geoteehnical Engineers '•162 In recent years, radon gas has become a concern. Radon gas is a colorless, odorless gas that is produced by the decay of minerals in soil and rock. The potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata of mountain terrain is likely. Since excavations for lower levels in the residence are anticipated, we suggest that the building be designed with ventilation for below grade areas. MOLD Mold tends to grow in areas that are dark and damp, such as crawlspaces, below grade areas, or bathrooms. Recommendations for mold prevention, mitigation, or remediation are outside the scope of this investigation. We recommend that the contractor and /or owner contact a professional Industrial Hygienist to provide specific recommendations for the prevention and /or remediation of mold. GROUND WATER At the time of this investigation, no free ground water was encountered in any of the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 35.0 feet. Therefore, we do not anticipate that ground water will affect construction of the proposed residence. However, our investigation was performed during a dry time of the year. It is possible that ground water may be encountered during wetter times of the year. If ground water is encountered within excavations for the proposed residence, the ground water can 7 S October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers typically be controlled by shallow trenches on the outside of the foundation for the residence. The shallow trenches should be sloped down to a sump pit, where the water can be removed by pumping or to a gravity outlet. If ground water is encountered within the excavation for the residence, we must be contacted to provide specific recommendations at that time. EXCAVATIONS We anticipate that excavations up to 35 feet in depth may be required for construction of the proposed residence. Because cobbles and very hard sandstone were encountered in the exploratory borings, it is our opinion that heavy -duty construction equipment may be required to complete the necessary excavations at this site. The sandstone bedrock may require chiseling or blasting to complete the necessary excavations. Care needs to be exercised during construction so that the excavation slopes remain stable. The subsurface soils, which consisted of the gravelly, clayey sand and sandy, gravelly clay, classify as Type B soils in accordance with OSHA regulations. Weathered sandstone classifies as Type A soils in accordance with OSHA regulations. Hard sandstone classifies as Stable Rock in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA regulations should be followed in all excavations and cuts. 8 October 5, 2005 XOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers SHORING Due to the anticipated depth of excavation along the north side of the proposed residence, shoring of the excavation may be required. If a shoring system is necessary, we recommend a contractor specializing in shoring be contacted for design recommendations and construction of the shoring. FOUNDATIONS The subsurface conditions at the proposed foundation elevations may consist of the gravelly, clayey sand, sandy, gravelly clay, or sandstone bedrock. We anticipate that sandstone bedrock could be encountered in the north side of the excavation for the residence. Because the bedrock is very hard and unyielding, spread footings constructed on a combination of soil and bedrock could experience differential movement of approximately l to 2 inches. In order to reduce the risk of differential movement between spread footing elements, special design and construction techniques could be used. One technique that could be used to reduce the risk of differential movement is to design the foundation using varying maximum allowable bearing pressures. Another alternative is to overexcavate the bedrock and soils below the proposed foundation and construct a geosyntheti c-rein forced structural fill below the entire building footprint. The foundation may then be designed using a uniform maximum allowable bearing pressure. Q October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers While this technique does not eliminate the risk of differential movement, it will reduce the amount of differential movement if it occurs. If the owner is not willing to accept the risk of differential movement between the foundation elements, then the foundation system should be constructed entirely on the sandstone bedrock or on a deep foundation system. If the owner chooses to support the proposed residence on a deep foundation system, we should be contacted for additional recommendations. If the owner is willing to accept the risk of differential movement, then the foundation may be constructed on a combination of natural soils and bedrock. We recommend the following design and construction criteria for foundations bearing on a combination of natural soils and bedrock. 1. Footings may be supported by the natural, gravelly, clayey sand; sandy, gravelly clay; sandstone bedrock; or properly moisture conditioned and compacted structural fill, as described below in Items 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10. 2. Spread footings constructed on the gravelly, clayey sand or sandy, gravelly clay may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Spread footings constructed on the sandstone bedrock may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 psf. 3. As an alternative to constructing the foundation directly on the natural soils and bedrock, if the owner chooses to further reduce the effect of differential movement on the foundation elements, the natural soils and bedrock may be overexcavated a rninimum of 2.0 feet and replaced with a properly moisture conditioned and compacted structural fill with a geotextile reinforcement at the base over the entire excavation. The geotextile reinforcement may consist of Tensar BX1100, Tensar BX1200 or equivalent. Spread footings may then be constructed on the reinforced structural fill. Spread footings constructed on a uniform layer of structural 10 October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers fill may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. 4. If structural fill is placed below the proposed foundation, we recommend that a uniform thickness of fill be placed beneath all foundation elements. The structural fill should be moisture treated and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. 5. Wall footings and foundation walls should be designed to span a distance of at least 10.0 feet in order to account for anomalies in the soil or fill. 6. Foundation wall backfill should not be considered for support of load bearing footings. Footings should be stepped and supported by undisturbed natural soils and should not be constructed on foundation wall backfill. Foundation walls or grade beams should be designed to span across an excavation backfill zone and should not be constructed with footings within this zone. 7. The base of the exterior footings should be established at a minimum depth below the final exterior ground surface, as required by the local building code. We believe that the depth for frost protection in the local building code in this area is 4.0 feet. 8. Column footings should have a minimum dimension of 24 inches square and continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Footing widths may be greater to accommodate structural design loads. 9. We anticipate that cobbles could be encountered at the foundation elevation. Removal of the cobbles may result in depressions and rough bottoms in the excavation. The resulting depressions can be backfilled with compacted backfill or lean concrete. 10. Fill should be placed and compacted as outlined in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. We recommend that a representative of our office observe and test the placement and compaction of structural fill used in foundation construction. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, poor construction techniques can occur which result in poor foundation performance. 11. A representative of our office must observe the completed foundation excavation. Variations from the conditions described in this report, which 11 October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnica! Engineers were not indicated by our borings, can occur. The representative can observe the excavation to evaluate the exposed subsurface conditions. ' FLOOR SLABS We anticipate that the residence will . be constructed with slabs -on- grade. The subsurface soils at the floor slab elevations will consist of the natural, gravelly, clayey sand, or sandy, gravelly clay. In our opinion the natural, gravelly, clayey sand or sandy, gravelly clay will support slabs-on-'grade with a low risk of movement. We recommend the following precautions for the construction of slab -on -grade floors at this site: 1. Slabs may be placed on the natural, gravelly, clayey sand; sandy, gravelly clay; or properly moisture conditioned and compacted structural fill. 2. We anticipate that cobbles could be encountered at the floor slab elevations. The removal of cobbles may result in depressions and rough bottoms in the excavation. Fill may be placed and compacted beneath the slabs -on -grade to fill in depressions and act as a leveling course for the slabs. 3. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members. Vertical movement of the slab should not be restricted. 4. Exterior slabs should be separated from the building. These slabs should be reinforced to function as independent units. Movement of these slabs should not be transmitted directly to the foundations or walls of the structures. 5. Frequent control joints should be provided in all slabs to reduce problems associated with shrinkage of concrete. 6. Fill beneath slabs -on -grade may consist of on -site soils free of deleterious material or approved fill. Fill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement 12 October 5, 2005 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 05 -166 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and compaction of fill beneath slabs should be observed and tested by a representative of our office. FOUNDATION DRAINAGE Surface water, especially that originating from snowmelt, tends to flow through relatively permeable backfill typically found adjacent to foundations. The water that flows through the fill collects on the surface of relatively impermeable soils occurring at the foundation elevation. Both this surface water and possible ground water can cause wet or moist below grade conditions after construction. Since we anticipate below grade areas, we recommend the installation of a drain along the below grade foundation walls. The drain should consist of a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe encased in free draining gravel and a manufactured wall drain. The drain should be sloped so that water flows to a sump where the water can be removed by pumping, or to a positive gravity outlet. Recommended details for a typical foundation wall drain are presented in the Typical Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 8. LATERAL WALL LOADS We anticipate that walls will be planned which may require lateral earth pressures for design. Lateral earth pressures depend on the type of backfill and the height and type of wall. Walls, which are free to rotate sufficiently to mobilize the strength of the backfill, should be designed to resist the "active" earth pressure condition. Walls, which 13 October 5, 2005 .lob No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geolechnical Engineers are restrained, should be designed to resist the "at rest" earth pressure condition. Basement walls are typically restrained. The following table presents the lateral wall pressures that may be assumed for design. Earth Pressure Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure c Active 35 At -rest 50 Passive 300 Notes: 1. Equivalent fluid pressures are for a horizontal backfill condition with no hydrostatic pressures or live loads. 2. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used at the base of footings to resist lateral loads. Backfill placed behind or adjacent to foundation walls and retaining walls should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and compaction of the fill must be observed and tested by a representative of our office. RETAINING WALLS Based on the site plan provided by the architect, several retaining walls will be constructed on the north side of the proposed driveway. The retaining walls will vary in height from approximately 1 to 6 feet. Retaining wall types that could be used for this application include mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls, concrete cantilever walls, boulder gravity walls, timber or concrete crib walls, and soil nails. A 14 October 5, 2005 .lob No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers professional Geotechnical Engineer should design retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height. Because we anticipate retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be constructed on this site, we have provided the following information for the design and construction of retaining walls. Foundations for retaining walls may be designed and constructed as outlined in the FOUNDATIONS section of this report. Lateral earth loads for retaining wall designs are presented in the LATERAL WALL LOADS section of this report. In order to reduce the possibility of developing hydrostatic pressures behind retaining walls, a drain should be constructed adjacent to the wall. The drain may consist of a manufactured drain system and gravel. The gravel should have a maximum size of 1.5 inches and have a maximum of 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Washed concrete aggregate will be satisfactory for the drainage layer. The manufactured drain should extend from the bottom of the retaining wall to within 2 feet of subgrade elevation. The water can be drained by a perforated pipe with collection of the water at the bottom of the wall leading to a positive gravity outlet. A typical detail for a retaining wall drain is presented in the Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 9. SURFACE DRAINAGE Reducing the wetting of structural soils and the potential of developing hydrostatic pressure behind below grade walls can be achieved by carefully planned and 15 { October 5, 2005 Job No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers maintained surface drainage. We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence is completed: 1. Wetting or drying of the open excavation should be minimized during construction. 2. All surface water should be directed away from the top and sides of the excavation during construction. 3. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence should be sloped to drain away from the building in all directions. We recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet. 4. Hardscape (concrete and asphalt) should be sloped to drain away from the buildings. We recommend a slope of at least 2 percent for all hardscape within 10 feet of the buildings. 5. Roof drains should discharge at least 10 feet away from foundation walls with drainage directed away from the residences. 6. Backfill, especially around foundation walls, should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. 7. Surface drainage for this site should be designed by a Professional Civil Engineer. IRRIGATION Irrigation systems installed next to foundation walls, retaining walls, or sidewalks could cause consolidation of backfill below and adjacent to these areas. This can result in settling of exterior steps, patios and/or. sidewalks over backfilled areas. We recommend the following precautions be followed: 16 October 5, 2005 .lob No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 1. Do not install an irrigation system next to foundation walls or above retaining walls. The irrigation system should be at least 10 feet away from the residence or face of retaining walls. 2. Irrigation heads should be pointed away from the structure or in a manner that ' does not allow the spray to come within 5 feet of the residence or face of retaining walls. 3. The landscape around the irrigation system should be sloped so that no ponding occurs at the irrigation heads. 4. Install landscaping geotextile fabrics to inhibit growth of weeds and to allow normal moisture evaporation. We do not recommend the use of a plastic membrane to inhibit the growth of weeds. 5. Control valve boxes for automatic irrigation systems should be at least 10 feet away from the structure and periodically checked for leaks and flooding. COMPACTED FILL Structural fill for this project may consist of the on -site gravelly, clayey sand; sandy, gravelly clay; or approved imported granular fill. The imported fill may consist of non- expansive silty or clayey sands or gravels with up to 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and a maximum plasticity index of 10. No cobbles, boulders or sandstone fragments larger than 6 inches should be placed in fill areas. Fill areas should be stripped of all vegetation and topsoil, scarified, and then compacted. Topsoil may be used in landscape areas. Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts then moisture treated and compacted as shown in the following table. The recommended compaction varies for the given use of the fill. 17 4 October 5, 2005 Job No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Use of Fill Recommended Compaction Percentage of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (ASTM D -698) Percentage of the Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density ASTM D -1557 Below Structure Foundations 98 95 Below Slabs -On -Grade 95 90 Retaining Wall Backfill 95 90 Uti I ity Trench Backfill 95 90 Backfill (Non- Structural ) 90 90 Notes: 1. For clay soils the moisture content should be 0 to +3 percent of the optimum moisture content. 2. For granular soils the moisture content should be —2 to +2 of the optimum moisture content. We recommend that a representative from our office observe and test the placement and compaction of each lift placed for structural fill. Fill placed below foundations, behind retaining walls, or below slabs -on -grade is considered structural. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, inappropriate construction techniques can occur which result in poor foundation and slab performance. LIMITATIONS Although the exploratory borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate determination of subsurface conditions, variations in the subsurface conditions are always possible. Any variations that exist beneath the site generally become evident during excavation for the structure. Therefore, we must be contacted by the contractor and /or owner so that a representative of our office can observe the completed excavations to confirm that the soils are as indicated by the exploratory borings, and to verify our 18 I October 5, 2005 Job No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotecknical Engineers foundation and floor slab recommendations. In addition, the final construction plans including fill placement should be submitted to our office for study to determine compliance with the recommendations presented in this report or to provide required additional recommendations prior to construction. The placement and compaction of fill, as well as installation of foundations, should also be observed and tested. The preliminary design criteria and subsurface data presented in this report are valid for 3 years from the date of this report provided that a representative from our office observes the site at that time and confirms that the site conditions are similar to the conditions presented in the SITE CONDITIONS section of this report and that the recommendations presented in this report are still applicable. 19 October 5, 2005 .lob No. 05 -166 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If we can be of further assistance in discussing the contents of this report or in analyses of the proposed structure from a soils and foundation viewpoint, please contact our office. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Richard A Wenzel III, P.E. Project Engineer Reviewed by: William H. Koechlein, P.E. President (4 copies sent) Fill • KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers SITE NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP JOB NO. 05 -166 FIG. 1 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers APM --PECK LIMMI 1 " =60' LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS JOB NO. 05 -166 FIG. 2 .�..�.�.-- ..... —... LBOUN 1 ... - ..�-- ----- •..�.7�'J "'�.- RpPOSED ii NING .. .-- .- ...�,,,,,,.•�. . WALLS- (TYP.) I ..�^,.cy,� NC._ ...PROPOSED PROPOSED DRIVE`S, . y `•+GLx� RESIDEE ' t APM --PECK LIMMI 1 " =60' LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS JOB NO. 05 -166 FIG. 2 ------'--- KOECHUBN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, |NC° Consulting Geutnohnica|Engineers TH-1 APRELD2D4 , 8280 �—'8275 34/12 DO=115 -2OU=17 38/12 VVC=4 OD=12S -2DU=14 TH-2 APREL827S ' TH'3 APREL 8277 8265 z -� �-8260 LU 8255 JOB NO. 05 18/12 1012 1G/12 VVC=17 DD=113 '2OD=72 1012 19112 VVC=7 DD=125 �l}A '200=31 ' TH'3 APREL 8277 8265 z -� �-8260 LU 8255 JOB NO. 05 8265 8260 m 8255 8250 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIG. 3 10112 51/12 8265 8260 m 8255 8250 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIG. 3 R LEGEND: o: SAND, Gravelly, Clayey, Scattered cobbles, Dry to °. moist, Very dense, Red - brown. ® SANDSTONE, Dry, Very Hard, Red - brown. ® TOPSOIL CLAY, Sandy, Gravelly, Scattered cobbles, Slightly moist to very moist, Stiff to hard, Red - brown, White, Green. T REFUSAL. Indicates practical drill rig refusal in sandstone bedrock. CALIFORNIA DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 30/12 indicates that 30 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a 2.5 inch O.D. sampler 12 inches. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Notes: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on September 19, 2005 using a 4 -inch diameter auger mounted on a tracked drill rig. 2. No free ground water was encountered at the time of drilling in any of the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 35.0 feet. 3. The Boring Logs are subject to the explanations, limitations, and conclusions as contained in this report. 4. Laboratory Test Results: WC - Indicates natural moisture ( %) DD - Indicates dry density (pcf) -200 - Indicates percent passing the No. 200 sieve N 5. Approximate elevations are based on the topographic site plan provided by the Architect. LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS JOB NO. 05 -166 FIG. 4 s KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS Sample of SAND, Gravelly, Clayey GRAVEL 23 % SAND 55 Source TH -I Sample No. Elev. /Depth 10.0 feet SILT & CLAY 17 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % 100 0 0 o 10 90 20 80 20 BO 30 70 30 70 p ' c� M z_ m z z 70 rn C' 60 40 C) 60 m c Q m � a z 0 z 50 F - sv �� � 7J z w z w m IT U so D � 40 60 D 40 D z U-1 z w m 0- m 2 70 70 Q 30 80 20 80 20 90 10 90 10 0 0 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND, Gravelly, Clayey GRAVEL 23 % SAND 55 Source TH -I Sample No. Elev. /Depth 10.0 feet SILT & CLAY 17 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % Sample of SAND Gravelly, Clayey GRAVEL 36 % SAND 50 % Source TI - Sample No. Elev./Depth 15.0 feet SILT & CLAY 14 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 05 -166 FIG. 5 100 0 10 90 20 BO 30 70 ' c� m z 70 rn 40 C) 60 m � a z �� � z w IT U 60 D 40 D z w m 2 70 Q 30 80 20 90 10 0 1 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND Gravelly, Clayey GRAVEL 36 % SAND 50 % Source TI - Sample No. Elev./Depth 15.0 feet SILT & CLAY 14 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 05 -166 FIG. 5 KOECHLEIN CON: Sample of CLAY Sandy GRAVEL 1 % SAND 27 % Source TH -2 Sample No. Elev. /Depth 14.0 feet SILT & CLAY 72 % LIQUD LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % 0 100 0 D 9 D 7N 20 BD 70 M O 30 70 z z M � �3 40 n aom Aso coo a U) < a- 5 z 50 50 m z w ;U z � 40 m ' w w 60 D 0 � � Z w a_ M 70 ° 30 B0 20 20 s0 10 BO 10 0 0 200 100 10 D.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY 100 2D0 100 10 1 PART 0.01 0.D01 DIAMETER OF ICLE IN MM COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of CLAY Sandy GRAVEL 1 % SAND 27 % Source TH -2 Sample No. Elev. /Depth 14.0 feet SILT & CLAY 72 % LIQUD LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % 0 100 20 30 70 M O m z �3 40 n M coo a z a- 5 z 50 m z w 60 D � 40 Z w m 70 ° B0 20 s0 10 0 100 200 100 10 D.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND Clayey GRAVEL 9 % SAND 60 % Source TH -2 Sample No. Elev. /Depth 24.0 feet SILT & CLAY 31 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 05 -166 FIG. 6 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS -q -3 -2 -1 0 C U3 c 1 U d I WATER ADDED I z 3 4 5 6 � 1 Sample of Source Job No. 2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50 Pressure, p, ksf CLAY, Sandy Natural Dry Unit Weight= 123.0 (pcf) FIA -2 Sample No. Elev./Depth 9.0 feet Natural Moisture Content= 6 SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 05 -166 FIG. 7 z i KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers CLAYEY BACKFILL 10 - COMPACTED BACKFILL .I �- BELOW GRADE WALL EDGE OF EXCAVATION (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) MANUFACTURED WALL DRAIN WATERPROOFING OR DAMPPROOFING FILTER FABRIC GRAVEL 12" `- PLASTIC SHEETING 12" MIN. PERFORATED PIPE 0611103 1. DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW TOP OF FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO FOOTINGS SHOULD BE CUT AT A 1 TO 1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) OR FLATTER SLOPE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTINGS. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO FOOTINGS SHOULD NOT BE CUT VERTICALLY. 3. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 114 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 4. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1.5 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3 % PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 5. THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING, DAMPPROOFING, OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL JOB NO. 05 -166 FIG. 8 6 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers CLAYEY BACKFILL 10 _ - - - MANUFACTURED 1 ■ Z WALL DRAIN COMPACTED BACKFILL 11 �,- RETAINING WALL EDGE OF EXCAVATION (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) WATERPROOFING OR DAMPPROOFING FILTER FABRIC GRA PERFORATED PIPE NOTES: 1. DRAIN SHOULD BE SLOPED DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 114 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 3. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1.5 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 4. THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING, DAMPPROOFING, OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL JOB NO. 05 -166 FIG. 9 H a c w h O W H � O ¢ w O U; w W _Z C� Z W Z H J U) z 0 U z W J S U w 0 Y 0 0 Z m 0 m ti in In O C7 C7 a Z d d CO C/] zQ� z °w CD � Cn O w O r r M Qz� H U W H p w C7 w H � Q o a a Q Q z �z ::D 7- z�U w x 0 00 -4 w N N N U; w W _Z C� Z W Z H J U) z 0 U z W J S U w 0 Y 0 0 Z m 0 t �, r A6rren Campbell - Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision (Weltner) Page 1 From: Warren Campbell To: scott @turnipheadaia.com Date: 03/28/2007 5:25:09 PM Subject: Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision (Weltner) Scott, I have done a review of your application for adjusting the building envelope on Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer and the following are my comments. The support for approving the previous building envelope and driveway location changes were to protect the existing stand of aspens and other vegetation adjacent to Buffehr Creek Road and reduce site disturbance. In reviewing your Site Plan, Sheet A1.1, I see a design which has a driveway cutting through the stand of trees and a garage apron and turn around area which dramatically impacts the existing stand of trees. I do not believe the building envelope and drive proposal as presented will have the support of staff. The previous design had a driveway which swept up around the heart of the trees and only impacted the edge of the stand. The PEC agreed with the applicant that this was a better solution that what would have needed to have been done. I do not believe the PEC will think the proposed deisng is a better solution. I do not believe the building envelope and drive proposal as presented will have the support of staff. If you would like to take a look at making some changes, please let me know. I need any revisions by Monday at 8:00 in order for me to write my memorandum to the Commission. If you need additional time you could propose a tabling of this item on April 9 at the PEC hearing. If you do not wish to make any changes, just let me know and we will go to the PEC on April 9th with the current proposal. Regards, Warren Campbell Design Review Board g6.,� ACTION FORM � �,"` -� * - # Department of Community Development r�t * 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 VAI tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 4,,,1-47, c�,,r MEN7 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: BUFFHER CREEK PARTNERS DRB Number: DRB050548 Project Description: Participants: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FOR A NEW RESIDENCE. THE DRB WAS GENERALLY FAVORABLE WITH SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS. OWNER BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS 10%10/2005 PO BOX 305 MINTURN CO 81645 APPLICANT FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 10/10/2005 Phone: 970 - 476 -6342 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C -1 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000001402 ARCHITECT FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 10/10/2005 Phone: 970 - 476 -6342 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C -1 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000001402 Project Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: UNIT'A' Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: Subdivision: ELENI ZNIEMER Parcel Number: 2103 - 122 - 1500 -1 Comments: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Action: CONCEPT Conditions: Cond: 200 A conceptual review is NOT a Design Review Board approval. Planner: Warren Campbell I Application for Design Review l Department of Community Development e!► 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 TOtt �Y(� i O� i�� ( T `F tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 V web: www.vailgov.com General Information: All projects requiring design review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Design Review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and /or the Planning and Environmental Commission. Design review approval lapses unless a building permit is issued and construction commences within one year of the approval. t Description of the Request: UAL_ K'Q0IT:_a,l 'E 'Of- A A).K-l" -, % vv. AJ e-c- . V ! ST ow Location of the Proposal: Lot: Block: Subdivision: LioNSt�pt, 1 F I L.i #U1., Physical Address: 1 - 701 - A 8 utr1~: , iyt_ C.)t- .y, $U VAiL_ Co $ 1 65 Parcel No.: 2-10 31 Z?_ 15(fO I (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970 - 328 -8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: �r31►lCt1�L ��ug�t tSTrt�c t Name(s) of Owner(s): Mailing Address: Owner(s) Signature(s): Name of Applicant: - ~ >w t t' Mailing Address: 1650 1::. VA" U. G-) , yhtL 66 Phone: 9; 4 176, E -mail Address: o t %JA,1tv,0cJs.ew -, Fax: 770, W41 N ?II c Type of Review and Fee: • Signs $50 Plus $1.00 per square foot of total sign area. Conceptual Review No Fee • New Construction $650 For construction of a new building or demo /rebuild. • Addition $300 For an addition where square footage is added to any residential or commercial building (includes 250 additions & interior conversions). • Minor Alteration $250 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as, (multi - family /commercial) reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining walls, etc. • Minor Alteration $20 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as, (single - family /duplex) reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining walls, etc. • Changes to Approved Plans $20 For revisions to plans already approved by Planning Staff or the Design Review Board. • Separation Request No Fee For Office Us O0: --- Fee Paid: Check Up,- By: Meeting Date: DRB No.: Planner: Pro No.: Page 1 of 12/04/01/04 V 8 — PROPOSED LANDSCAPING Botanical Name PROPOSED TREES AND SHRUBS EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED Minimum Requirements for Landscaping GROUND COVER SOD SEED IRRIGATION TYPE OF EROSION CONTROL Common Name Quantity Size 7`u Ntf"�r� ' 36 .A L Z I -3 Deciduous Trees — 2" Caliper Coniferous Trees — 6' in height Shrubs — 5 Gal. Type Square Footage zs Please specify other landscape features (i.e. retaining walls, fences, swimming pools, etc.) Page 7 of 12/04/01/04 g TOWN OVAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 November 1, 2005 www.vailgov.com Fritzlen- Pierce Architects c/o Patrick Fortner 1650 E. Vail valley Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: 1701A Buffehr Creek Road /Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Mr. Fortner, This letter is being sent to inform you that upon further review of your application it has be found that Lot 1 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision is located within the High Severity Rockfall Hazard Zone. Please submit a site and design specific geologic investigation for your proposal. Staff will be looking to see that your design is not going to adversely affect neighboring properties in the event of a rockfall incident. Staff would like the report to address the covered car port and proposed retaining walls. A neighboring property owner has also contacted staff about these concerns. Please review these comments and if you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at 970 - 479 -2148. In order to remain on the November 14, 2005, Planning and Environmental Commission agenda satisfactory responses to the above items must be addressed by November 10, 2005. With regards, arren Campbell Senior Planner Cc: File RECYCLED PAPER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROUTING FORM Routed To: Mike Vaughan, FIRE Date Routed: 10/14/05 Routed By: Warren Campbell Date Due: 10/18/05 Project Name: Ackerman Residence Project #: PRJ05 -0467 Activity #: DRB05 -0548 Description of work: New Single - Family Residence Address: 1701 -A Buffehr Creek Road. Legal: Lot: 1 1 Block: I Subdivision: I Eleni Zneimer Subdivison Status: ❑ Approved ❑ Approved with conditions ❑ Denied Comments: Date Reviewed: 10/20/05 Qg Fire Department Iss Need additional review by Tire uepartmem. Provide a 1: 10 scale. Move wall back 4'. 10' from edge of asphalt. I Need stamped PE drawings of double triple tier walls. I What is area to north of driveway? Walls? NOV- 7 -05 VON !C:25 AEI INT:GRA'T-ED RESOURCES ;. FAX 40. 3 7C 827 5644 ?. ? ARTHUR I, MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural H azards Consultants 222 F*c Godie Avt• Gunnison,Colort 81230 903 -6414236 • a ' September 22, 1990 Ed Zneimer The Zneiner company, Inc. Box 1.075 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mr. Zneirer: The enclosed specification of rockf all mitigation design at the Valley Phase Vx Subdivision has been prepared as we discussed last week. 1 have already discussed the mitigation concepts contained in this report with Duane Piper by telephone, as you requested. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur T. Mears, P.E. Encl. A40 W-lelIv NOV- 7 YON 1C: AM iNT- RESOURCES FAF NO 9 ?C 82 5644 '. L 1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS This analysis of rockfall mitigation tech.niques and performance specifications of mitigation design was regUest.ed by Mr. Ed Zneimer and has the following objectives: a. Calculation of design rockfall bounce heights, velocities, and mament4m at three locations requiring rockfall, mitigation design; b. Calculations of the failure probabilities of rock- ! fall defenses at various locations, and C. Specification of the locations, sizes, and possible forms of rockfall protection. \ The conclusions and recommendations of this report are site specific, therefore they may not apply at other sites. F�urtherw more, any substantial changes to building positions from those shown on Figure 5 of this report may invalidate the recommenda- tions of this study. .. 4 a K M Some of the conclusions of this study and the application of the Colorado Rockf.all Simulation Program (CRSP) depend on observa- tions and field measurements made on June 21, 1990. These observations were reported in the "Rockfal.lHazard Analysis, The Valley, Phase VI, Vail, Colorado," subni.tted to 11r. Ed Zneimer on June 25, 1990. 2 APPLICATION OF "CRSP" AND ROCRPA]'L DESIGN PARAHZTERS Rockfa:ll mitigation design requires information about rock size and mass, rockfall velocity, and rockfall bounce heights at the position of the mitigation device. 'these design parameters are determined by field observations and through application of the ^RSP computer model, a stocastic model that outputs a statistical distribution of rock behavior at positions along the rockfall path. Design rock size, rockfall source location, slope inclina- tion, and ground hardness and roughness must be, measured and estimated in order to apply CRSP. Design rock size was deter- mined to be a 2 -.foot diameter rock during the field inspection of June 21. During the field work the rockfall source locations were located,, the slopes of the most likely rockfall paths were surveyed, and the ground roughness and hardness were estimated. Historic (and pre -- historic) rockfall runcut distances were also napped and used to calibrate roughness and hardness. bounce h ghts a a 1 e defined 8tical alst ribution mitigation P ositions t each of and velocities aons are summarized on F the three glues 2, 3 and 4. Three analysis positions were considered for mitigation and used in the CRSP application: (A) a possible catching -fence location 60 feet above building envelopes 3 and 4, (B) the uphill walls of buildings 3 and 4, and (C) a possible berry location near the bottom of the va lley. Definitions These positions are shawl; in FjgUYA �. of rockfall bounce heights a nd velocities ar diagrammatically rockf in Figure I. The st t' all of The NOV- 7 -05 VON 1C.26 AM INT3GP T =. RESOURG1S PAX uC 97C 8 ? H44 '. 4 raournce height and velocity distributions are given as "eacee- dence" probabilities, therefore the probability that a random ! rockfall event will exceed a given value has been Chown on these graphs. For example, the bounce- height graph on Figure 2 indi- cates a 25% probability that bounce height will exceed 4 feet, at the fence location but only a 10% probability that it will exceed 6.5 feet_ Velocity probabilities have been sirilarl.y determined. and graphed. The distributions shown result from 100 sirn.ul.ated 2-foot diameter rockfall events along the paths determined in the field survey. The computer printouts for the 100 rockfall simulations at each analysis position are given in appendices A C, at the end of this report. It must be erphasi.zed that the probabilities given in Figures 2, 3, and 4 apply to the 2 -foot diameter "design" rock only. Smaller rocks will also roll down the slope, but will attain lesser velocities and bounce heights; marry small rockfalls will, stop on the upper slopes and not reach the proposed building locations. #rockfall design specifications are based on the 10% exceedance probabilities shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. This means that there exists one chance in ten that the design rockfall event will exceed mitigation design capacity. This is a reasonably conservative approach because the design rockfall event is expected only once in several decades and when this rare event does occur there is a 90% chance the mitigation will work. Of course, an even greater level of protection can be achieved by insisting on a smaller exceedence probability. 3 ROCKFA,LI! MITIGATION FOR BUILDINGS 3 AND 4 Two forms of external rockfall defenses have been considered for protection of these two building sites: (A) a "flexible- post" fence, and (B) rockfall -wall barriers. The flexible -post fence could be located as shown by ling: A A on Figure 5, approximately 60 feet north of the buildings. Fence design parameters, based on the 10% exceedance probability are: ! bounce height = 6.5 feet; velocity - 37 ft /sec. Fence height, i, therefore, must be 7.5 feet (measured verti.cally), and is equal to the bounce height (6.5 feet) plus the rock radius (1.0 feet). The fence will stop 2 -foot diameter rocks or will reduce their 5 speed so they will not cause damage. The fence posts (at approximately 30 -foot intervals) consist of <t bundle of cables (similar to 3`811 or 1/2" guy wires) encased in 4" diameter galvanized steel tubing (Figure 6). A section of the cable bundle approximately 12 to 1511 long is open and allowed to flex upon impact. The rock momentum, therefore, is dissipated gradually as the fence bends downslope at irepact, instantaneous impact forces are reduced, and massive, expensive structures are avoided. NOV- 7-05 VON I AM INT43rRATH RESOURC - FA<! NO. 3 $?" h644 Although these fences are not in widespread use, prototypes have been tested extensively by the Colorado Highway Department and have been very successful in stopping rockfall. Estimated costs for a 7.5 -high fence is $60 - $100 per foot of fence length. A 330 -foot long fence as shown in Figure 5 would cost approximately $20,000 to $33,000. The fences are not mass produced. at the present. time. Raw materials would need to be purchased and assembled at the site. ROC L BARRIERS a Rockfall -wall barriers would eliminate structural dariage from the design (10 %- probability) rockfall evert if built on the uphill sides of buildings 3 and 4 (Figures 5 and 7). These barriers must be 6.5 feet high (5.5 -foot bounce height plus 1.0 -foot rock. radius) . They should consist of steel frarne: covered with coarse wire mesh and filled with unconsolidated gravel and small rocks. The structures should be approximately 2 -feet thick. Pre--fabri- cated "Gabion" baskets, in common use along highways, could be substituted. similar to the flexible -post fences discussed above, the rock momentum will be dissipated by the barrier and dawage to the wall eliminated. Construction and installation of the rockfall-wall barriers could be done locally. Protection of buildings 3 and 4 would require an estimated 70 feet of length and a volume of 45 yd per build- ing. Costs would depend upon local construction casts and the cost and transportation of the unconsolidated gravel fill rater.i- al. As noted above, Gabion rock - filled baskets could be substi- tuted. Local cost for these baskets, which should maintain the height requirements, have not been determined. 11 I DjtfP7_WAjjL RE A third alternative form of protection for buildings 3 and 4 is to allow rockfall impact with the uphill building walls and design internal wall structural members to resist rock impact. As in the above systems " A " and "B," the major construction elements in the building (beams, cross-bracing, etc), must absorb rockfall momentum. For flexible construction, structural deflec- tion must be considered in computing the impact force, P. Equating the boulder kinetic energy with work expended in banding deflectimi yields the relationship P r (M vz R) where M is boulder mass (691/32.2 = 21.5 lbs--ft /sect), v is velocity (36 ft /sec at 10% probability level [Figure 3)), and K is a stiffness factors. For a simple beam, X = 48 ET /L j ( f NOV- Alf INTEGRATH RESOURCES FA.' NO 3H 8'? H4 6 where El is beam stiffness and L is beam length. The relation - ships expressed in (1) and (2) indicate that flexible structural members are wore efficient in resisting impact than staff ones. The actual expression for stiffness, K, 'wil.l probably be differ ent than (2), depending on structural - engineering details. In general, xockfall protection at buildings 3 and 4 must a. avoid windows within the lower 6.5 feet; b. assure structural elements can resist P; and C. assure rocks will not penetrate walls between the beams. The additional cast for reinforcing the building walla will. depend on structural - engineering and architectural details which will become known in final design. Of the 3 structural- mitigation options discussed in this section, only the flexible -post fence will prevent rocks from reaching the buildings. The other two options (rockfall-wa'l barriers and building -wall reinforcement) obviously allow rockfall impact with the building and would also allow rocks to roll, between the buildings and across Lions Ridge Loop. The residual ;disk to persons in the area, therefore, is larger with the latter two mitigation options. Even this residual, risk is small, however, because major rookfalls are expected to occur only once every few years or less, thus the probability of encounter with a person who may be outside and exposed just when the rockfall occurs is very small.. 4 ROCRFALL MITIGATION FOR BUILDINGS 9 M 13 Buildings 9 - 13 are located across the flat valley floor., near the southern li.nit of rockfall potential (Figure 5). No rocks which could be clearly identified with the source outcrop on the : hill could be found at the proposed building locations, and the CRSP simulation indicated that only 35% of the rocks rolled as far as the buildings. The simulated rocks that did reach the buildings were rolling (not bouncing above the ground), with typical rolling velocities of approximately 20 ft /sec or less (Appendix C). Rockfall events of this character could dent the lower part of building siding, but would not endanger the struc- ture or its occupants. Furthermore, such major events are expected only once every decade or longer. Because rockfall energies will be small at the mid- valley 'loca -- tion, therefore the fill bank on the north side of the proposed subdivision road, located directly north of Lots 9 - 13, will stop almost all rooks. In my opinion, this road is sufficient mitigation. NOIV- 7-05 VON 1C 28 AIA INT? RA` ED RFSOURC3S FA;t E, 97, 827 H4 , IF - F Additional st" etural mitigation for these rare, relatively low- ` energy rockfall. events is not recommended unless occupants of kf a I1 If these buildings demand complete protect -on I.— ruc such complete protection is desired, it can be attained by building a 3-foot high rockfall barrier near the center of the valley, as located on Figure 5 and diagrammed on Figure 8. The rockfall barrier shown on Figure 8 consists of a retaining wall with a vertical face toward the rockfall direction consisting of railroad ties or similar weather - treated timber of large cross section. These ties should be braced on the uphill side with steel fence posts driven into the ground at approximately 4 -foot intervals, and should be filled on the downhill side. This will stop the lo% -- probability rockfall event (Figure 4), which has a bounce height of 1.2 feet and a velocity of 26 ft/sec- 5 SCALING: REMOVAL OF R0Ci(FALL SOURCE This type of rockfall mitigation is sometimes used where obviour?, active rockfall source areas can be identified and removal, of rocks can clearly reduce the hazard. Removal of all the loose rocks could be completed above the proposed subdivision, probably - within 10 -- 15 man --days of work. Field observations of the bedrock outcroppings and lower slopes indicate that most of the loose rock could probably be removed by blasting and /or prying rocks loose and forcing them to roll down the slope. Traffic control on the Lions Ridge Loop rcad would obviously be required during scaling. Although scaling would reduce rockfall risk to an acceptable level immediately after the work is completed, it is not a permanent solution at this location. In time, the normal weath- ering process will produce additional source material and the rockfall hazard will gradually increase with time, With the houses in place, additional scaling to reduce the rockfall hazard could not be completed. Report submitted by, Arthur I. Mears, P.F. NOV 7 - 05 ' ON IO" 29 Alf INTEGRATE' RESOURCES FAX NO, 970 827 5644 ��t xxx N N 0 C O w Nt!' v r�M N N cr N N IJ 1 bock trajectory 004 00900 � w�+ Local Velocity Bounce Height Analysis Ground Point Surface FTGUR2 1 , Definitions of velocity and bounce height at the analysis point. The statistical distri of these values are computed by the CRSP rorkfall model and are shown for 100 simulated rockfalls of 2--foot diameter rocks at 3 different slope Positions in Figures 2, 3, and 4. P, 8 Nov- �Mr�+ WW M. goo r10 Y 4 C4 44 C4 ( gi II1731GRAT1D RESOURCE'S 10 r 5 50ft/s .W ..s 41 .a C 3 r-{ Q: X L a a c W 20 1C ! A . lit,. a71' 3i HF 4 0 25 50 25 Probability of exceeding velocity 100% FIGURE 2- Exceedance probabilities for bounce heights and velocities of 2-foot diameter rock at possible fence location, aMoxima.te?y 60 feet above Lots 3 and 4. .r+ a - u5 'J0N 1% 2'9 AEI 4 a a s; a 0 Q, D .r A 0 0 25 50 75 l oo" Probability of exceeding bounce hei.ght r. w r� NOV- -05 YON 1C - AY !NT. TED RESOURt.ES FAX NO. 9 ! $2� 5644 o� ul U9 0.l zXT Y1 0 0 g d N rwv i «flr V4 ., n � a ti loft rl Q1 x 5 0 h O Ge� E 0 N y s Soft/ 40 30 ka 4 Ml U G 20 V G PG 5 and y id O If 25 5 0 75 loci Probability of exceeding bounce neigh± 0 25 50 75 lo09 Prcbabality of exceedirg velocity r'I Exceedatlee probabilities, for bounce helsg is and velocities of 2- foot. :ia.meter rock at possible house looation5 at Lcts 3 and 4, NOV— 7 YON ;C 30 Ark INT:GRAT - RESNRCES � rrr. NVlW h .V,. na 44 (4 I t• i is A 4A 5 ft JC 4 a) x 0 3 U C U Q W4 0 N n 40f t/s 3 4-4 >1 �G rl U O 9 o 10 t4 FAX JJO. a ?C K7 5544 i I 0 25 50 75 100% Probability of exceeding bounce height 0 25 50 75 100% Probability of exceeding velocity FIGURE 4 . Exceedance probabilities for bounce heights and velocities at berm loca-tion in valley bottom to protect Lots 9 - 13• dM NOV- 7- VON 1C 31 AM 11IT3URAT;_D RESGURC?S FA; NO. TIC E'T 50 i. FIGURE 6 . Flexible-post rockfall fence located 60 feet uphill of buUdlnuo 3 and 4. Exposed cable near base of fence posts enable fence to flex upon rock impaCt and reduce forces on structure members and foundations. Design F fence height (7.5 ft) is based or 1W exceedence probability at location plus design rock radius (1.0 ft), N vI s N N N coo N O r p »� , '04V VVV N"14 N N N y. i . P• 4" diameter galvanized steel tube. Bundle of 3/8" or 1/2" steel cable 12 - lfi �l 4" diameter galvanized steel tube. Bundle of 3/8" or 1/2" steel cable NOV- 7-05 -VON ?C :32 AM INTKRATED RESTRCH r vi &n w xxx N4 61 H4 coo N 0 a N N 4 4N C4 44 ; � 4s FAX NO 9 7C 82" 5644 F.I Rock Trajectory Energy - absorbing Barrier • ;1 7 House Requirl.n.g Pro'te cti on it Flexible Frame or 4 ;a; •:: a n'u �a !Virg Mesh pC1 : , F ° 0'a � O U Gravel, Small rocks �®V ° 0. • (well drained (3C1e ®f�' ° 6. ft o ° l v 0 ' d . S° s f� �p� 2.0ft 11 FIGURE ?. Rockfall protection at uphill walls of houses on Lots 3 and 4. Rockfall protection barrier should consist of unconsolidated, coa rao - igrained, w e ll - drained gravel and sm TO Ck3 th �' ' } 7 o'vrncrf tun:. Design height �6 , ft � t � 4a 800 rock at location plug design rock radius based on �(�� exCeedeilCg P NOV- 7 - 05 VON !C;32 AM 1i1TEGRATH RESOUR 3S �V FAX 110. 9"C 827 5644 � w f � W W W xsx 9 0 0 0 M ° o O ro N VV {v r w ryNev �c t Rockfall Dire( FIGURE 8. Optional rookfall barrier to protect units 9 - 1 3. Vertizal uphill. face is made of railroad t'-'us or similar material and as braced with vext;cal fence posts e,t a spacing of 1k feet' NOV— 7 - YON I 33 All 111'1 E D EESOURC3S FAX NO �� c - Y� =. i6 Appendix , A. CRSF output for design of flexible -post zockfall fence located 60 feed; abova buildirxgs 3 and 4. COLORADO ROCF:F'AL L SIMULATION PROGRAM FILE NAME \racksite \xneimer RO('V STATISTICS 69J LD SPHERICA R©CF:: 1 FT RADIUS NUMBER OF NUMBER OF ANAL._YS I S INITIAL. Y INITIAL_ x INITIAL Y GELL.S ROCK'S "OSITIOIN ZONE VELOCITY VEWCITY .11 1 00 200 475 TO 485 1 FT /SEC -1 FT /SEC TANGENT I Al, NORMAL SURFACE COE'FF'ICIENT COEFFICIENT SEGINNIN5 ENDING CELL. # ROUGHNESS RESTITUTION X, Y X,`! 1 1.5 .8 .3 0 , 470 76 , 410 2 .5 .8 .3 76 , 41 C) 88 , 408 w 115 .8 . y 8S , 400 118 385 4 1.5 .8 .3 118 , 385 199. 332 5 1 ..8 .3 199 332 288 , 285 6 .5 .9 288 , 2R5 377 , 252 7 .85 .35 377 , 252 392 , 244 8 .1 .92 .42 392 , 244 426 , 244 9 .w .85 .35 426 244 446 236 1 u . 3 .919 .35 446 , 236 546 , 233 11 .3 .85 .35 SA 6 , 23Z .997 , 234 1 -OC -` 1C:33 Alf INTHRATH RESOURi - 7 S FAX H. 7 71C 8,17 :644 F IL E 1�A�y • r � te\zneimer -. w ANAL.1��a F �C8 N X= r �jc = Y= '3:S 2 MAXI VEL CITY FT /SEC STAt DV CITY (VELOCITY) 4FF7,%aE � AVERAGE gOUN E T � MAXIMUM 3OUN E HE I 11 1 ��, �� FEET MAN IMUM KINETIC. ENERGY . 9 n2yNCT ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION It 4 ,, , 4� I l�) 1-2 8 4 4 ._ ,g 1G ^ FREQUENO 30 4C1 9 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION r � r r r rr err c crr 1 firer crrrtttt rr rcrr�z rtrrcrrJrrr r rrr r r 1 4 VELOCITY 28 1 1 1 1 52 m NOV- 7 - 05 F VON 1C :33 Ali INTE;TRATsD RESOURCES FA„ X0. :9 827 5544 PILE NAVE: \rncksit+- \zngimar. BOUNCE BOUNCE HEIGHT GRAPH HEIGHT •! 1 4 rC rC � 4 r c rCCC C C CC r 7 r rC C� C CCr rC 4 CCCC � C CC ff C CC £' q £ cCCt cccrt£rrrrrrrCC j It ' r4CCCCC rcr g£WirrCCCCCCtECCc ci i. 4 rrrrr, rccrcrrrrtttctctrccccrcrrrrrtctccc i} 97 195 ^93 HOR IZONTAL DISTANCE VELOC I TY b5 61 45 41 77 _9 `�i 1 7 13 VELOCITY GRAPH qi rC crrrrcrrrr 189 � C � tt rrCC t c �. •� t cc cctr crH� 4 rt rCC t Ccc t rtt ccct!rrr�rrtr ££ cf C cCCCE[.C'CCCCC�,CCCC �C�rrrr££f£ cCCC�f rCCCCC £ C CCCCCCCcCECCCC C`CCCCCt1 [11CCCCCCCEfECCC CC r cccr rr� 11 CffCCCCrr�CCC��CCIrCCfCCCC CffCfr � CCCCCt CCCCCCf Ll'CCC CCC�CfCtCCt C�fi C C c C�tt '. 18 587 t) 97 195 2 9. :591 4 i 5 27 HORIZONTAL- DISTANCE NOV 7 -[5 AK ![ :!& A ( . c � [ [ 11 7 RAT32 R£ m URCH � FILE NAME= roEkslt■xz elmer.. MAXIM 2 CELL. L 4 MA'IMUM ELOCITY AUERAG V O §�c Y \Zu \ . \ 79 : (FT/SEC) {A E> 10.41 11 11.52 1 / - 49 e 6.95 o {\ {.)S 5 1 ' \\ 0 § /$ 7o 24 {§ 1! \} 7 X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED 0 TU lc) FEET 15 TO ZO , 3 TO TO FEET 4g [E ET 1 66 TO EET i (\_ TE 9� FEET !20 TO t30 FEET 140 T ! 0 FEET 0 F[ET ! . 15g T§ 1 FEET 2 i`O T }BO w m T§ 2: 0 FEET I � 0 TO » FEET )7 I • ,0 TO FEE I . 270 TO Igo FE ! 299 TO .T ^90 FEET 1 # @J TO 490 FEET 5 490 TO 500 F -ET 5 QQ Tc 510 FEET 7 . 310 TC 520 FEET 12 520 TO 550 PIT G 520 TO 540 r.T 11 540 TO 550 FE - T A 550 TO 560 FEET 2 ' 56g T )70 FEET 570 T S60 FEET 580 rO 590 FEET 1 FAX A, : [ §27 56 !& \ !g STANDARD A ERABE \UNC% MAXIM 2 % V AT }ON V L cl Y B \ N HEISH r (FT) 6O £ HEIGR 4FT) 9.8 ° \ / 79 : 10.41 11 11.52 1 / e 6.95 o { {.)S \ 1 ' 0 NOV- 7 -05 _03 IF 34 AM !NT3f,.R,ATED RESCURCi, FAX u0. 97C 82"! 5644 20 A - Ppend�X ts . 'L;Kbr ouzputi mo aesign oi' rocnall -barrier Wall at bull tings and 4. COLORADO RQCKFALL E3IMUI - ATION PROGRAM FDV NAME \rpci:sitW " =f ROCK. STATISTICS 691 Lt' SPHERICAL. ROM'.' 1 FT RADIUS NUMBER OF CELLS 11 NUMBER OF ROCKS 100 ANALYSIS POSITION 260 INITIAL Y ZONE 475 TO 485 INITIAL X VELOCITY 1 FT /SEC INITIAL Y VELOCITY -°1 FT /GEC TANGENTIAL. NORMAL SURFACk COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT RESTITUTION Y . •J 7 .3 .ti5 42 .'5 5 .3 t:E L.L. ## 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 ROUGHNESS 1.5 . 5 1.5 1.5 1 .S ,1 9 .3 • C Q y . C7 .Q .8 . { E � 3 . eV . 9y .Ba . e5 .8s SE'GI NEVI N5 X.Y G } 470 6 p 416 86 , A-0B 118 } 3B5 15'9 , 332 268 ? H"i .57 . 252 392 244 } 426 , 244 x#46 } 236 546 , 233 END I NC X.Y 76 r 41 E39 4( 1 1 e I 28B 377 392 426 , 446 , 587 } NOV- 7 - YON 1C:34 AM INT3GRATED RESOURCsS e r f'IL.E NAME: \rack:site \zneimer.2 ANALYSIS PAINT MAXIMUM VELOCITY AVERAGE VELOCITY MINIMUM VELOCITY STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT MA XIMUM KINETIC ENERGY FAX N O, 9 ?C 87? 5644 Xw 260 Ym 300 52 FT /SEC 23 FT /SEC 4 FT /SEC 10.45 2 FEET 9 FEET 2glc?S FT LD BOUNCE, ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION HE 10HT �j -12 9 4 _, 8 4 .�,,..� . a 7 4 __, a 6 4 —, - 4 4 __ 4 2 4w ZI 20 FREQUENCY F'REOUENCY 7 4 G 4 Tj 4 4 4 Z I 2 4 C 1 4 r rrrr Y0 40 50 ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DIST RIBUTION c C c C r r r r c r r c ccr rc r r r c rrc rrr c cc crrr rr r r rrCCCCCCrrrr rrrrcccc cc cc c c c 4 28 VELOCITY 5 ') I L 60 NOV- 7 - 075 �:OI'd IC 3 AM IIdT- GRAT-Hr RESOURCES FA;i X0. "C l ;F:l i"IL..E NAME: \rvck:�ite \��eimer.L BOUNCE BOUNCE HEIGHT GRAPH HE I GHT 1 " 4 1 1 4 r c M .r 10 J cc 9 4 r£ rrr cc c £ r 8 4 crc crcrt ccccc 7 4 c cct r crrcrrrrrrcrcr b 4 rrcrctrrrrctrrrrrrcrrctrtrrr 5 4 rfcrrrtcrrrrtrrrrrrrrcrrrrrr rr c 4 4 rrrrr £rcrrrrrrttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rr rc 4 rcrcr ccrcr rrccctcrrrccrrrrcrrrcrtrrrcrt tc 4 cccccrrcccrrrrr£crrrrrrrr rfrrrrrrrr£rrrr rccr 1 r£ rrrrrrrrrc £rrr£rtrcr£crrc rrrrrrcrcr 97 195 <93 391 499 587 HORIZONTAL_ DISTANCE V ELOCITY GRAPH VE( -OC, I TY 6.5 4 61 4 c 57 4 cc r 5_ t tr rrrr f [1[ C 49 4 r ccccccrr rrrrt c ccr 45 4 cc rcff£cccrtrrrrrrrrrrrcrrcrcrrr cc 41 4 c £rcrcttrtctrrrcccccrcrccccccrrc rrrrrrrrr 7 4 rrrrtrr cctft tccrrrrrrcrrr£rrrrtcctcrrcrrrrc 3:3 4 r[ rr££r£ rrrr rcr crcrrrrrrrrrrccc rrr£rrrrrrcrrrrr 29 4 r C£ t tr£c rrt c r rrr£ Cr£rCCC[cttCtt [ rC£CrrrC££r£r[rr.££C 25 4r rrcrr£ rt r£ rrrr C£r£ tccccccctr rrrrrrrrrccrrrrrr.ttcc � 4 rr. ccr££ rr rttc tcrr tr rr£ r ££ r£rrcc[trrrrtcrrrrcrcr[ttrrrr 17 �rt rr£ CC££ C£ Ctccr f, rrr£ rrtrrr £r trftrrrrrrrrrcrcc 13 4rrcrcrrrcircrccf rrrrr[ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrcrtrrrrcrrr G 97 195 29 76 391 489 587 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE a NOV— i 1 1_Atl J _L ''`— 7 V�'N i%;3F A�.� , 1 idT��R`m , :r_E SOUE u FA;': Pay 97 $27 H44 u FILE NAME: `rook.rzte\xnei,mer'.2 MAXIMUM DEV IATION MAXIMUM AVERAGE VELOCITY CELL 4f VELOCITY VELOCITY 7 .92 Q (FT /SEC) (FT /SEC) ._ 1. 48 27 2 44 18 4 _. 1 49 :3 ti 4 6. 5 5 "•T 6. 95 5 1 59 27 6 53 ^6 7 5031 8 41 23 9 46 i 8 24 1 0 11 1: 7 X INTERVAL RQCk'.S ,TOPPED TC lo FEET 15 1 TO 0 FEET 1 Q T 3'J FEET 1 4.6 TO 4o FE=ET 1 6(. Il TO 70 FEET 1 '70 TO 8r_, FEET 1 SO T O 90 FP-ET 1 12( TO 13c] FEET 1 1 40 TO 150 FEET 1 150 TO 160 FEET 1 170 TO 180 FEET 2 00 TO 2 10 FEET 1 24 0 TO 250 FEET 1 260 TO 270 FEET I 2. 70 TO 260 FEET 1 280 TO 290 FEE=T 1 488) TO 490 FEET a 490 TO T 0 FEET `i 1 5 c TO 510 FEET 7 51� 70 5 ^i_! FE=ET 1.2 521() TO ` ~G FEET E3 530 TO 540 FEET 11 540 TO 554') FEET 4 550 TO 560 FEE='" a 56(.*) TO `;70 FEET 571-1 TO 5E:0 FEET 1 J8 TO F590 FEET I STANDARD AVERAGE MAXIMUM DEV IATION KUNCE BOUNCE VELOCITY HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT (FT) 7 .92 Q r 9.6 ._ 8,45 1 4 6. 69 1 6.98 ti 1 6. 5 6. 95 U 1 :3 N" V- ; - 05 VON 1C :35 AM INTEGRATID RESOURCE'S FAX INO, 3 7C ?''% 5644 - C4 Appendix C . CRSF output for design of rockfal.i harrier for protection c4 buildings 9 - COLOPADD ROCKFALL SIMULATION PROGRAM L v C 0 y c r K M i FILE WAMF \r•ock;sii.te\zneimer.1 FO�;f: +� , ►1 STATISTIC 1 -D SPHER! :AL ROM :,' 1 FT RADIUS NUMBF OF CELLS I�s NUMBS F� OF ROC �'S 1100 540 ANALYSIS POS I7I CJhl INI� IAL Y ZONt 'JCL. y 5p TCJ 560 1 i N l' I AL X C I Y FT /SEC 3:NITIAL 'Y WEL 3'I Y _1 F' BEX U' - iFACF TANGENT I Al_ CUEFrICIF..N'f Td RIVIAL C FF'It'I ENT I3EGINNIT'dC� NDIT+IG CELL. 0 F2GUGHNIE'S RESTITUY N x sY i r H A. IJ 44' `,4.► 911 4 49 1 12 7Y A. 1.5 1 5 : 8 �' , X 39 47.3 44.8 13 V 200 • , 448 399 5 . 1 1 5 E .(t(ip� �. r 14� 4 347 31 5 v 46 ' "B j 14 4i§ 68 46 2 68 -, y 2 r= 5 4 p ' _68 ^ S7 _� f , X57 251 .. .6 I3 745 „5 S1�` 586 x`51 556 6 t 4 252 a NOV- VON iC'35 AM !NT3GRA7 - RESOURCES FAX NO, :97C 827 5644 FILE NAME =: \rock +:� to \znQimer, 1 5 U MAr Op Xn, FT /SEC T %S AVE�AGF V_L TV 25 FT / EE m V LC}C' T l' s a; X: -c r s c, E r r r lINIrl F�V XX rr f�G Y h��hhv}6 , - HE I GGG (VELOCITY) 7T ^ . FE;:ET AXTMUIINFIC COY 1=2' FT '_B BOUNCE: ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE ME::I&4J DIBTPIBUTION HE=:I GNP FREQUENCY FRE=QGEINCY�' ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION ,r � t J fi f t f z r: �� _Z V ITY 60 NOV 7 - YON 1C"36 AM !NT GRAT3D RESOURr7S FAX N0, 3 7F 827 5644 rHi ^ii _[-' NAME.- \rock:site \zneimer•• 1 BOUNCE POUNCE HEIGHT GRAPH E I {BHT 1.4 4 H 4 0 ; r £ C'r.rr C1 It' 9 .9 !. r Ct rrrl CC . rrrr cc 8 4 rcrtcr rrrr ;t �f£ft f rc t 6 � � C Crr 1 C C cf •I f f ° r.r ft 1 err 1 rC rfr £rrt r r r 4rc -' t f i , :—r c fttc r�r l�ttrttt r r r r 3 r, £ frrr fcrrrrrrrCrrtCCL CCCCCrriccz r cci r tr rr t C) 107 '' 14 :122 429 ° .5716 HORIZONTAL. DISTANCE 58 4 ±q VELOCITY GRAFF1 644 2 6 54 r r 4 C �. 4 CrEIr ccCCCF f t C r I r 4 CCCrc rr£tCft fCCCrrrrtC rr rr t rCrC r 4 rrFc rr CCC£rCL r {{rr[r CCrrf C °C £ CCCrC �: ��' ����ff��Cirtr�f � . ff�f�t ftTl���f�f�CCCCFC � r 4Crr� crr.rr r1'fr T Cf'CC rrrtrfC €' C£Ct��r�C�f�ftrFt 41 C rf'rcci r ciccuccrt r elrcrrrfC� CrfCC {_ rrrcr� fr t�£C C� I C17 2 14 ' 11. 2 9 644 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE NOV- 7-05 VON !C:�6 AM INTE-GRATH RESCIURC- PILP NAME. \racl--:�iiten\vzneimer. 1 MAX I fluor AVERAGE "E"LL it VELOCITY VELOCITY 0 7 1 F AX 11 0. . ? C 827 5644 -) STANDARD DEVIPTION AVERAM BOUNCE (FT/SEC) V L.D.ITY HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT H 4 !7 10. iii I c.) t �7 ?4 6 6:08 5. 43 1.2 4 4. t; 4. 95 0 6 46) 40 1 8 9 4Q 36 ' 2 1. 9 X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED TO 1 FEET r f.j FE T F T 2 TO 40 FE T - 1 - 0 FEET T FJ F T 1 90 TD K' F. E - 1 ET 1. "' F _ �17e� T' T 1 2-- F EFT F 1 4 TO -4� "P FE F T + I T Q F T I 25v T D 260 FE=ET 260 TO 270 FEET 270 T() ? FHT T 2 !— ()4) A F FEET T Q 7.20 FT 2 4 I ci " ^ %; TO T C.) "' — 3 0 F FE FEET T T 6 f.) 6 , 4 t : 6 3 3F.T 4 I T 630 F , F �, E T 1 6 6:7.0 6 T8 TO 6)4Q 650 FET F _ET 7 1 F AX 11 0. . ? C 827 5644 -) STANDARD DEVIPTION AVERAM BOUNCE MA x I Ti011 ROLRXE (FT) V L.D.ITY HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT H 4 !7 10. iii I c.) t 9 6 6:08 5. 43 1.2 4 4. t; 4. 95 0 0 r z z O X1 -J a m ON u r k z d n p rn r Y z ► m l r ► m n �3 l n A ► n z V ► m o ► A m rn N rn rn Z 1 ��s D — D U Vim„ z _ T-- cy g n rn N rn rn Z 1 i I I , 0 ACKERMAN RESIDENCE o 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD LOT 1, LIONS RIDGE SUS. 1ST FILING VAIL, COLORADO 81657 PROJECT # 0537.0 /J7 l i I I , 0 ACKERMAN RESIDENCE o 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD LOT 1, LIONS RIDGE SUS. 1ST FILING VAIL, COLORADO 81657 PROJECT # 0537.0