Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-09 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORFC SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1997 2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1 . Site Visit and Discussion of Rockfall Mitigation for Booth Falls Russell Forrest Townhomes located on Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. (30 min. John White site visit, 40 min. discussion) (Colorado Geological Survey) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the proposed mitigation plan and determine whether the Townhomes can use Town of Vail land to construct the mitigation BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The purpose of this work session is to review the hazard mitigation plan for the Booth Falls Townhomes and to ask the Town Council's approval for the use of the Town of Vail land for the construction of the mitigation. On July 7th, 1997 a work session was held to determine how this mitigation should be funded and the process for completing the design and construction of the wall. It was decided that the homeowners would finance the construction of the wall themselves. The Town committed up to $20,000 to assist with the design of the wall. The proposed mitigation involves constructing two walls to mitigate the rockfall hazard on the property owned by the Booth Falls Homeowners Association. The primary wall is 360 ft long, 12 ft high, and 12 ft thick The second wall, directly south of the road accessing the water tank, is 60 ft long, 8 ft high, and 10 ft thick. Approximately 120 feet of the primary wall will be located on Parcel F which is zoned General Use. This a parcel of land the Town will by acquiring from the U.S. Forest Service in the land exchange. An environmental impact report has been prepared, which the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved on November 10, 1997, that reviews the proposed action and potential impacts of the wall. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the use of TOV land for the creation of rockfall mitigation for the Booth Falls Homeowners Association. - 2• PEC/DRB Review. (15 mins.) 3• LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN Status Report and Susan Connelly Introduction to "Pertormance Zoning". (1 hrs.) Bob McLaurin Ethan Moore ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: DISCUSSION, ONLY. (of Design Workshop, Inc.) BACKGROUND RATIONALE: At its work session on December 2nd, Council mentioned a desire for clarification of steps of the master planning process and prior decisions which form the foundation for additionat decisions in this and subsequent stages of the master planning process. The purpose of today's discussion is to revisit what a master plan is, how this redevelopment master planning process started, what has happened to date, where we are now, and what decisions must be made if the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process is to continue. The concept of "performance zoning" will be introduced in the context of one of the outstanding issues to be addressed. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED TODAY. Please review the attached memo and be prepared to request additional clarification, if necessary. 4. Information Update. (10 mins.) ~ 5. Council Reports. (10 mins.) 6. Other. (10 mins.) 7. Executive Session - Negotiations. (30 mins.) 8.• Adjournment - 5:25 p.m. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) . I I I ( I I I THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/16197, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/6/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY,12/16/97, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I I I I I I I Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. C:WGENDA.WS 2 : 1 . ~M T0: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: December 9, 1997 SUBJECT: Booth Falls Homeowners Association Rockfall Mitigation-Use of Town Property for Mitigation Staff: Russ Forrest (479-2146) 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this worksession is to review the proposed mitigation for the Booth Falls Townhomes rockfall hazard and ask the Town Council's approval for the use of what will be Town of Vail land (through the land exchange) for the construction of the walls. The proposed mitigation involves constructing iwo walls to mitigate the rockfall hazard on the property owned by the Booth Falls Homeowners Association. The primary wall is 360 ft long, 12 ft high, and 12 ft thick. The second wall, directly south of the road accessing the water tank, is 60 ft long, 8 ft high, and 10 ft thick. Attached is an environmental impact report, which the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved, that reviews the proposed action and potential impacts of the wall. 2. BACKGROUND The Booth Falls Townhomes are located in a high hazard rockfall area. At 11:20 p.m. on March 26, 1997 a 20ft x 8ft x 8ft piece of the rock face broke off the rock band above the Booth Falls Town Homes located at Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Units 14, 15, 16 were impacted by several large rocks. On May 6th, 1997 a Council worksession was held to review a report prepared by the Colorado Geological Survey and to determine what should be done to mitigate the hazard. On July 7th, 1997 another worksession was held to determine how this mitigation should be funded and the process for completing the design and construction of the wall. It was decided that the homeowners would finance the construction of the wall themselves. The Town committed up to $20,000 to assist with the design of the wall. A preliminary worksession was held with the Design Review Board on September 3rd to review the concept for the wall. The DRB requested that the primary wall taper down on the west end for aesthetic reasons. After reviewing the mitigation plan in November, the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) strongly recommended that the wall maintain its full height of 12 feet. The CGS also recommended that the secondary wall have a"full effective impact height of 8 feet." The road is iwo feet higher than the base of the secondary wall and the road either needs to be lowered or the wall height needs to be increased by 2-3 feet. The engineer for the project has already modified the plans to address the CGS comments. The PEC recommended, at their November 10th meeting, that the walls need to maintain its full height to provide the maximum protection for the homeowners. In addition, the PEC felt that ~ . Ot if the walls were tapered on the west end, that this may increase the risk of children playing on top of the wall and possibly hurting themselves Approximately 130 feet of the primary wall and the entire lenght of the secondary wall will be located on Parcel F which is zoned General Use (See attachment 4 in the EIR). This is a parcel of land the 7own will by acquiring from the U.S. Forrest Service in the land exchange. 3. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends allowing the Booth Falls Homeowners Association to utilize Town of Vail land for the purpose of constructing the mitigation walls. Staff would also strongly recommend that the Colorado Geological Survey recommendations be followed which include: * Maintaining a full 12 foot height for the entire length of the primary wall, * Maintaining a full 8 foot height on the secondary wall, and ` Placing a gate on the uphill side of the primary wall to prevent unauthorized vehicular access behind the wall. It should be recognized that 100% protection may not be possible with a natural hazard. However, based on the independent review from the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), the proposed walls will afford the homeowners the greatest degree of protection that is possible. The level of protection provided by these walls will meet or exceed the level of protection the existing up slope ditch and berm provides the homes to the east (See Attachment 1 in the EIR: letter from CGS). The two proposed walls will also reduce visual impacts and site disturbance when compared to a berm. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: . November 10, 1997 SUBJECT: To approve, deny, or modify an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Booth Falls Townhomes rockfall mitigation wall, located at 3094 Booth Falls Court/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Booth Falls Condo Association Staff: Russell Forrest 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this hearing is to review and approve, modify or deny, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the creation of two walls to mitigate the rockfall hazard on the property owned by the Booth Falls Condo Association. The primary wall is 360 ft long, 12 ft high, and 12 ft thick. The second wall, directly south of the road accessing the water tank, is 60 ft long, 8 ft high, and 10 ft thick. The EIR reviews the impacts associated with the proposed walls, the need for the wall, and the alternatives considered in the design process. II. BACKGROUND The Booth Falls Condominiums are located in the Vail Village 12th Filing, which was platted in the Town of Vail in 1972. The Town of Vail issued building permits for Units 1-3 on March 27, 1973. Today there are a total of 18 units in the complex. In 1984, Schmueser and Associates Inc. prepared the official Rockfall Hazard maps that were adopted by the Town of Vail. These maps indicate that the Booth Falls Townhomes are in a high rockfall hazard area along with development to the southeast of the Townhomes. In 1989 and 1990 after several rockfall incidents, a rockfall berm was created and financed through a local improvement district. This berm was not extended to the west to protect the Booth Falls Townhomes because of the proximity of the Forest Service Wilderness Area Boundary. On March 26, 1997, a 20' x 8' piece of the rock face broke off the rock band above the Booth Falls Townhomes. Units 14, 15, 16 were impacted by several large rocks. The largest rock went through the wall of Unit 14 and pushed a bed through the 1st floor and into the basement area. On March 27, 1997, staff inet a USFS team and Jonathon White of the Colorado State Geological Survey to determine the risk of additional rockfall incidents. Through further site investigation and an analysis done by the State Geological Survey, it was determined that the area was in a high rockfall hazard area which means rockfall incidents are likely. However, the - risk of a rockfall incident is no higher now than "usual" at this location. It should also be noted that rockfall incidents can occur at any time in the year. Rockfall incidents, unlike debris flow or snow avalanches, are not limited to one season. 1 Tl){9NOF YAII , t. On May 6th, 1997 a Council worksession was held to review a report prepared by the Colorado Geological Survey and to determine what should be done to mitigate the hazard. Council directed staff to assist the Homeowners Association in determining a cost for mitigation. On July 7th, 1997, another worksession was held with Council to determine how this mitigation should be funded and the process for completing the design and construction of the wall. It was decided that the homeowners would finance the construction of the wall themselves. The Town committed up to $20,000 to assist with the design of the wall. Staff has also prepared the attached EIR. It was originally hoped that construction could begin in 1997. However, due to delays in securing private financing and in the design process it appears that construction will not begin until the spring of 1998. An engineering company, AKS Engineering, has been retained by the Homeowners Association to design the wall. The Colorado Geological Survey has agreed to review the proposed wall and the rockfall hazard on the site and provide a w(tten report on the adequacy of the design to the Town of Vail. III. PROCESS The requirements for mitigating a geological hazard are outlined generally in Section 18.69 of the Town code. The process for reviewing this proposed project is outlined below: 1) PEC meeting to review the Environmental Impact Report (on November 10th): This is an opportunity to identify any associated impacts of the wall and allow residents to review the proposed plans. 2) Council review of proposed mitigation (on December 9th): Since this project wiU impact Town of Vail land and land the Town will be acquiring from the Forest Service, the Town Council must approve of the use on Town of Vail land. Also the Town Council will need to approve, after the wall is constructed, any proposed changes in the Town's hazard maps. 3) Fina/ DRB review (on December 17th): The DRB has reviewed the conceptual plans and still needs to give final approval of the wall. DRB will focus on the appearance of the wall, site disturbance, and landscaping. 4) After DRB Approval: Apply for Public Way, Grading, and Building permits. 5) After the wall is constructed, the Homeowners can request a hearing with the Town Council to present documentation from a qualified engineer/geologist that the wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and can request a modification to the Town hazard maps. If this request is made and approved by the Town Council, the Homeowners Association property would still be identified in a rockfall hazard area, but the maps would indicate that approved mitigation exists for the site and would refer to the site specific report. The associated - report would document to what degree the hazard has been mitigated. It should be noted that 100% mitigation of a natural hazard, is in most cases, not possible. So it is important to refer to the site specific report which would accurately describe the hazard, associated mitigation, and the degree of risk after the mitigation is constructed. 2 k This schedule will allow the Association to have all approvals from the Town completed before the end of the year. This should allow adequate time for loan approval and construction of the wall in the spring of 1998. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Mitigation is needed to protect the Booth Falls Homeowners from personal injury and to prevent further property damage. After reviewing the possible alternatives, staff believes that the creation of a wall would have the least impacts on the site. In addition, based on input from the Colorado Geological Survey, a wall would provide the greatest level of protection to the homeowners. Staff recommends approval of the EIR with the condition that the mitigation actions identified in the EIR are implemented. f:\everyone\russUnemosUockmmem2 3 ~ Environmental Impact Report Rockfall Mitigation for the Booth Falts Condominiums November 7, 1997 Prepared by: Russell Forrest 1 Environmental Impact Report Rockfall Mitigation for the Booth Falls Condominiums 1. Purpose: The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report is to identify and determine the magnitude of any environmental impacts that may have a significant impact. This EIR will also identify mitigation strategies for reducing the impact of any significant environmental impacts. The EIR is intended to ensure complete information on the environmental effects for the proposed project is available to the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the general public. 2. Background and Need for Action As mentioned in the cover memo, the area in and around the Booth Falls Townhomes have been subject to rockfall incidents. When rocks fall, it is rapid and without warning which can lead to serious injury and damage to property. In 1989 and 1990 after several rockfall incidents, a rockfall berm was created and financed through a local improvement district. This berm was not extended farther to the west to protect the Booth Falls Townhomes because of the proximity of the Forest Service Wilderness Area Boundary. At 1120 p.m. on March 26, 1997 a 20ft x 8ft piece of the rock face broke off the rock band above the Booth Falls Townhomes. Units 14, 15, 16 were impacted by several large rocks causing serious property damage. Residents have been advised not to sleep on the first floor, due to the possible danger of rockfall. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has confirmed the threat to residents and to property is real (See attachment 1). In addition, the Town has been advised that insurance for rockfall incidents has been revoked for some of the units at the Condominiums. Mitigation is required to reduce the risk of someone being hurt or even killed. 3. Proposed Action The Colorado State Geological Survey prepared a report after the March 1997 rockfall incident that describes the nature of the risk and recommend parameters for choosing and designing rockfall mitigation to protect the Boothfalls Condominiums. The key design criteria was that a "stout protection system was needed" that could withstand a force of 5,000,000 ft-Ibs. Registered Engineer, Suzzane Wohlgemuth of AKS Engineering, was retained by the Homeowners Association. AKS Engineering, in collaboration with the Colorado Geological Survey, are proposing the following (See attachment 2): * Creation of a 360 ft long, 12 ft high, and 12 ft thick wall approximately 30 ft north of the condominiums. " Creation of a 60 ft. long, 8ft. high, and 10 ft. thick wall directly south of the road accessing the adjacent water tank. Both the CGS and AKS Engineering believe that this mitigation will stop up to a 7 foot in diameter rock and 5,000,000 ft Ibs. Figure 1 shows the proposed walls and the associated landscaping. f:\everyoneUuss\memoUockeir 2 Figure 1: Proposed Walls ~ ~ v w?c.~2!'* :,k r^,.e `k~ ,~w W yi~e +ya rru. yv,'~ St r .a ,r 4. ~ 4A' 'y[ ~aK.. " 4 yY>.,.rR g~c.F . 'C},~ .•d" 3 a l ry fi N r. G ~t?R~"t`'.~ , ~u~~~~ n~"~`tA+~~3sx~•{y . ~ . c ' #3. ~a W-i S.'y~r t ~y4 ,x •rg ~ f~ t . 4. Altematives Considers Various aitematives were considered in the report prepared by the Colorado Geological Survey and by AKS Engineering. The following are altematives that were considered and reasons why they were not chosen as the preferred altemative: * Source Stabilization: This would involve securing rocks onto the face with a system of cables and bolts. The benefit of this approach is no additional structures would be required. However, it is very difficult to secure all the rocks and this type of a mitigation can be very difficult to maintain. In additian, the successful installation of such a system can be very difficult. * Rock Fence: An alterative that is used in Glenwood Canyon is large cabled fences. It was concluded that such a fence could not be installed that would hold the size of rocks that are possible to be released off the face above these townhomes. * Berm: A berm could be constructed that would be similar to the existing berm on Tract A. However, the slope above the Townhomes is significantly steeper than the existing berm. The width of disturbance of the existing berm is approximately 50 feet. Creating a berm above the Townhomes was considered. However, it would create a much larger scar (appro)imately 150 ft wide) than the existing berm due to the steep slopes. Since this hillside is a critical winter habitat for bighom sheep, a loss of MeveryoneVussUnemoVockeir 3 - 'S critical habitat would be expected if a berm were to be constructed. The use of USFS Wildemess Area land may also be required if a berm were considered. Forest Service regulations would prohibit the construction of a berm in a Wildemess Area. 5. Affected Environment 5.9 Land Use & Zonina The Booth Falls Townhomes are located on land zoned Low Density Multi-Family. Tract A, owned by the Town of Vail is zoned Natural Area Preservation District. Parcel F directly north of the project area is zoned General Use. Parcel F is currently owned by the Forest Service, but wiil be conveyed to the Town as part of a pending land exchange. USFS lands to the north of Tract A are in the Eagles Nest Wildemess Area. The residential area to the south and east of the Townhomes is zoned Two-Family Residential. There is currently a rockfall berm on Tract A. The Town Attomey has conciuded that mitigation for geological hazards is not regulated by permitted and conditional uses for a zone district but is regulated under 18.69, Hazard Regulations, under the Zoning Code (See Figure 2- Adjacent lands). Figure 2: Adjacent Lands Pa _ , v . , / . ; . F ' 'N• c Y n ~ y f.''v~ `:St~~ ~ e t . . m't ' - i :.L• ''°'n F 'A"k~'°Ait k w . • j . fi. ? fa ~ j 3.* . A •T ~ryy},'~. . p i ;1. - 6C'l'~ , ~l• 1. ~ ~ r ~se..'" r vy... y J 5.1 Landscape: The area that will be impacted, specifically the area within 120-130ft north of the Booth Falls Condominiums is predominantly moderately sloped hillside. Mature Aspens dominate the site. Approximately 200 feet north of the condominiums the fandscape transforms into a steep (40%+) hillside with a grassy/shrub vegetative mix. There are two cliff bands above the condominiums. The highest cliff band is a limestone deposit, white the lower cliff band is sandstone. 5.2 Natural Resources: The closest water body is Booth Creek, which is a perineal stream flowing out of the Eagles Nest Wildemess Area. Booth Creek is approximately 400 yards to the west of the project site. Air and water resources in the area are excellent. The shrub and grass habitat above the Aspen stand adjacent to the condominiums is critical winter habitat for bighom sheep. This area has been fAeveryoneVussMemoVockeir 4 proposed for a controlted burn to improve vegetation for the bighorn sheep. Soils on the project site are colluvial consisting of a silt and gravel mixture. Due to the steep slopes above the project site, soil creep has been observed above the project site. Debris flow in the Booth Creek area has been an issue, although the project area is not in a mapped debris flow hazard area. 6. Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation: 6.1 Land Use Impacts: The proposed wall would be located primarily on the Boothfalls Homeowners Association property. However, the western most end of the wall and the west end of the east wall would extend onto Parcel F. There is currently an underground water tank and above ground water treatment facility on the site. Given that the wall is required to protect the adjacent residential area and that an existing berm exists on Tract A, a wall would not be a significant impact to adjacent land uses except for a visual impact that is described below. The wall is located low enough so that it is partially screened by the Townhomes and the mature Aspens in the area. It should also be acknowledged that the Booth Creek trailhead is within 400 feet of the proposed walls. The wall will be visible from the trail. However, the view of the wall should be partially screened by vegetation and topography. 6.1 Water Resources No wetlands or other water bodies are directly adjacent to the project site. Booth Creek is to the west of the proposed wall but should receive no direct impact from the construction of the wall. There is the potential for sedimentation of drainage below the condominium site due to the soil disturbance that will occur as the result of the construction of the wall. Approximately 1,753 cubic yards of soil will be excavated from the site and temporality stored on the site adjacent to the road. All but approximately 300 cubic yards of this material will be used for fill for the wall. Erosion and sedimentation impacts will be minimized by installing silt fences directly south of the edge of disturbance for the project. In addition, siit fences will be created around any temporary stock piles of dirt. Silt fences will be inspected and maintained on a daily basis. In addition, "bumper bars" will be constructed to remove dirt off of heavy equipment as they exit the site. 6.2 Air Resources Dust from exposed dirt will be possible. A water tank will be available on-site to reduce dusi problems from construction. In addition, diesel fumes from heavy equipment will be visible. Diesel emission should not create any significant health hazard but could be a short-term annoyance while heavy machinery is warming up. 6.3 Imaacts to Flora and Fauna No known endangered plant or animal species exist on the site. Approximately 70-80 mature aspens will be removed as the result of this wall. A landscape mitigation plan will result in revegetattion of impacted area with native grasses, 85 Aspens, 15 Colorado Spruce, 30 Junipers and a variety of shrubs. The only potential for wildlife impacts is if a Bighorn Sheep were to be cornered on the south side of the wall by a dog. This could endanger an individual sheep if this occurred. Based on discussions with the Division of Wildlife, there should be no significant impact to the Bighorn f:\everyoneVussUnemoVockeir 5 Sheep population, since they tend to inhabit the grassy/shrub area higher above the project site. No other wildlife species should be impacted by this project. 6.4 Noise Noise impacts will be primarily limited to the adjacent dwelling units. It is possible to have 80+ DBA generated from the heavy equipment during construction of the wall. Construction would be limited to the daylight hours. However, heavy equipment wilt be operated within 30 feet of dwelling units which could create an annoyance during operation. 6.5 V~i ual Im acts A wall of this nature will have a visual impact. However, because the wall is close to the buildings, the visual impact will be primary felt by the residents that are being served by the wall. The wall will be visible from the North Frontage Road and from other residences in the neighborhood (See Attachment 3). Visual impacts are significantly mitigated by the close proximity of the condominiums that will shield most of the wall. In addition, the landscaping plan will also help soften the appearance of the wall. The color of the wall is proposed to be pewter (gray). A description of the proposed block material is included with Attachment 3. It is recommended that the Design Review Board review the color to ensure that it blends into the landscape as much as possible. f:\everyoneUussUnemoUockeir 6 Attachment 1 Colorado Geological Survey Letter & Report fAeveryoneVussVnemoVockeir J STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ppr" Division af Minerals and Geology Department af Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 VON FAX (303) 866-2461 DEPARTMENT OF . NATURAL su-98-0004 RESOURCES November 20, 1997 Roy Ramer Governor )ames S. Lochhead Executive Director Mr. Robert McLaurin Michael B. Lonh Town Manager Division Direcror Town of Vail vicki coW,« Stale Geologist 75 South Frontage Road and Director Vail, CO 81657 RE: Review of Rockfall Mitigation for Booth Falls Condominiums Dear Mr. McLaurin: At the request of the Town of Vail, the Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the design for rockfall protection for the Booth Falls Condominium complex. The CGS had earlier provided the Town of Vail the report, Rockfall Hazard Assessment at Booth Falls Condominiums and Proposed Mitigation, in response to the serious rockfall accident that occurred there March 26, 1997. This office had earlier received materials from the design engineering consulting company, A. KS Engineers & Associates, Inc., retained by the Condominium HOA. Those materials included the report Rock Fall Evaluation and Proposed Mitigation Measures, Booth Falls Condominiums, Vail, Colorado, an updated topographic map, a soils and foundation study, CRSP analyses printouts, and plans showing wall locations, grading, cross section, and wall construction details. Our review required a scope of study that involved an independent verification, by comparable analytical results of the mechanics of falling/rolling rocks, of the consultant's work for this site. Only then could the CGS determine the adequacy and level of protection the finaI rockfall hazard mitigation design furnishes the Booth Falls Condominium complex. Proposed Design The proposed design for rockfall protection at the Booth Falls Condominium complex is a Geotextile Reinforced Earth inertial impact wall system. Two walls are proposed. The first is 363 foot long and 12 foot high that will protect the upper three condo structures most at risk and, to a - lesser extent, those condo units behind. This wall will also overlap the existing ditch and berm rockfall protection system built for the single family residences next door. This wall will help provide full protection to the single family residence on the margin of the existing Special District that was previously lacking full coverage. This impact wall is 12 feet wide at the base and reduces to 10 feet wide at the top. The wall design includes the grading of a 1%2:1 slope and 10 foot wide Booth Falis Rxfl design review, Page 2 lane in front for equipment access. The second impact wall is 95 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 8 feet high that pazallels the town's access road to the water storage facility. This smaller wall protects the two other condo structures farther down slope. Review Methodology For our evaluation we conducted an independent study of the existi.ng geometry and surface characteristics of the slope from the rockfall source areas to the condo locations, using the updated tapographic map of the site provided. An additional site inspection was conducted to reexamine and adjust slope pazameters. We selected likely rockfall paths down the slope and modeled rockfall using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) version 3.0a. Once satisfied with the individual path models and adjustment of CRSP results with field observation, the design slope geometries, from grading and wa11 locations, were included in our models. We used iterations counts of 1000 rocks rolled in the CRSP program for our D 100 analysis. CGS Analysis Two cross sections were selected for both wall locations along most probable rockfall paths. The rockfall ~ source was modeled from three different location on the 1100 Cross SeCtlOns, the lower Cliff, Figure 1. CRSP screen dump of slope geometry at 12 foot high wall location the upper Cliff, and the with modeled rockfall from top of limestone cliff. exposed glacial till that caps the top. Example of these ' ' " nms are in Figs. 1 and 2. The - CGS independent analysis demonstrated that for the main 12 foot high wall, all rocks in the design size, (s 7 foot diameter) were 100% retained by the wall design. Analysis points selected ~ within the catchment azea indicated bounce heights of 1100 only a couple of feet and impact energies Of Figure 2. CRSP screen dump of slope geometry at 12 foot high wall location with modeled rockfall from top of glacial till. Booth Falls Rxfl design review, Page 3 approximately 5,000,000 ft. lbs. for the design 7 foot ROCKS D 00 diameter boulder. , , , Press . At the second lower wall location the slope geometry was slightly different to account for the road access to the water storage facility. The modeled rock path crosses this road ~ twice. The CGS analysis at this wall location also O 1ndiCated 100% retentiOn Of Figure3. CRSP screen dump of lower slope geometry of 8 foot high wall. Cell modeled rocks less than or No. 13 and 16 aze both the water storage facility access road. equal to 7 feet in diameter. Fig. 3 is a close-up of this slope showing road locations. Conclusions The CGS believes that this design for rockfall protection at the Booth Falls Condominiums is an excellent conservative design and is very capable to withstand expected impacts from falling/rolling rocks from the cliffs above. We do not believe an alternative to the impact wa11 rockfall retention system is available that will provide this level of protection. Upon careful review of the conditions of the site and the design of the protection system, we have some minor concerns and recommend that minor changes be made. Those concems and recommendations aze listed below: The 12 foot high wall should retain its full height as it extends to the northwest, to the roadway. From our understanding the Town of Vail DRB had requested a stepped reduction for the last 15 feet for aesthetic reasons. T'hat is not acceptable. It creates the potential of rolling rocks bouncing over the reduced wall height at the end and possibly missing the end of the lower 8 foot wall. The 12 foot wall must stay at its full height to the end. The 8 foot wall must have an full effective impact height of 8 feet. That effective height must be maintained for 10 horizontal feet in front of the wall. T'he roadway, at 2 to 3 feet higher than the wall base elevation, reduces this effecdve wall impact face height. In our analysis with the existing road conditions and wall elevation shown in the plans we had - a small percentage of rocks in the 6 to 7 foot diameter range, able to clear the wall. There will need to be either an increase in wa11 height, or blading and reduction in the road elevation. Booth Falls Rrfl design review, Page 4 A locked gate should be installed to prevent unauthorized vehicle access into the clean-out zone in front of the impact wall. The consultant and Town of Vail must take measures to insure that the rockfall . protection system, when constructed, does not deviate from the plans, specifications, and our recommendations without prior approval. The rockfall protection design, provided our recommendations are included, will provide a very high level of protection for the Booth Falls Condominiums. That level of protection will meet or exceed the level the upslope ditch and berm provides to the single family home Special District immediately to the southeast. There will still be a minor threat that small rock shards that break from rocks as they near, or hit the wall, could reach the three upper condo buildings. That type of rock interaction is highly random and cannot be presently modeled. The risk is very small for the two structures 75 to 80 feet away from the impact face, but higher for the unit 42 feet away. The consultant has recommended stiff brushes and shrubs be planted at the top of the wall to ameliorate some of this rock shard risk. We concur. These rock shards will be small and will not puncture or severely damage the exterior walls if they hit the units. A further recommendation the CGS offers, one also stated in the report earlier this year, is that to protect against any possibly of injury by these smaller rock shards, the occupant's beds, cribs, and sitting furniture used at high frequency should not be located immediately in front of windows that face up slope. Another suggestion would be the replacement of the glass in the window frames with unbreakable safety panes of plastic or similar materials. We are pleased to provide this review to the Town of Vail. If you, or any other concerned or interested party have any questions please contact this office at (303)894-2167. Sincerely, , Jonathan L. White Project Engineering Geologist cc: R. Forrest, TOV Senior Environmental Planner, 6 copies S. Wohlgemuth, A. KS Engineers and Associates, Inc. W.P. Rogers, CGS Engineering and Environmental Section Chief File ROCKFALL HAZARD ASSESSMENT AT BOOTH FALLS CONDOMIIVIUMS AND PROPOSED NIITIGATION prepared for The Town of Vail, Colorado G~%'O Rq~O oG /CAL by Jonathan L. White Colorado Geological Survey 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 ph. (303) 894-2167 fax (303) 894-2174 Booth Creek Rockfall Report, Page 1 CONTF.NT?S Page Introduction 2 March 26,1997 Rockfall Event 2 Hazard Assessment 4 Rockfall Mitigation Options 6 Rockfall Analysis and Design Criteria 6 Recommendations 7 Current and Future Actions 8 Appendig A. Booth Creek Rockfall Hazard Area by Bruce K. Stover Appendiz B. Rockfall Mitigation by Jonathan L. White List of Figures and Photos: Figure #1 Site map and location of March 26, 1997 rockfall. 3 Figure #2 Screen dump of CRSP slope profile 7 Photo #1 Booth Creek rockfall source area 4 Photo #2 Top Cliff rockfall source area 5 Photo #3 Close-up of top cliff source azea 5 Photo #4 Location of proposed mitigation at Condos 8 Photo #5 Lower cliff above district to be monitored 9 Booth Falls Rockfatt Report, Page 2 INTRODUCTION The Colorado Geological Survey has assisted the Town of Vail in assessment of the rockfall hazard at Booth Creek since May 1983, when a severe rockfall event occurred there. Since then the town and property owners in Vail Village Filing 12 formed a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD). The District has mitigated much of the hazard by the construction of a ditch and berm on the*slope above the residential area. As faz as the Survey knows, the ditch and berm configuration has been 100% effective for rocks that continually fall from the cliffs of the Mintum Formation. On March 26, 1997, another very serious, potentially lethal, rockfall occurred that incurred substantial damage to the Booth Falls Condominiums that exists to the west of the GHAD and outside the protection envelope provided by the ditch and berm. Under the auspices of the Critical Geologic Hazards Response Program and our concerns expressed in eazlier involvement, the CGS can assist the Town of Vail in assessment of the hazard that the condominiums bear, options for mitigation for that portion of slope west of the ditch and berm terminus, and design criteria for said mitigation systems. Included in this report aze two appendices. Appendix A, Boot6 Creek Rockfall Hazard Area by Bruce Stover, is a report on the general geology, geomorphology, and the mechanism of rockfall for the Booth Creek site. Appendix B, Rockfall Mitigation, is a short paper on types of rockfall mitigation systems that aze available. THE MARCH 26,1997 ROCKFALL EVENT At 11:20 p.m., a ledge of Minturn Formation limestone at the highest exposed outcrop of the upper cliff, just below the exposure of glacial till, failed similazly to that shown in Figure 3 of Appendix A. The ledge dimensions that detached and toppled is roughly 20' x 8' x 8'. As it fell, it impacted and broke additional rock blocks from outcrops below. The rock mass broke apart as it tumbled down the cliff. As it fell down the slope, the rock fragments randomly fanned out such that the path of the rockfall formed a swath more than 500 feet across where they came to rest. See Figure # 1 of this report. The location of the rockfall source is shown by arrow in Photo # 1 and #2 and the scar easily seen in Photo #3. Approximately one third of the swath of rolling rocks: were retained by the ditch and berm. . See Figure #1. The remaining two-thirds of the event came to rest, scattered azound the condominiums. The condo structures received three rock impacts and several near misses. Rock sizes ranged from 2 to 5+ feet in average diameter. Surrounding the condos several items were also damaged or destroyed, (i.e., small haul trailer, trampoline frame, small wooden deck and chairs, wood walkway). Of the three impacts, one was minor and the other two major. The minor impact was from a-3 foot diameter rock that obviously had slowed almost to a stop upon impacting the westernmost condo structire. The rock came to rest, ominously so, next to a large boulder from an earlier rockfall. A major impact, aiso about 3-4 feet in diazneter at high velocity, had just missed the ditch and berm catchment. The rock impacted and smashed the comer of the easternmost condo, ~ snapped off the side balcony support, and destroyed a trampoline frazne along its path before coming to rest in the subdivision below. The third and worst impact was a 5+ foot block that broadsided the eastemmost condo. Sufficient rock velocity enabled the boulder to smash through the outside wall, interior walls, and the floor, finally being caught in the crawlspace below. Luckily the resident, whose bedroom this rock smashed through, was not home at the time of the rockfall. Booth Creek Rockfall Report, Page 3 Booth Creek Rockfall Hazard Area Vail, Colorado Areal extent of rockfall impacts from •11:20 pm, 3/26/97 event. f:.,b9.o0o Rockfall Source: Limestone bed at highest point of upper cliff. See companion photos in report. Location not shown on town GIS map. x e n~ W89. E~92J3 one inch = 200 feet The berm was 100% effective for that portion of the 3/26/97 event that fell into it. ~ ~ ~ x ~ ff~~ • ~ ~ x ~ TDNs sXS.s o K=tA ~ OQ1RT 11 dS~6 ~ 1 1 x 6341.2 x x , AUL _ ![LO L ~ x ~ 831 833L"B ~ M e»sa X vAPcMC x suzo • sue.~ ay]s,, x - ~ ~ ssya.~ _ LQ X L0. 0 -ezds x x o .3 x x w ~737.5 a"zS x Figure N. " ' x ~ x Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Page 4 The CGS made an initial inspection of the site Thursday, March 27, 1997. Our preliminary assessment was that it appeazed that the ledge broke away relatively clean and the hazard risk in no greater or less than the day before the rockfall; which is to say that rockfall can occur from this source azea anytime. It was on our preliminary inspection of the ditch and berm where we discovered that an earlier rockfall event occurred, either earlier this year or sometime after the town last cleaned the ditch out. Several rocks (s4 foot diameter) had fallen and, by lithology, could be differentiated from the March 26 event (sandstone vs. limestone). This rockfall occurred without ariyone's knowledge because the entire event was contained within the ditch and berm. Friday, March 28, 1997 an aerial reconnaissance was conducted of the source area and while the preliminary assessment has not changed, we reiterate that rockfall of similar magnitude will continue at this site. During this inspection we did see several loose rocks on the slopes and rock features with questionable long-term stability. HAZARD ASSESSMENT In a ranking of a rockfall hazard the parameters aze source area, a steep acceleration zone, proximity of structures to both, and history of rockfall impacts. In two aspects the condominium location is worse than most of the special district to the east because the upper cliff is more fully exposed at this location (it is mostly soil covered to the east) and the slope between and below the cliffs steepen where the slope curves around into Booth Creek Valley. See Photo #1 and Figure #1 map in Appendix A. - ~ The main source area „ - for Booth Falls Condominiums is the upper cliff. The exposed, lower E ' . . ~ ~ ' l, cliff of sandstone reduces in %=Y k _ ight a he s it trends to the northwest. Photo # 1 and a close-up photo #2 show the ' ' ex ten t o f t he upper c li f f where it is not soil covered. They reveal a benchy cliff of ~ beds of limestone, thin shales, and minor sandstone. It is the ~•r'~'~f . dense, hard, gray limestone that creates the largest rockfall boulders in the Booth . _Y4•' 7 Creek area. The report by B. Photo #1. Booth Creek rockfall source area. Note enlargement of upper cliff StOVer in Appendix A exposure and corresponding rockfall source area, northwest of the ditch and provides further in-depth berm terminus. - discussion on the source areas. Photos #1 and #2 also show the exposed shale slope, between the cliffs, steepening to the left. The general lack of soil and vegetation suggests that this slope is harder and smoother, compared with the right. A further close-up, Photo #3, reveals limestone blocks, pedestals, and ledges, defined by the crisscrossing joint pattern, being undermined by the quicker- Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Page 5 eroding interbedded shale partings. Also in Photo #3 are several slumped and isolated limestone blocks on the rock slope that have not yet fallen. The history of reported rockfall events at Booth Creek and the physical nature of the slope merits our assessment that, Booth Falls Condominiums is in a severe rockfall hazardous area. y - 9 - : N~ i • ~4~ t - ~£,~--3 r -ifxl_ r'~" - . . 5,x~~ ~ ~„~'e*~'~-yr,~ s~~ ~ N -~ri r - ~ m;''£ • r~ Photo #2. Top cliff rockfall source area. White arrow marks location of March 26, 1997 rockfall. . r . ;r • Z - ~ • r 4W ro. .i, - '•y.LL,. ~ti 3m~ . K < ~ ~y - ~x Photo #3. Close-up aerial view of source area. Note ledgy appearance with joint defined blocks undermined by eroding shale partings. White atrow A marks scar from March 26, 1997 rockfall. White arrow B marks rock pedestal that was hit by rockfall and may be destablized. Note loose blo:,ks, marked by black arrows. _ Booth Faps RockNl RepoM Page 6 ROCKFALL MITIGATION OPTIONS Appendix B contains most of the recognized forms of rockfall mitigation and protection devices commonly used. Rockfall mitigation is divided into two types: stabilization of the rock mass at the source azea to prevent rocks from falling; and rockfall protection systems that acknowledge that rocks will fall but structures or public areas aze protected from the impacts. At the Booth Creek site stabilization of the rock mass at the source area is not being contemplated for several reasons. They include: . 1. The source area is in the USFS Eagles Nest Wildemess Area; 2. Source area stabilization at this site would need to cover a lazge area, be labor intensive, require technical rock climbing skills, and helicopters for mobilization that would make the project cost prohibitively high; 3. Source area stabilization constcuction activity would present unacceptable risks that rock could be inadvertently lrnocked down, by workers or equipment, onto the residential areas. Rockfall protection systems that will be considered at this site are ditch and berm configurations and impact barrier wall systems. Fences will not be considered because they can have high maintenance cost and generally cannot withstand high unpact forces without being destroyed. ROCKFALL ANALYSIS and DESIGN CRITERIA Proper analysis of the hazard for design purposes requires accurate slope geometry and a deternrination of appropriate rockfall sizes. For the slope geometry we used information gained from our eazlier investigation for the special district mitigation, the Town of Vail GIS 1:2400 scale maps, photos, and the USGS 1:24,000 scale map. For the rockfall size using the maximum size boulder that is found on site would be prudent. We used the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) ver. 3.Oa for our analysis. Four to seven foot diameter boulders were modeled, and weight was calculated using the unit weight of limestone. The analysis seemed to bear out observable results of rockfall in the azea. Bounce heights were highest on the cliffs and at the transition to the lower, softer slopes the rocks begin just to roll. The critical design factor is the high impact energies developed by these lazger rocks. A screen dump is shown on Figure #2 of the CRSP program slope profile. An analysis point was chosen 30 feet upslope from the condominiums where the slope breaks to a grade of 40% to 50%. In modeling rockfall with CRSP we azrived at the following bounce heights, impact kinetic energies (K.E), and velocities at this analysis point. Rock Rock Bounce K.E.(max.) K.E.(avg.) Vel.(max.) Vel.(avg.) Size Weight ft. ft-lbs. ft-lbs ft/sec ft/sec 4' sphere 5058 3.0 1,000,000 800,000 98 83 5'sphere 9878 2.1 1,900,000 1,400,000 95 gl 6' sphere 17069 2.0 3,000,000 2,300,000 96 78 = 7' sphere 27106 1.7 4,600,000 3,300,000 89 74 4'x7' cyl. 13272 1.7 2,500,000 1,700,000 93 74 5'x6cyl. 17775 1.9 3,600,000 2,400,000 94 76 6'x6cyl. 25600 1.9 4,900,000 3,500,000 89 74 6'x7' cyl. 30000 1.8 5,700,000 3,700,000 90 72 Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Page 7 _ BOOTHZ 1 • ROCKS 'I 1 Si r,~l 7 4 C . I I ~ .04 b ' S Figure 2. Screen dump of CRSP program of Booth Creek-west side. Analysis point arrow is 30 feet above condominiums. Horizontal and vertical are not at the same scale. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations and design criteria are based on modeled rolling rocks analyzed at 30 feet upslope from the condominiums, so aze only valid at that point on the slope. Mitigation design should not only insure that rockfall is contained but also the impact structure remains sound and does not require costly reconstruction aftervvards. The CGS recommends that design criteria for mitigation at the condominiums should be capable to withstand and retain a worst case scenario, which is believed to be a boulder in the 6 to 7 foot diameter range. An examination of the source area, the most recent rockfall, and eazlier research done by Stover and Cannon for work the CGS did in 1988 seems to confirm this scenario. That translates to a rolling rock with an impact force of 5,000,000 ft-lbs at the analysis point. Besides withstanding the impact force the mitigation system would need to prevent any rock that encounters it from climbing and overtopping, or bouncing over. The impact face should be vertical and have an effective height that prevents overtopping. Design height will be specific to siting of the structure. At the analysis point it should be no less than 12. These design pazameters do not take into account smaller rock fragments that separate from larger boulders. During inspection of the site following the March 26, 1997 event there was evidence of smaller rocks snapping off the tops of Aspen trees, 25 feet high, near the condos. These rock fragments do not reflect actual bounce heights but display the high rotational velocity of the rock and the centrifugal force acting on fragments as they detach. Options to mitigate these highly random rock fragments are limited to moving the protection system farther up the slope (which will change design criteria) or constructing a low capacity rockfall fence at the top of the berm or wall. _ • Booth Falis Rockfail Report, Page 8 Only a stout protection system can be designed at the criteria stated above. Both ditch and berm systems and inertial impact barriers, or a ` combination of both, can be designed for the site and be cost ~ - effective. No rockfall fence on the market can probably ~eC withstand the impact forces that are being contemplated. The Yr~pos rockfall protection must be - designed to begin at the road and extend to the southeast to a point where sufficient overlap exists with the existing berm - above, a length no less than 350 feet. Rocks that skirt the edge of the top berm must be caught Photo #4. Location of proposed impact barrier or berm site. Note by the lower. See Photo #4. At accumulation of rocks in existing ditch. The largest are 5 feet in diameter. the high impact velocities and corresponding impact forces both ditch and berm and reinforced impact walls will need to be carefully designed. In a ditch and berm option a cazeful look will be needed to determine whether the berm of only compacted soil will have the strength to withstand these forces. The earthen berm may need to be reinforced with geotextiles. A rockfall impact barrier or earth wall will need to be reinforced with geotextiles in lifts of 8-12 inches and have a width no less than 10 feet. We recommend that the Town of Vail retain the CGS for review of the mitigation design and our approval be a condition for design acceptance by the town. CURRENT AND FUTURE ACTIONS Adverse or highly variable weather prevented the CGS from doing a site inspection of the source area immediately after the March 26 event. Later this spring we plan to conduct this site inspection where the failure occurred and examine those impacted rock features below that may be of questionable stability. During our aerial inspection we also found a rock feature above the special district ditch and berm that may require long term monitoring. See Photo #5. While we believe this feature will not be a threat for many yeazs it bears watching because of its size. If this feature were to fail the volume of the fall would quickly overwhelm the capacity of the ditch and overtop it. We will provide the Town of Vail a supplemental report based on our field studies later this summer. For the interim, residents of Booth Falls Condominiums who are concerned about their safety . can take precautions to lessen their exposure to rockfall hazards. As stated the lazger rocks are basically rolling when they reach the condos. The safest area in these condos presently is the top floor on the side facing downhill. The worst case rockfall impact can put a big hole through a Booth Falls Rockfail Report, Page 9 - i ~ ~ e threat otential futur 1 y• ? h M-~~~`~ :s~~i' Y , • a "_'.~,u ` . . . Photo #5. Lower sandstone cliff above district ditch and berm. The CGS will visit this feature this spring and install movement gauges for future monitoring. structure and possibly condemn it, but probably will not tear it down. Our advice to residents is that they not establish living azeas where they spend the bulk of their time, such as bedrooms and the sitting areas of living rooms, against the exterior wall that faces upslope. Bedrooms should be moved upstairs and/or beds placed against the wall facing downhill. Do not place beds directly in front of, or below, windows that face uphill. The Home Owners Association and Town of Vail should act quickly so that these structures are protected from the next rockfall of similar magnitude. Attachment 2 Report from AKS Engineering f:\everyone\russVmemoUockeir AKS Engineers b Associates, Inc. 7692 East Ponderosn Drive Parker, Colorado 80134 (303) 841-7115 October 2, 1997 Mr. Jerry Greven P.O.Box 3577 - Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Rock Fall Evaluation and Proposed Rock Fall Mitigation Measures, Booth Falls Condominiums, Vail, Colorado AKS Project No. 97-031 A.KS Engineers 8 Associates, Inc. has completed an engineering evaluation of the rockfall assessments performed for the Booth Falls Condominiums. The purpose of this evaluation was to confirm proposed mitigation measures and obtain data for design of a system to help protect the condominiums and other public areas adjacent to the condominiums from the rockfall impacts. Following the March 26, 1997 rockfall event involving several large rocks, 2 to 5 feet in diameter, The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) performed a site visit and a Rockfall Assessment in which CGS evaluated rockfall sources and mitigation options, and performed rockfaif analysis. The results of the evaluation, presented in a report prepared for the Town of Vail, were the following: • The source was the limestone cliff in the USFS Eagles Nest Wildemess Area. • Source area stabilization would present unacceptable risk and would be too costly. • The worst case scenario was the impact from a boulder approximately 6 to 7 feet in diameter. • The impact face of the mitigation measure should be vertical and at least 12 feet in height. • The length of the mitigation measure should not be less than 350 feet long and should overlap the existing rockfall berm. Based on the CGS information, current topographic maps and soil data provided by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Inc. dated September 30, 1997 AKS utilized the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) to perform the analysis with various sized - rocks on walls in different tocations. Faragon Engineering Consultants, Inc. provided civil engineering design, including grading considerations on the resulting analysis. A summary of our analysis and calculations including our recommendations is provided in this report. AKS Engineers & Associates Inc. Rockfall Mitigation Booth Falls Condominiums Vail, Colorado DESIGN CRITERIA AND ROCKFALL ANALYSIS: , The primary goal of this rockfall mitigation system is to remove the hazards of rockfall from the condominiums and residents of the Booth Falls Condominiums. In conjunction with this primary goal are considerations regarding the location of the system (effectiveness), the constructability of the mitigation system, (location), distruption of . surrounding area and visual impacts of the system on the homeowners. Desi9n Criteria and Considerations: To accomplish the primary goal of mitigation AKS utilized CRSP to model the potential rockfall events. As a"Jumping Off Point " to begin the modeling and to provide logical data to the model the following parameters were considered: • CGS' recommendations for a vertical impact face approximately 12 feet in height and 10 feet in width and the relatively close proximity to the condominiums (30 feet from the condominium closest to the source, - see topographic map attached). • The most current topographic map available of the entire area (Provided by the homeowners) indicates that slopes near the condominiums begin to flatten to a slope of 1.5-feet horizontally to 1.0-foot vertically (1.5H: 1V) which allows rocks to roll and not bounce. It is also accessible for construction and will minimize cut and fill quantities and thereby minimize the disruption to the vegetation. • The source area was the limestone cliff above the condominiums. • Rock size was limited to the size of those observed at the condominiums and larger, a range of approximately 3 to 7 feet in diameter and it was assumed that the rock did not change during rockfall. • Parameters for surtace roughness, tangential coefficients, and normal coefficients were taken from the CRSP guidelines and considered the condition of the slopes at various times of the year and when rock fall most likely occurs, (Spring). The calculations including the parameters utilized are attached. Rockfall Analvsis: The initial rockfall analysis was performed on two analysis points along the proposed alignment of the main wall (1) the area closest to the source, the easternmost condominium, and (2) the westernmost condominium without the wall in place to assess bounce height of various rock sizes along the slope. The wall was located based on _ minimal bounce heights. As shown on the drawings the proposed wall overlaps the berm on the east and extends to the road on the west. Once the Iocation of the wall was established the remaining analysis was performed to assess the wall height with regard to bounce height 2 AKS Engineers,& Associates Inc. Rockfall Mitigation . Booth Falls Condominiums Vail, Colorado and the potential rock climb from rotational velocity. Each rock of different diameters was rolled 100 times. A second wall of the system south of the water tank area was similarly evaluated. Typical cross-sections for both walls are shown in figures No. 1,2 . and No. 3. ~ ~ ~ e i i i : . Figure No. 1: Typical cross-section at easternmost condominium. . . i i i - : Figure No. 2: Typical Cross-section at westernmost condominiums. 3 AKS Engineers & Associntes Inc. Rockfall Mitigation Booth Falls Condominiums Vail, Colorado i ~ i ~ : Figure No. 3: Typical cross-section near the water tank area. Additionally, the analyses were performed on varying soil conditions based on the weather conditions and time of year. For example, a fairly heavy snowfall would present similar conditions as soft wet soil in spring and early summer, and frozen snowless conditions are similar to hot dry summer conditions. The additional analyses are also attached. Slope Stabilitv Analvsis: In addition to the rockfall analysis slope stability analysis was performed on the proposed new grades and wall section. A computer program for slope stability analysis incorporating geogrid reinforcement published by the Tensar Corporation was utilized. This program is based on the Simplified Bishops equation for circular slip surfaces. The input data including soil strength parameters, soil boundary location, loading conditions, and phreatic surface locations were obtained from the soil report. This program was utilized because of the ability to add reinforcing geogrid as needed, and was run to simulate a potential deep failure. Additionally, the program was run with "forced failure" circles to simulate a failure close to the base of the wall. . Input data and numerical results of the analysis are attached. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: In general the results of the rockfall analysis of the primary wall indicates that the location and height of the wall are appropriate for the anticipated conditions. Moving the wall closer to the source area resulted in greater wall heights due to greater bounce 4 AKS Engineers & Associates Inc. Rockfall Mitigation Booth Falls Condominiums Vail, Colorado height of the rock. Additionally locating the wall closer to the source created more disturbance of the vegetation, increased the amount of excavation, and created concems about infringing on the wilderness area. A summary of the results is provided in Table A. Table A- Summary of Rockfall Analysis Results. X-Section Wall Height Rock size Rocks Rolled Rocks Stopped . .4:. v. . . .....,~.v... , . . . ?itiv\•i:i•}4i:::iii:_i ~ ,.}o..,..s...~'. w ~.M...3.'..~'.~..":" •:.;;:v:~:;-:: . :ti..::•:::• :,.~.rr'4~,~,. .:`•:~•::•r:; v~vv}% Y.xm ....:::.,,.:...,s.. . ~ :nw.*..v.~vn•~r.;n~xuv::\x:v.:~:::::::w:v::.~::v: :w::• r........::. . . :n\+:iiiii:w::.~:ii+'•.'•.'+~L{v.:0:" 4\ii++:•:1}i'r•%C •h}Y^\v.,v;}~}vyry:nv;{my.: . ..vvv~::::: ~.~::.vw.~.v::n~:.: v:.. .w::: :vv~.::: ..:v ::v.....:.. .y.,v,..u..wxv.~_n..~ulw.vnvvv.... ..m»vv.:4:<~i 1.~6n' '.n.\nx•hxm~~.. 'vhWnrii..'.Y~ n.... n .h.... n.; w:::::..w:::::::::.~ :v ~ :vti^:::: •iiiii:::: v w:::::: • ..n>av'.~i;••ty ...x.~.y}Y;;:y.;;;..:..ow ...a.., ..»w,. v.vn~.u~ vn~~ n~~.....v..v. u.xn~..n w..xvn~;.;;.vy}v~v.r......::n..A::..v.v:x:::m:r,.::.v.v w.ry+}iv• ii:i•:i•:i4'~:i.4'r \}ihn iv .~::::.4,v,•:A:'ii•.~i:•ii•r;•.v}}}i:i.~•::: v vvv. w.:.~v.....v..::...:.w: ~:::n~.w:. v : k.:b::::?::? .....:i::-. ..~vv~~.tin. ..r ::.v~:::::.~::::::::}:. v:ii..vnu .n -x~ w.~~~nv vv.vnm~ .....w . h3.v. xJbnvvvx~'v}%`v:.Wt:::i:::•Mx.nJnA...vi:v~k.,:.....kWCi~ it:~}.\.~i'v:•: w:.4~u~vv~x.~~wnti:ti+'ri~»>.ii:~tr::v~~vviiii:. .iii:<i.\itini~tii::v}:~:~~:\~>.ntiu::<:::~ •r..........~:..~•..:~........ • Vail 3 12-Feet 3-FT. Sphere 100 100 7-FT. Sphere 100 100 4X6-FT. Cyl. 100 100 6X7-FT. Cyl. 100 100 Vail 4 12-Feet 3-FT. Sphere 100 100 7-FT. Sphere 100 100 4X6-FT. Cyl 100 100 6X7-FT. Cyl. 100 100 Vail 5 8-Foot 7-FT. Sphere 100 100 4X6-FT. Cyl. 100 100 Results of the slope stability analysis indicated that the slopes were stable at the proposed grade of 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (H:V) for deep failure below the wall. The safety factor for deep failure was 3.06 with the minimum being 1.5 for slopes that are not reinforced. For a shallow failure that was forced to, intersect the wall the safety factor was 1.48 with the minimum being 1.3 for reinforced slopes. . Additionally based on the driving force required to fail the wall and slope in a shallow failure mode is the wall and slope will resist approximately 7,000 Kip-Ft along the computer predicted failure plane. Conclusions: Based on the rockfall analysis and the slope stability analysis the walls at the location and heights should proposed should provide sufficient rockfall protection for the residents of the Booth Falls Condominiums. The 12-foot wall closest to the northernmost condominiums will retain 7-foot in diameter boulders and smaller rock fragments that may separate from the wall providing those rocks are not fragment sized. Occurrence and pathways of fragment sized rocks that become projectiles cannot be predicted or modeled within the parameters of this study. The close proximity of the wall to the condominiums allows for the retention of larger _ boulders without building an excessively high wall. This location also as well as providing a stable slope to construct a wall and access for rock removal appears to be the least disruptive to the natural vegetation. 5 AKS Engineers & Associates Inc. Rockfall Mitigation Booth Falls Condominiums Vail, Colorado The 8-foot wall south of the City of Vail water tank will provide rockfall protection for the residents located south of the parking lot. This wall will retain a 7-foot in diameter boulder and smaller rocks except fragments. As the condominiums located south of the parking lot is further than 30 feet from the wall damage to the condominiums from fragments were not considered a problem. Recommendations: Based on the information provided in this report and on case studies of other rockfall studies the wall closest to the source area should be approximately 12 feet in height and 12 feet in width at the base and be constructed with a vertical impact face. The wall south of the water tank should be at least 8 feet in height and 10 feet in width at the base and be constructed with a vertical impact face. All walls should be reinforced internally with structural geogrid. The impact face is constructed out of materials that can be repaired if ruptured during impact such as structural wire forms combined with an elastic dampening material such as tires. Materials such as modular block, timber and concrete will shatter on impact and will be difficutt to repair. Gabions are not recommended because of problems with potential instability and rupture. Additionally materials utilized in the wall should be free draining and granular materials not subject to freeze/thaw conditions. The tops of the walls and planters may contain topsoil to provide a basis for vegetation. As the area around both wa{Is will require vegetation and landscaping after construction, it is recommended that the tops of the walls be planted with bushes or other materials which may help retain small shards of rock that may be released at impact. The planting of trees on the top of the wall is not recommended because of potential root interference with the geogrid. Attached are construction drawings that reflect the recommendations provided in this report. For construction these drawings will be combined with a drainage report, landscaping drawings, and specification for construction under a separate cover. These walls have been analyzed for the specific criteria provided above. Variations of these criteria should be reviewed by the AKS and Paragon Engineering and re-analyzed as necessary. We are available to discuss the details of this analysis with you. Please call should further consultation be required. ~pQ RF~ Sincerely, ~ ~,a".•'~pNICE,yG - AKS Engineers & ssociates, ~c. CC: 259 ~ Jonathan V1/hite - CGS Russell Forrest- Town of Vail u ne K. o i"~ ~ ~ ~ g muth, E. Pr' ipal ~ StONAI 6 Attachment 3 Visual Analysis and Description of Building NAaterials f:\everyoneVussVnemoUockeir Attachment 3 Visual Analysis of Rockfall Mitigation Walls View from Booth Fa11s Rd & Frontage - Shows Existing Berm & Approximate location of wa11 F 3 2A^ "'~Y',' ~ 'X '"4 '°•v ",f ^ 6'.N' 9+ ' u u~`~."jq'v'' ~7"xy~~`~ey,~~°" . ^y~ al. ~ y s' c, ,~aati-~}`e'+~' 'M ~_q ~ , t`'~ ~ Ysxv~s ~ "nir~~, ?r ' S'~ ~ f~5~ +Y Tki~~. ~.t ~~.5'~y,~ ~ c5 ~ 4fii~" ~ ".~,;,~,Ur~'~.Y?n }r ~ ~~~r^~t~~,.•~ ~~s~:a r;~ 'c~ y' A I~ U ~ y ~p l ~ 4M ; ,z f . Y`~~ k ~.,4 . ~ . "*•'"~~*a,,,~.,:~ r~'~`t ~"~~~,~„~S.f ^~',..c~~'~.,a ''~a . ~c N . Looking to the South from the East End of the Wall , ` v~• . . . ry, . . ~ <i . . t fs 'i.L r ; `"~-r~3~~`f.~•i . ,s. i~ ` ^~•~.t..;. z ~ . M_ . , . . - , ~ :,~t _.,u. ; . - ti _.x~4.•,~ r ~t . -io.~ . b Simulation of wall alignment looking towards the west - - ~ - ~z ~ o r~ k~l c~ 5 ~ ~a + ~I i - ~ y ~~~`YP F View from area south of access road to Water Tank t "I'hw pr,itcnl~,d :\ncliur I'inlrss SYswnl off('r; iuiinicip,lliti(~s. cmint.i("s. f)OTs, and Iaug(, cnnninwrvial all f hw auiv,inkiges ul' f raclitiun;il c•iist - - ~ in [flitcv, timhr.r and (;ril) walls - h<<t with a vci;v imporkant dif'fcrencc. - Interlocking lips or hx•,itnws aurc molde(I into every Ancliur [)ianioncl, - - _ Anchor Vertica and Anchor Vertica Pro segmental unit. The lips ancl locators automatically guide each ne«- coLu:se Rtsrdeutrn/Jite. St. Lonli Pmrk. Miurte.rotn, jeatrnrin.g Anihur [lertiin ttraigh! farerinir,. into place. They ensure proper align- rllanrrrfmtared G}' Anchor 61ot,E CaltpanJ. ment and setbackyAnd most impor- WHILE OTHERS Anchor remains firmly committed to ~ DESIGN BLOCKS WE tant jak-,fhEy eliminate the neccl f'o?• CREATE SYSTEFAS. an integratecl (lcsign philosophy. A j .11ins, clips, and mortar. 111tiniaCclY, what, maCtcrs nunL is phil()s()pliY (.li<i1 Imi uiilY I)nuluce5 11ic stiin of llic parl,s. Ancl thiit's wliY c1ii;ilitY liliwks, hiif cnilurinti sul at,ic~iis. ~ ~9iMlp1(~iMl~ . ~ ~w:,'1~'.~7~~i~'F~~Ap"'~•'±~'+~E;,IFC ~c:R;~' i~ ' ~uS, w' ` ~~1~' ~.~Y' ~•.t~,- : , ' I f '%t~.• ,]'.~CJ'.,Y+~., ~:•4•;=eS'~'. . ~'~-`s+'F ^t N u . . p ~ ? j, 1 I ~ . lllith the rue of geor}'nthetii A nchor Dianrojul~ inte,gr,r/ rrar' ~1 nrGor llei~tirn nit~l ~lnihor rl itchrr Uer7ita Pra hnt one of the rei~tforienlentt, A„cl~or Dianroud !ip atrtrutntiinllJ~ delirrrt a quiCk, ['erth-a Pru Jegureirtal rutitt cnir /rn~{ett faot/rriutt in the iu(hrh}'. And cau Ge derrgued to attain tnrifi,rni tetGni,E.. l!%itb irn pilu. eaur() Ge routG»ted !n the the ntartrre frn'e deliuas approxuuately nirtrrally aiq height. tlips rrr martar. ternre inrtallntiun. orte tqunre fvot of wall crreu. f~ 02276/ANC BuyLine 6935 GOOD NEWS FOR ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, ALIKE. From design freedom, to endUu•ing . . performance, to ease of installation - arcllitects, engineers and contractorti p~ are discoveling the Anchor Pinless • ,.,,~~,::,~~;::;ta , SYstem simpl5 r can't be beat. It's a rea(l ~ ~ I; ~j. ~ • ' :•f:;,,,y;'~ , solution for residential sites, commer- cial projects, parks, sea and channel ~ walls, golf courses and highway depa?•t- ? ments. Anchor conforms to virtually i ~ any ivall configLu-ation. It delivei'S ,1tll/ai" I'rri(rti. U1111-criil) G.riirc,til(r. GariIott/l,. I u,l' ,lm b„r I'erilc:r aut/ ','~1lt'/iiil' ~~l'U ilfJl,"~~(!lI!!(3. t`~.lll(ll:li~!rlI'ct~~l) ~ill7ll,lCi~11/CI'lCd. /AC. i~~side and outside curves, 90° coi•nei:~, 1.01 iikirc:ccl ~~'ullti Immriiu~; o\,cr 40 fcct. nancc. Aii(l i lw \~,arii~ (!ai•l.lit.ones an(l ,i terraces,-tuid steps. And it rises froill Mi,i1.'s niurc, AIIC:II(ll' Ullli;ti au•e nun-pul- n<ilur,il, nu•k kirl~ Wxliu•cti cumbine to one foot borders tx~geosynthetically luting.'I'I~~~y reciiiirv Ii111v nminh- ;ic•c~~nt. t.lic tiih,. No,I dmnin:ik~ it. ~ , . - ° ~ i I - ~•.r} w~~`:%:N ;s;.. r i . ~ ' . . it a. ~I I !~X ~ ~ u ~ ~ - , - . / / Amhoi- Uer7ica Pro.riutpl)' can't Ith toda}'J forn`ilrg lantd rabrt:r. Built-iit "A ntlror Ltvah,n" T{~e Aitcbw Urrti«r Series be beat for inJtal(atiwrt mgrririttg vertiral ta!l irn!!; ri-eirt-t•e lcurr( - /nck eerc/i iuirrsr iu rlaa, - trar n•entrd exclutirel}' to iiteet naXlllllU111eallheighrl, ll'11hi11 Q/1Lllhlll )!!t'!l/!J ll.fl""llllR'ttlll do/lrll'.I 1lbllePlU!!i'!!1g riYpern/ignuueut 1~9ed('lI1C1)l1I1 Uf (olI1J11PYl'1Ql 1(lll niinintal tpace, and rentt difJereut e. nud ci 4' Gntter. wall cmritrrntrort. ~ ° /ub~cron ~on,rr~. i ANCHOR DIAMONW: 111,;4)11,,li I-a. \ . SETTING THE STANDARD fOR DESIGN FREEDOM EASE OF INSTALUflON, AND . , I Paveuo,r" Coiup.r,n. ENDURING BEAUTY. •AnchorDiamond's ~ thetic reinfor~~ement., inteqral.rear lip automat- there's no nee(l f'or ically delivers a quiek, mechanical attach- unifarm setback. ments or mo?•tar • No mortar. No pins. Iiastallation couldn't because of Ancho?'s be easier integral lil) o?• loeator. • Straight and beveled As a result, Anchor splits, make it easy to THE BEAUTY OF segmental i<<lits construct curues 90° PROVEN ENGINEERING ~ PRINCIPLES. ('iistir0. Iw?'manent erosion eontrol - an(l corners and terraces. I'hc Anc;hor Nnless SvtiLciu is <<n <«'sthetic alternativc to • High quality conerete cunll)iu•at.ivcl,y sliort-lived traclitional won't deteriorate like basc(l on 1)1-oven cnginecrin~; 1)1,iii(.iJ)les traditional naaterials. (lm'eloIw(I for scgiuc,nlill ro(.<<inin;; waIls. ~~la t.erials. NOT JUST • Unsurpassed des•ign 'I'li~~ 1ili~~sic~itl l)rc~j)crli(,s ()f t.hc rcliiining GEOSYNTHETICS AN INTEGRATED SYkEM. flexibility incl2cdesoption- \\'.ill tiysLciu rcsist tlic lortciS iinlmue(l uii al step and cap 2cnits. t,lie s(rucl,urc b,y i,llc rcLainml soiL GoosYntlictic rcinforccmcilL* is no(; • Thenat2cral, rockface In c.,Iscs wlv~rc LI~~~ \wi(slit, ncmlc(l for Anchor ~valls til) Lc? texture enhances any uf t.lw \\.;III cl(cs noL 1)1-civi(le Tr landscape pla7a. siil'ficienL n,sitih~nc(,, iiginnst • Anchor Dianzond's ~ tic~il fc~r~~r.ti i,ll~~ us~~ c~ rugged beauty only gets ' with time. An ' g~'~>s~'iit lieLic rcinf~,rcc~ment better d Zt never needs maintenance. sLahilizesLlieAnclim • A proven perforn2er 1)iiunon(l, Anchor \~erlicii or for everJthin g from Anchor \,erLicii I'ro wiill to modest borders, to virtWilk, any hcight. towering geosynthetic reinforced walls. And e~~en ~vith gcosyn- ~ ~ - ~ _ , - , . . •„t,r,,.: - ~ ~ ~^c`a AnchorAnchorDiamoncl Ajiciior•Diaiiloncl Anchor Vertica Pro Cap Step (BeUele(l slaornn) (Bevelecl shown) 02276/ANC ;Irhl~rirF,ni(~r~. i,,, BuyLine 6935 ANDCVERT,ERTICqO., ,1» ,bnr li~r!n~, Pr„ A PRO`; _ IT'S BIG. IT'S PINLESS ~nur~r~ ,•I;~r,r,.r.1~-.. i AND IT TAKES TALL WALLS r TO NEW NEIGNTS a~)proximatcl}-tljr(~(, A 40 BATTER. WITH ~ ~ : ' Nearly vertical rise feet. Hotvever Ancliui helps conserve valuable Ve?•tica P?•o Nvalls ca n • Y~~~` ' ` , real estate. Also means ~;'r. ' .4. bc buiit to apj)ruXi- less excavat,ing. mately six feet iis Sr ~~`~~F'~~ ~ B~ , r • g?'a Bui.lt-in Anchor Locator ~~ity walls. Tallcr f «p,~~•- r ;x•:~~F;~:t` ~t4 a,~ ~ ensures easy alignment walls rec uire geos\,n- a'nd a~a auto~~aatic setback. 1 .a; . ; thetic reinforcem~~ni. c•on(lucted a series ol'ri"~,ruus tests on a 'DieAnchor ~ertica as determined by << c,ujjlificcl en~~inccr. I n Series is pinless and that ° variety of geogri(lti an(1 gootextiles. All makes instal6ation quick addition, sj>ecial desion ~•r,»sirl~~raLiuns - and e„('J'icient. larc,c!«cts fiave meL etiy~?il.ial Lensile such as wall geomctry, so~ii, S(rength criteria auirl Ii<<~~~~ lu~en selected . Series iraclicdes sw~cha?•ge loadingti an~l ~~~~rlurn~ancc~ - by Aiichor 1Vall Systenis fur use with the three zcnits, phcs caps also may clete?•ininc t lic nwecl fur ccrad cornci•s, for :lnchur Uianiun(l ,uicl An(Iliur \'crLic<t g-t•ealei, ctesiqrt and gcosynthctic rcinforc•enwiit. , Scrieti \Vall S,vsLcnis. construcGionfreedom. Anchor ~Vall Sytitoniti, usin~~ ;:l'(rw.ti•cri,/r~i' In !l~r.l ~ir•Imr l)i~r~i~o~rcl inclejwnclent tetiting F<ic•ilil ics, li;is ' Htgle q'italit,,y concrete niirl /I ~/cllur I''r~li~n/l rrlirn l'md(csiqir 2von't. detet•iorate like Lr~rirf,r~7inrd G} Prrrestoue Compor). r t~'ad"~~t,i~rraalr~aate~~ials. ' ~ nir~~iuri/.~./rurnii.~~l~•l~r;lroit/y/~i- I~. . ~""~~..~~.`4.. .ti d ~ I ^ ~ ~'~,r'. a~~,~~~.;~,~,,~' • nLti~ rr~~ •ir/./ ~ r~f~~oil aird • 7'fae nat.icra/, 7•ockface ~ , :~.'a~aa. ~~t, o~..•~, ..i ww:: •Vl" Ay;i,;; ' . • ~ t o- . lurrrlillg cuwliliun.,•. flll ydalht trt, tca;turc eitit,artces any ~lrcAiir.hul •r/r:ti•ir/i/ w<rirual.sis lartdscapeplan. a pr•ellnihtai ;rj rnldfiw est inaaling ~ Rugged beauty only gets pu7pases o»lq Aclital project better with tirne. And it ~ never needs mainten . ance . conclalions zvill vanv and final clesign slzozild, be performed by ' Every unit provides a registe~~ecl eyayiazeer: approximately one square foot offace coverage. ~ ti Ancitor Vin•tica fl jrchnr ['crticrr Hcilf'Hlglt Anc.hor Vertica ~ (Bevelecl s`ao•w7a) (Neveled shorrnAncjaor Vertica ~ Coriier Cap 6 t Attachment 4 Survey f:\everyone\russVmemo\rockeir • PROPOSED ROCK RETENTION WALL BOOTH FALLS MOUNTAIN HOMES SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 5 S. RANGE 80 W OF THE 6TN P.M. TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO US. FOREST SERUICE EXISTING ROAD TO EAGLE RIVER FOUNO SURVEY MONUMENT TATIO N FACILITY U.S FOREST SERVICE 3 1/2" KC%4 ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LOT1/S2 (W.C.) FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT OPOSED WALL FOGND SURVEY MONUMENT 1/2" REBAR AT N.E. CORNER 1/2" REBAR ~T N.E. CORNER LOT 14, BI.OCK 1 LOT 1, BLOCK 2 42.52' FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT S89' 13'24"E 305.9' ~.s FOREST SERVICE 3112" 154.00' S89'24'13"E 576.97' ALUMINUM CAP STAMPEO Z LOT 1/S2 LOT BLOCK 1 ~LO LOT 1 BLOCK 2 C,, L, 3.033 ACRES 175rQ. J ~ EXISTING BUILDINGS O ~ ~6S9S c2 eo 19.1216.2' „ ~Ty ~s8• N89 ;41 46 W 327.85 SCALE 1 = 100, F'14 (S 6~8;~~,, 42.7 CD • 9~. !y `l,~ g0 URT ~~g I\tx1. Contra LK . ce.w~l~. a.+...n . w. s...ye.. Pm...,M •NL o,.....+.«A».M CURVE TABLE LIZZLL Awq pMmN sMfO 801114y" NUMBE DELTA CD TANGENT ' RADIUS ' LENGTH ' CHORD ' "NOTICE: According to Coiorodo IaM you must C1 16'38'00" N49'49'33"W 38.17 261.14 75.81 75.54 commence any lagol oction bosed upon ony aerect in C2 30'51'14" N73'34'10"W 91.38 331.16 178.33 176.118 this survey rithin throe yeoro otter you tirot diacovered C3 79'40*32" N49'10'11"W 20.85 25.00 34.76 132.03 auch defect. In no event. may any acGon bosed upon ony defect in thia survey be commenced mors thon ten yeors from the dote of the eertifieotion shown hereon.' Agenda last revised 12/09 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, December 8, 1997 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden (left at 4:20 pm) Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Niess - 4153 Spruce Way . 2. VRD - 1778 Vail Valley Drive 3. Lionshead Inn - 705 West Lionshead Circle Driver: George • J~'~~ .1 ~5 t: !~4,'!~~. NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearin4 - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to the existing property line, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Development, represented by B.J. Davis Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant amend the title of the plat to read, FINAL PLAT VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING, A PART OF TRACT C, BLOCK 5-D, AUSTRIA HAUS TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO prior to submitting the plat to the Town of Vail for recordation. k 1 ~ Agenda last revised 12/09 2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4153 Spruce Way/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: David Neiss Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That should the existing evergreen trees be damaged or destroyed during construction of the addition, said trees shall be mitigated or replaced on a lin.ear height to linear height basis. Staff shall inspect the excavation prior to pouring the foundation. 3. A request for a variance to allow for the installation of an entry sign to the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Piet Pieters Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 , APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the installation of the new sign, the applicant remove the existing free-standing building identification sign currently located on Vail Valley Drive, near the entrance to the parking lot. 2. That prior to the installation of the new sign, the applicant shall bring the property into compliance with the Town of Vail Sign Code. The PEC suggested that a Comprehensive Sign Program be considered by the applicant. 4. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC2 and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inn, located at 705 West Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH NO CONDITIONS: (setback variance) APPROVED WITH 9 CONDITIONS: (major exterior alteration) 1. That all utility companies approve the parking structure encroachment in the utility easement and the proposed utility locations. 2. That the Vail Spa Condominium Association approve atl grading and landscaping that is located on its property. *YAIL 2 TUWN ~ ~ Agenda last revised 12l09 3. That final approval by CDOT, for the proposed exit on the South Frontage Road, ` be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 4. That the proposed garage door facing the S. Frontage Road be wood sided. 5. That the retaining walls and header above the garage door, at the proposed exit on the S. Frontage Road, shall be rock faced to match the other rock facing proposed on the building. 6. That the details of the mechanical exhaust for the parking structure shall be approved by the DRB. 7. That all lighting proposed or existing on-site shall conform with the requirements of the Town's Lighting Ordinance. 8. That the proposed 3' tall planter along the south elevation of the building and the east elevation of the parking structure shall be rock-faced. 9. That the applicant shall provide 2 interior parking lot landscape islands on front of the building and shall provide a minimum of one large tree in each planter, subject to DRB approval. 5. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Discussion and recommendation. Staff: Susan Connelly 6. Approval of October 27, 1997, November 10, 1997 and November 24, 1997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Deve?opment Department , 3 . ; Agenda last revised 12/03 10 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • Monday, December 8;• 1997 AGENDA " Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30 pm- MEMBERS PRESENT - MEMBERS ABSENT - - • - -Ann Bishop Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Niess - 4153 Spruce Way 2. VRD - 1778 Vail Valley Drive 3. Lionshead Inn - 705 West Lionshead Circle Driver: George . NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to the existing property line, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Development, represented by B.J. Davis Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4153 Spruce Way/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: David Neiss Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for a variance to allow for the installation of an entry sign to the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represente.d by Piet Pieters Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC2 and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inn, Iocated at 705 West Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. _ Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello TOWN OF YAIL ~ 1 Agenda last revised 12/03 10 am 5. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Discussion and recommendation. Staff.: Susan'Connelly _6. - Approval of October 27, 1997, November 10, 1997 and November 24, 1997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community . Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. - Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published December 5, 1997 in the Vail Trail 2 - Agenda last revised 12/04/97 9am DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, December 3, 1997 3:00 P.M. - _ . PROJECT ORIENTATION1 NO LUNCH - Community Development Department 2:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Brent Alm Clark Brittain Ted Hingst Bill Pierce Ann Bishop (PEC) SITE VISITS 2:15 pm 1. Vail Associates - 600 Lionshead Mall 2. Vail Associates - Golden Peak, 458 Vail Valley Drive 3. Manor Vail - 595 Vail Valley Drive ' Driver: George PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm 1. Vail Associates - Public information signs and directories. Dominic 600 Lionshead Mall/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Clark Brittain VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 2. Vail Associates - Public information signs Dominic 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Brian McCartney MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Ted Hingst VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 3. McKeeta - Conceptual review of a new single-family residence. Dominic 1808 Alpine Drive/Lot 14, Vail Village West Filing #1. Applicant: Gordon McKeeta CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 1 rowN o*VAIL 4. Manor Vail - Lodge addition. George 595 E. Vail Valley Drive/L.ot B, Block 1, Vail Village First. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge, represented by Robert "Buff' Arnold. MOTION: Clark Brittain SECOND: Bill Pierce VOTE: 4-0 (Ann Bishop left) TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 17, 1997 . Staff Approvals The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular - office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. • Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. 2 . i Memorandum TO: Town Council . „ . Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Lionshead Master Plan Team Date: December 5, 1997 - RE: = LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN STATUS REPORT - At its December 2 worksession, members of Council expressed a desire to revisit the origins of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process and to get clear on what decisions have been made to date and now serve as a foundation for additional decision-making. This memo is - designed to respond to that desire. The memo clarifies what.a master plan is, how the Lionshead - _ Redevelopment Master Plan process started, why it was deemed desirable (and why do itat-this time), how the master planning process has been pursued to date, where we are now, and what issues must be resolved in order to proceed to a successful conclusion of the master plan~~ process that is, a conclusion that achieves the desired results. 1. HOW THIS EFFORT STARTED June 1996 Catcrlyst: Vail Associates (VA) announced its intention to redevelop its Core Site in Lionshead (i.e., the Gondola Building and the Sunbird Lodge) and suggested that the TOV undertake a comprehensive master plan for the redevelopment of all of Lionshead. The Town Council authorized staffto proceed to prepare a work program for such a process. Late Summer and Fall 1996 TOV staff worked with focus groups from the community to create a"problem statement" an articulation of what is lacking in and about Lionshead and what the TOV's responsibility is to address those issues. November 4, 1996 Town Council approved a Problem Statement, six Community Policy Objectives and a set of Urban Design Principles to be addressed in a Redevelopment Master Plan, a five-stage planning process, a community involvement commitment, Process Groundrules, an ambitious schedule, and financial collaboration with VA. Council also approved contracting with Design Workshop, Inc. to serve as the planning and design consultant on the project. H. WHAT IS A MASTER PLAN? A comprehensive framework for decisionmaking over a now-to-10 or 20 year horizon to solve existing problems and proactively achieve additional desired results over time. A master plan articulates the vision and explains how to achieve it. Page 1 of 8 , ~ . III. WHY DO A MASTER PLAN? . =In order to have a clear framework for decision-making that stays focused.on achieving desired results, i.e.;_community objectives/benefits. .Using a master plan to gaide.decisions avoids. reactive decision-making and creates more predictability about the future for property owners and . __tenants; investors, and decision-makers.: It-is an opportunity to make the whole beeome greater - than the sum of its parts. IV. WHY DO A MASTER PLAN NOW? - ' - . . Capitalize on the VA Core Site Redevelopment opportunity =to create and integrate other public and private redevelopment opportunities Capitalize on the opportunity to use tax increment financing from redevelopment . Capitalize on the visibility afforded Vail by the '99 World Alpine Ski Championships _ Capitalize on opportunity to enhance sales tax revenues, property tax revenues and_real _ estate transfer tax revenues V. HOW TO DO A MASTER PLAN? - - The Process DesignL Work Program: A. Start with the framework approved by the Town Council on November 4, 1996: Problem Statement Six Community Policy Objectives Urban Design Priniciples Process Ground Rules B. Five Stages: One - Define the Opportunities and Constraints Two - Brainstorm a "Wish List" Three - Analyze Alternatives and Select Preferred Alternatives Four - Develop and Adopt the Master Plan and Design Guidelines Five - Adopt Required Code Modifications C. Community Involvement Commitment: Maximize opportunties for interested persons to become aware, knowledgeable and able to share their points of view Newsletter and other mailings 800+ person mailing list developed Newspaper advertisements (as well as news stories) Public Forums including on Sundays, to make it more convenient for part-time residents to participate Bus tours Walking tours, both guided and self-guided Page 2 of 8 Videotapes of presentations Channel Five televised replays of tours and meetings Internet web site for on-line participation - Design charette with local architects and planners Phone conversations Meetings with individuals and groups letters received to date VI. STAGE THREE WHERE WE ARE NOW A. July 1997 Five Public View Corridors designated by Council ' B. September 1997 Analysis of Redevelopment Opportunities under Existing Regulatory Conditions (i.e., Commercial Core II Zone District limitations on height, site coverage, etc.) indicates that 7 1 % of the existing buildings in Lionshead exceed the GRFA limitations of current zoning and 84% exceed the hight limitations of current zoning. Conclrrsiort: There is little or no opporturiity for significarit redevelopmejit utlder existing zoning limitatrons. Therefor, there is little or rio opporturzity to achieve the Commirnity Policy Objectives arid sigizificarit "Wish List" items zatder c2rrrent zoning. C. 14 MASTER PLAN ELENIENTS ("Ingredients") October 11, 1997 PEC recommended approval of 10 of the 14 and suggested that several issues required more consideration Concerns also were raised by the Council and the community D. THERE ARE SEVEN OUTSTANDING ISSUES to be resolved in order to complete Stage Three and move ahead with the Redevelopment Master Plan process: 1. Transit Corridor Concept: a) THE CONCEPT: The concept of a central transit corridor through the heart of Lionshead evolved from identification of problems to be solved and opportunities to be activated (link east and west portals to Lionshead, solve existing transit problems, maximize delivery of guests to west end of retail area). A central transit corridor could achieve both sets of objectives. HOWEVER, the concept is problematic given existing technology and necessity to relocate portions of some existing buildings. b) ALTERNATIVES: Focus on achieving the desired results through other means. Discard the central transit comdor concept OR reserve a right-of-way in the event that future conditions (e.g., appropriate new technology, proposed private redevelopment of key buildings) warrrant implementation of the concept at some Page 3 of 8 future time. Another alternative to achieve the desired results over time is to maintain the status quo in terms of transit operatic?ns inthe short-term but create . over time (initially through reservation) a dedicated parallel right-of-way for transit on the South Frontage Road (vs: through the heart ofLionshead). . . • 2. Parkin : - _ a) THE CONCEPT: The concept of an 800-space underground parking structure beneath the Landmark Townhomes, Concert Hall Plaza and Montaneros evolved rom identification of problems to be solved and opportunities to be activaw, . ~ _ .._-f - including a shortage of public parking, the need to replace existing parking,. opportunities in the event of redevelopment of the North and West Day3..ofs, attd !the desire to activate the western portal(Concert Hall Plaza) and west end-of the. - Lionshead Mall. A parking structure beneath Landmark Townhomes, Concert - Hall Plaza and Montaneros could achieve both sets of objectives. HOWEVER, implementation of that concept would be dependent upon demolition-type - redevelopment of those properties, which is too tenuous a possibility. . b) ALTERNATIVES: Focus on achieving the desired results through other means-_ Alternatives include adding another deck to the existing Lionshead Parking Structure, building a new parking structure in a new "West End", orinceAit.vizin_g ~ - private properties to add more below-grade parking spaces than would befec}µired for their own uses in conjunction with their proposed redevelopments. I 3. Realignment of South Fronta,ge Road Concept: a) THE CONCEPT: The concept of realigning the South Frontage Road in the vicinity of the VA Maintenance Facility was to create a new "West End" development opportunity for mixed use development, including locals housing, on a contiguous parcel of land created, in part through the relocation of the VA Maintenance Facility. HOWEVER, relocation of'the VA Yard is problematic. b) ALTERNATIVES: Focus on achieving the desired results through other means. Creation of new "West End" mixed use development is not dependent upon realignment of the South Frontage Road. The West Day Lot, VA Maintenance Facility site (if the industrial uses were relocated), the Holy Cross Lot, and the Old Town Shops all still could be used separately oi- otherwise in ways that achieve desired community objectives. In addition, the current alignment of the South Frontage Road could be maintained but the roadway depressed and built over to create an additional development opportunity in the "West End". 4. VA's Concept for Its Core Site: VA has a concept for redevelopment of the Core Site and has been sharing that Page 4 of 8 concept (in the form of a model, renderings, etc.) with interested persons. VA has made no formal submittal to the TOV, nor has the TOV taken any informal position on VA's concept. The fact that V.-A's concept is being discussed at the-same- . time-as~the Master Plan has led.to• some,co:nfusion about the:relationship betw=n.ihe - two. - • To clarify: VA's public statement of its intention to redevelop its Core Site was,_in - fact, the catalyst for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process. VA is paying : - far half the cost of the master planning process;;as approved by the Town Couneil on = November 6, 1996. VA participates actively in.the master planning process. .~,HOWEVER, Process Ground Rule Number 3(adopted by the Town Council on November 4, 1996) states: - "The Town of Vail will work collaboratively with Vail Associates (VA) on the master planning process for Lionshead and will involve all other interested citizens, business owners and property owners in the master planning process. 'lhe master plaii ultimately recommended may or may - rtot reflect development approaches czrrrefitly being explored hy VA." . (Emphasis added.) VA's concept for redevelopment of the Core Site and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process are separate and independent. Whatever Ma.ster Plaft artd implemetiting regrrlations 7rllimalely are adopled will coritrol ivhat VA -may-aeftw-ly__ ' develop ort the Core Site. 5. FQCUS on Achieving Desired Community Policy Objectives, Not on Preserving Private Views from Private Balconies The vast majority of letters sent to the Council to date regarding the Lionshead t. Redevelopment Master Plan process have come from second homeowners who express concerns about the height of VA's proposed redevelopment on the Core. Site, loss of their private views, the central transit corridor concept, arnd- chanMin- - Lionshead in general. Very few of the letters address the Community P-olicy Objectives upon which the master plannning process is predicated. It is important to recognize that there is no legal protection of private views and no legal basis for relying on zoning regulations remaining the same in the face of changed conditions. The Town Council adopted a Problem Statement and six Community Policy Objectives to be achieved in a redevelopment master plan for Lionshead. The larger community benefits to be achieved through a redevelopment master plan may, in fact, differ substantially from strictly private interests. Page 5 of 8 5. Height/ Mass Avoidine Creating the "Beaver Creek" Experience in Lionshead a) The Beaver Creek Ex er~ ience: 1. What does fiot work well: Pedestrian perception that buildings are too massive Little or no visual access to the mountain; blocked by buildings Gradient requires going UP to access the mountain . [ADD FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE] 2. What does work well: The materials used in the buildings Activities/amenities (ice rink, theatre, escalators, heated steps, etc.) Stream [ADD FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE] b) The River Run at Keystone Experience: 1. What does not work well: Long flat facades . Barriers between pedestrians and stores Plaza too large; lacking amenities Certain materials (e.g., corrugated metal) Too symmetrical street facade Too narrow/unimportant an entranceway [ADD FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE] 2. What does work well: Strong visual connection to the mountain Building mass scaled down toward mountain Roof pitch changes; gables Sun spots Materials (e.g., warm stone) Diveristy in facades and materials Bridge over stream [ADD FROM YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE] c) What experience do we warit to create in Lionshead? Pedestrian street orientation towards the mountain Public view corridors Sun pockets at key locations Enhanced stream amenity Appropriately-scaled pedestrian streets (width) and plazas (size) Page 6 of 8 Pedestrian scate buildings (e.g., 30-degree cone of visual perception; create visual interest on bottom two floors; step buildings back above grade) . _ • Pedestrian circulation patterns; gates, focal areas; etc. that draw people ' - . . through the entirety of Lionshead, not just the VA Core Site or a straight shot to the ski yard d) Can we achieve those objectives create that experierrce irt Lionshead under the existing Commercial Core II Zone District regulations? Current CCII Regulations/ limitations on redeveloprnent: Height: 45 feet for a flat roof 48 feet for a pitched roof GRFA: 80% Site coverage: 70% Setbacks: Vary; generally 10 feet from lot line Corzclusion: As stated in the preseritatiori ifT September 1997 and reiterated above, becaarse the vast majority of existing buildirtgs in Lionshead already exceed the limitatrons (?ezisting Zofllflg, there is little or no opporlrtriityfor • significaitt redevelopmerat irrlder existrng ionirzg and, therefor, little--or-no opportrrnity to achieve the Commufiity Policy Objeclives afld any significant "Wish List " items l[i1dC'P 8x/Sllilg ZOI11Ilg. e) Alternative to Existing Zoning: Establish parameters performarrce criteria to evaluate how future development proposals advance the Community Poliey ' Objectives and additional policies and design guidelines set forth in the Redevelopment Master Plan and implementing r.egulations. "Performance zoning" focuses on quality objectives instead of quantity limitations. Town Council still would maintain ftnal development review authority over specific developmerzt proposals. 7. Implementation How to Make the Desired Results Happen? a) Phasing ublic improvements in Lionshead: What can the TOV do in two years . five years ten+ years? Page 7 of 8 b) Grriding 12rivate improvements: Incentives Design Guidelines . c) Directing 12rivate improvements: . . • - Regulatory requirements Acquisition of private property by public entity (e.g., Downtown Development Authority, Urban Renewal Authority) d) • Possible Financing Mechariisms Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is dependent upon creating a substantial _ incremental increase in taxes through significant redevelopment. - VI. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO CONCLUDE STAGE THREE OF THIS - " REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN PROCESS? - - Staff is prepared to bring to the Planning-and Environmental Commission; for recommendation, - and the Towri Council, for action, a"checklist" of all remaining decisions needed to conclude • Stage Three, with accompanying graphics, whenever so directed by Council. The "Stage Three Decisions Checklist" will be substantially iri the form of the 14 Master Plan Elements previously - ' presented, with additional detail on alternatives available to achieve the desired objectives. Council will then be in a position to act on each element of the Master Plan selecting or creating the prefened alternatives. The result of that selection process on the elements will be the conceptual framework for the Master Plan. VII. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER STAGE THREE IS COMPLETED? Once Council has reached consensus on all elements of the Master Plan conceptual framework, the team of staff and consultant will prepare for approval or modification by Council a proposed work plan and schedule for Stage Four, during which the conceptual framework will be fleshed out in to a draft Master Plan document and made available for community input, PEC review, and ultimately Council action. The proposed Master Plan document produced in Stage Four will identify all implementing actions required, including code modifications, if any. Any required code modification ordinances would be drafted and processed as Stage Five. VIII. ACTION REQUESTED AFTER TODAY'S DISCUSSION The Planning and Environmental Commission is requested to forvKard to Council any comments or recommendations it may have in regard to the items discussed in this memo or other items relating to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED TODAY FROM COUNCIL. The Master Pla.n Team requests that Council consider, for discussion at the December 16 worksession, how you wish'to proceed to conclude Stage Three of this process, including what schedule you prefer. Q ' t DRAFT INTERGOVERNIVIENTAL AGREEMENT This Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement.'-.') is made and entered this =th day of December,'1997, between EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT ("ERWSD") and TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO ("Town"), collectively referred'to as "Parties". . WHEREAS, Town is the coordinating entity and developer of a proposed multi-unit housing project to be used primarily for the benefit of employees in-the Eagle County-region ("Project"); and WHEREAS, ERWSD wishes to participate in the_Project, and is willing to contribute two parcels of property toward the Project; and - WHEREAS, ERWSD and the Town believe the development would benefit by maximizing the number of housing units that could be made available; and • - WHEREAS, ERWSD and Town have both determined that the provision of housing for the benefit of local employees is an appropriate, necessary and valid public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is mutually acknowledged, Parties agree as follows: 1. Contribution of Propeijy, a. Town shall diligently pursue the acquisition of a parcel of real property presently owned by USFS, and more particularly described on Exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by this reference ("Town Property"). This Agreement is expressly contingent upon Town's acquisition of the Town Property from USFS. b. ERWSD is presently the owner of 2 parcels of property which are more particularly described on Exhibit B and shall be contributed to the project. 2. Joint Participation and the Affordable Housing Effort. Each party is a co-applicant in the development of the land, each shall contribute the land held by the ERWSD and the Town toward the project and shall take title to the forthcoming dwelling units in accordance to the following general guidelines: f:\everyone\Andy\97_admin\envsd.nl l 1 = DRAFT . a. As co-applicants, each party shall co-sign the Town of Vail applications for development review (i.e. Special Development District Amendment and Design Review applications). The Town, as the lead agency, will bear all ....initial eosts associated with the design, planning and development review of - the project. . . b. Upon approval of the project and prior to the issuance of building permits,- - _ the ERWSD and Town shall provide construction financing for the project - , or shall make interim cash contributions to cover construction costs or shall ~ make other provisions for the construction financing, such as requiring the. -developer to provide it. The funds shall cover all construction costs and shall be provided by each party based on the pro-rata share of units to be ultimately owned by each party. Costs associated with the construction phase shall include, but not be limited to permit and tap fees, excavation, building materials, site work, landscaping, change orders, labor, etc. c. Upon completion of the project as evidenced by the issuance of Temporary Certificates of Occupancy, and prior to any individual sales of units, each party shall dedicate the land each owns ta a homeowner's association to be created during the construction phase of the development. d. Upon completion of the project and after the establishment of a homeowner's association, each entity shall take title to its share of units, which it will then sell or lease to its employees. T'he units shall be distributed as follows: 1-- TOV: Six units. 2-- ERWSD: 71he balance of the development, likely to be 12 units. 3-- If ERWSD does not sell or lease its share of the units to its employees, the Town may then purchase the balance to sell or lease to its employees. 4-- Remaining units shall be made available to the general public through a system similar to the system used to select buyers for the Vail Commons Development. e. Each party shall have first right of refusal on any unit resale included in the initial distribution per paragraphs d-1 and d-2. Each party shall have second right of refusal on any unit sale not exercised by the other party. f. The ERWSD and Town will establish and implement a maximum cap on appreciation for resales in order to ensure the long term affordability of the local employee housing units. All units shall have a deed restriction consistent with the restrictions attached as Exhibit C(i.e. "Vail Commons" f:\everyone\AndyU7 admin\envsd.nll 2 . DRAFT deed restrictions.) Such restrictions, in addition to being included in each deed of conveyance, shall be incorporated into the condominium declarations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT By: Frederick P. Sackbauer, IV, Chairman ATTEST: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The foregoing Intergovernmental Agreement was acknowledged before me this th day of 19_, by Frederick P. Sackbauer; IV, as Chairman of Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: f:\everyoneWndyU7_admin\e[wsd.n 11 3 DRAFT TOWN OF VAIL - By: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager ATTEST: Lorelei Dorialdson, Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The foregoing Intergovernmental Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of 19 . by Robert W. McLaurin, as Town Manager, of the Town of Vail, Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: f:\everyoneWndyl97 admin\ecwsd.nll 4 To: Members of the Town Council From: Suzanne Silverthorn Subject: Park Free After 3 Date: 12-5-97 Curtin-Hill Sports is the first business to begin promoting the Park Free After 3. If you see Jack Curtin, Mrs. Hill or Susan Harvey, please thank them for setting the example for the business community. Also, please help us encourage the other merchants to do the same. Vail Daily, Friday, December 5, 1997--Page 3 ; :o; , . .:i:. . , , • . . y: . . . , . . ~ ' . Y. • e`9 . . ~ , , : xe~....... ; . .:i . . .;r.:•,.,r . s _ . . . . . ; ;...o .i,p~:. ~ " ' . . . . . ; . . : . .e.. ~ - . : . i ; 2~. y . . ~ , y . . r . , . , . . ~ ..,.zr ~ y: ii:.'3 t , r . . . , : . . . ~ . ~ ~ gg : , . . , . . . . > . ; „ ~ , ~y `.'~y~';.,:.::.. Tii~. `~i: . R , . ~4 . , . . . . . . ~e. ~ : . . . . . i , . : : . . ~ . . : • , . . - ...o:i.. ~ . , . : . . . . ' . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . ~ _ n . . w. ' ~ . > „ '~d.~'...~.,::i:.. : . ~ ` ' : . ~ . .'~.0. Y.~. . ~ ' . . ~.W~ k . . : ~3~:~ - . . : . . s , . ~ : . ~ . .."...i:`::i:::._ . . . . . , . . : ~ . . . . . . . . ~ ~9~ . . . . . . . ; . . . ~ . ; ~U.P ~ . _ ~ . . . . n , : . . ' :~~::c~x.......:.;.~, w. ~ , . . . ' _ „ . : . . y . ' ~ ~ - . .:i•:;:'~"~z,'. . : . ~ - . . . , . . . . . . , .....:.:,:~„b;;;' . :q;' < 9.. ~ ~ . , . , . . Curtinoffill Sborts . - FREE SKI AND SNOWBOARD RENTALS •og Located at the top of Bridge Street across from the Vail Village • : . d TicTcet office. Look for the yellow awnings. , . • 476-5337 tC Henrietta (Holly) Simmenroth 11/29/97 10 Cora Lane Chester, N.J. 07930 Owner: Lifthouse Condo #412 Lionshead Circle, Vail, CO 51657 Vail Town Council Town Of Vaii 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen, This letter is in protest to the recently received preliminary plans of Lionshead that Vail Associates will be presenting to the town for approval. The document referred to is the "LIONSHEAD CORE REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY" dated 9/23/97 depicting 44 CONDOS, 6 PENTHOUSE CONDOS, and a 127 ROOM HOTEL. The plans indicate the buildings will be more than 6 stories in height with existing corridors of traffic narrowing down to alleys to the gondola and chair #4. Before proceeding, I would like to introduce myself and explain my concerns as they relate to me personally. I am known as "Holly" , am a school nurse and health educator, and have been visiting the Vail Valley for more than 20 years on a regular basis staying at the Lifthouse Condos which are managed by Packy Walker. During the first 15 years, I was able to sava enough money for a down payment on a condo and waited for one of the top floor mountain facing units to come up for sale. On August 19,1991, my dream came true. Although other units in the building not facing the mountain were listed on the market for about one half the price, I purchased unit #412, a mountain view unit from which I can lay on the living room couch and watch the skiers descend the slopes. I had always anticipated that in my retirement, just a few years away, I would be able to spend much more time in my Lifthouse condo enjoying the spectacular view of the mountain. I am sure my story as a Lionshead condo owner is not unique. The above captioned plan will obstruct the view of many other condo owners in the area, not only shattering our dreams of relaxing and taking in the beautiful natural environment of the mountains through our windows, but also reducing the monetary value of the units in direct proportion to the loss of the view. I realize there are Town of Vail View corridors set forth in Chapter 18,73 of the Municipal Code, and private views not identified in the code aze not protected by TOV regulations. At this time of drastic change, I implore you to revisit these View Corridors creating new, wider View Cotridors in Lionshead and, as an equitable solution to amend the Municipal Code to not a11ow any new building to be higher than the existingLstructure without a variance granted after obtaining Mroval of all proneriv owners wtuch would be effected bv obstrucrion of view of the mountain or the Gore range. A"Five Star" hotel increasing the "Live Bed" capacity would certainly enhance the area, but I fail to see why Lionshead needs 44 more condos and 6 penthouse condos as the proposal indicates. A few years ago when VA officials met with hotel consultants to consider the feasibiliry of bringing either a grand hotel, condominium units with retail, a mixed use boutique hotel or a boutique hotel with condominiums and retail into the heart of Lionshead , the study showed the core site was not well suited physically to hotel development because of lack of size, poor access, etceteras. In the Six Policy Objectives identified by the Town Council as a foundarion for the planning process, improved access and circulation was identified as one of the major needs. Since the gondola was moved to the base of the mountain, neat to the bridge, the slder traffic at the base has become much more congested requiring more open space in that area, not less. The Lionshead Master Plan Stage II - Program Development Phase elicited public responses in the format of a"Wish List", obviously appropriately named, as numerous responses addressed the need for more open public space not less. r ? . R, Regarding the Redevelopment Project, Mr. David Corbin, Vice President of VA Real Estate Group is reported as saying the obvious benefits to Vail Associates would be the increased number of skiers, use of the ski school and its retail sales. The benefits to the Town of Vail would be increased collection of ski lift taaces, lodging taxes, property taxes and sales tax. Regarding the Lionshead Core Redevelopment Program Summary dated 9/23/97, I would like to say, the increase in revenues to the VA and the TOV will be great, but if this plan goes into effect without amelioration, the loss of aesthetics to the community of Lionshead will be devastating. Truly Yours, l Henrietta (Holly) S' enroth J . so FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 24, 1997 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Vail Tomorrow BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND VAIL TOMORROW HOSTS SECOND COMMUNITY MIXER, DEC. 9 (Vail)--Encouraged by the success of Vail Tomorrow's first "community mixer," the Building Community Team will host a second mixer from 5:15 to 7 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 9, at the Dancing Bear in West Vail. The gathering is intended to bring together elected officials and their Vail-area constituents for informal conversation and interaction. Anyone who cares about Vail is encouraged to attend. The event, one of 40 strategic actions developed by the Vail Tomorrow process, is intended to strengthen opportunities for community interaction. About 80 peaple attended the first community outreach mixer in October, including elected officials from, the Vail Town Council, Vail Recreation District and Eagle County School Board. For more information, contact Suzanne Silverthorn of the Vail Tomorrow Building Cammunity Team at 479-2115. # # # P.O. Box 1019 • Vail, Colorado 81698 • 970-479-2451 • http://vail.netlVail-Tomorrow TOWN OF VAIL EXTENSION LIST (FOR INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONLY) December 1, 1997 MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Main 2100 Main 2138 Main/Dispatch................ 2200 Georgie Manzanares . . . . . . . . . . 2104 Vacant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2369 Animal Conirol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2256 Conference Room . . . . . . . . . . . . 2751 AA Hougland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2321 Jim Applegate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2352 Councif Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . 2153 Building Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . 2149 Joe Busch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2222 Custodian's Oifice . . . . . . . . . . . . 2152 JR Mondragon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143 Checkpoint Chariie . . . . . . . . . 476-7603 Mail Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2155 Susan Connelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2140 Code Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . 2232 Tito's Pager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949-2529 Charlie Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2142 Tommy Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2346 Kathleen Dorram . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2128 Kris Cureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2207 TOWN COUNCIL Enviromental HeaNh . . . . . . . . . . . 2333 Steve Erickson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2249 VOICE MAIL 1860 RussellForrest............... 2146 Chuck House 2221 Emst Glatzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2147 Kathie HugheslKathy Warren . . . . 2208 Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ProTem Press 1 Andy Knudtsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2440 Jeff Layman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2211 Michael Arnefl . . . . . . . . . . . . . Press 2 Vacant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2150 Matt Lindvall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2223 Sybill Navas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Press 3 Dominic Maurieito . . . . . . . . . . . . 2148 Greg Morrison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2209 Kevin Foley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Press 4 Mike Mollica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2744 Kurt Mulson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2214 Bob Armour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Press 5 Judy Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2139 PolicelDispatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2245 Michael Jewett . . . . . . . . . . . . . Press 6 George Ruther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2145 Reuben's Pager . . . . . . . . . . . 949-2027 Rob Ford, Mayor . . . . . . . . . . . . Press 7 Vacant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2454 Road Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2226 Kris Widlak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3447 Joe Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2329 ADMINISTRATION/COMMUNITY INFO Corey Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2212 Larry Pardee/Const. Inspector . . . 2198 Sergeanfs Desk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2215 Pam Brandmeyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2113 Mike Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3433 Mary Caster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2118 PUBLIC WORKSMIAINTENANCE Linda Wolz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2210 Lorelei Donaldson . . . . . . . . . . . . 2136 Bob McLaurin 2105 Main 2158 Tom Moorhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2107 Lori Aker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2159 VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT Suzanne Silverthorn . . . . . . . . . . . 2115 Gregg Barrie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2337 Vail Tomorrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2451 Conterence Room . . . . . . . . . . . . 2476 Main . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2279 Anne Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106 Carpenter's Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2168 Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2450 John Gallegos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2170 Camp Vail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2290 HUMAN RESOURCES/SAFETY Larry Grafel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173 Dobson Ice Arena . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2271 Greg Hall 2160 Golf........................ 2260 Susie Combs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2114 Susie Hervert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2444 Nature Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2291 Conference Room 2109 Jim Hoza 2165 Tennis 2294 Job Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2343 Henry Lovato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2473 Youth Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2292 Lunchroom 2110 Lunch Room 2299 Annette McCorkle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111 Todd Oppenheimer . . . . . . . . . . . 2161 John Power 2332 Vacant 2169 TDD LINES Carmen Slagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112 Debbie Roeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2159 Sign Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2322 Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479-1882 FINANCE/INFORMATION SYSTEMS Leo Vasquez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2171 Municipal Building . . . . . . . . . 479-2356 Police ...................479-2233 Main 2120 Nancy Sweeney/AIPP.......... 2344 TRC ....................479-2825 Chris Anderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2119 Vail Information Center . . . . . 479-2357 Ron Braden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2154 FLEET MAINTENANCE Lunchroom 2156 Sally Lorton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2125 Donna Arnotd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2162 FAX PHONES Jacque Lovato 2121 Mechanic Shop............... 2162 Parking Information . . . . . . . . . . . 2330 Todd Scholl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2163 Building Maintenance . . . . . . . 479-2130 Parking Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2122 Byron Stanley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2162 Community Development . . . . 479-2452 Judy Popeck 2123 Dispatch .................479-3434 . Greg Raile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2345 TRANSPORTATION CENTER Finance/CouNlnfo Systems . . 479-2248 Sales Tax Assistant . . . . . . . . . . . 2324 Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479-2176 Reatha Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2120 Main . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2178 Fleet Maintenance 479-2443 Steve Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2116 Bus Schedule Information . . . 328-8143 Human Resaurces . . . . . . . . . 479-2470 Sandy Yost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2124 Bus Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2358 Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479-2192 Conference Room . . . . . . . . . . . . 2458 Municipal Building . . . . . . . . . 479-2157 Jody Doster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2174 Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4794216 MUNICIPAL COURT Layana Doster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2467 Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479-2166 Sheilah Farro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2178 TRC/Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479-1715 Main . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2129 Lionshead Parking Structure TRC Parking/VUinter . . . . . . . . 479-2453 Buck Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131 Booth/VUinter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2180 Golf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479-2355 Diana Glenn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2129 Parking Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . 2467 VRD q7g_2~g7 . . inda Moore 2132 Mike Rose................... 2349 Parking Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2133 TRC Lunchroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2181 ADA INFORMATION Tom Silverman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2132 Vllage BoothlWinter . . . . . . . . . . 2177 JUDI ANDERSON-WRIGHT LIBRARY HOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303-364-9220 FIRE CU . . . . 970-351-2691 Susan Boyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2194 VOICE MAIL (FRI ONLY) . . . 4793072 Main 2250 Circulation 2184 Jeff Atencio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2462 Community Room Reservations . 2191 Captain's Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2254 Annie Fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2195 Dick Duran 2252 Reference................... 2187 Elaine Duran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2251 Annie M. Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2186 Duty Office 2254 Staff Oftice 2188 East Vail Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2257 John Gulick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2253 Hours: . . Monday - Thursday 10:00-8:00 Mike McGee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2135 Friday - 10:00-6:00 ViIlage Fire Station . . . . . . . . . . . . 2250 Saturday/Sunday - 11:00-6:00 h ~y~ ~7 TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-.479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY December 3, 1997 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER 2 Work Session Briefs Councilmembers present: Arnett, Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas --Site Visit and Appeal of B&B Conditional Use Approval by PEC Following a site visit and a public hearing, the Council voted 5-2 (Kurz, Armour against) to overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's Oct. 27 conditional use approval that would have allowed for a bed and breakfast operation at 1477 Aspen Grove Lane. In overturning the approval, the Council majority found that the applicant, William Miller, needed approval from his homeowner's association before filing the application with the town due to use af a private road. For more information, contact Mike Mollica in the Community Development Department at 479-2144. --Debris Flow Hazard Map The Council voted 7-0 to approve a request by homeowner Evie Nott to remove her property at 2645 Bald Mountain Road from the town's debris flow hazard map. The Council action was based on a recommendation by a professional geologist that a berm constructed in 1984 eliminates the hazard identified previously. In removing the property from the hazard map, Nott agreed to waive liability against the town in the case of future risks associated with debris flows. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146. --Lionshead Master Plan As part of the Lionshead Master Plan discussion, Councilmembers shared their thoughts about last week's walking tour of the River Run Village in Keystone. River Run is a new planned unit development ski base approved by Summit County. Council impressions included the importance of sun pockets, the use of overhangs and pitched roofs to reduce the scale of the buildings, view corridors of the mountain, the importance of gathering places, retail accessibility, building textures, diverse architecture, the size of the pedestrian corridors and plazas, character and personality traits, and the placement of public art, among others. Councilman Michael Arnett said redevelopment in Lionshead should focus on improving the first two levels of the - buildings to reduce the canyon-like scale for pedestrians. In response to a question by Town Manager Bob McLaurin regarding next steps in the Lionshead decision-making process, Mayor Rob Ford asked McLaurin to prepare a recommendation for the next meeting. For more information, contact McLaurin at 479-2105. --Outdoor Lighting Amendment/Accessory Uses As a preview to the evening meeting, the Council reviewed a two-part ordinance that would (more) C~ RECYCLEDPAPER r : TOV Council Highlights/Add 1 exempt low level (18 inches or less) outdoor lighting for steps and walkways from the total number of lights permitted per residential lot and--as a housekeeping measure--to allow approval of accessory uses to be conducted outside of a building in the Commercial Service Center Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. During discussion, the Council reduced the intensity of the outdoor lighting levels recommended in the ordinance from 400 to 250 lumens (equivalent to a 25 watt bulb) per fixture. For more information, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Information Update - There were two announcements: the TOV Holiday party is Dec;. 12; dinner with the Avon Town Council is set for Dec. 4. Andy Knudtsen, senior housing policy planner, briefly revieweci a memo updating the Council on the town's housing efforts. He said a draft agreement with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (in which the town will take the lead on construction of the Red Sandstone Creek housing project) will be available for Council review at next week's meeting. Councilmembers Michael Arnett and Michael Jewett stated their interest in creating a mix of for-sale units and seasonal rental units at the site. The previous density was approved at 17 for-sale units. For more information, contact Knudtsen at 479-2440. --Council Reports Kevin Foley attended a Turn it Up! training session earlier in the day. He complimented organizers of the event. --Other Michael Arnett asked fellow Councilmembers if there was interest in considering legislation which would allow modest upgrades of certain properties (those within existing gross residential floor area allowances) without requiring additional modifications to the property other than meeting building code requirements. Arnett said the proposal 'would provide a"stroke of fairness" to the community. The remaining Councilmembers agreed to consider such an ordinance. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead will be asked to prepare a draft. Kevin Foley inquired about the following: removal of a bus shelter on the Golf Course route by Golden Peak; the existence of an impromptu parking lot behind Ski Club Vail; horse carriage clean-up operations; promotion of Park Free After 3; repair work at the old town shop parking lot; and bus service requests on Chamonix Lane and late-night service to East Vail. Ludwig Kurz said the downhill course at Beaver Creek, which hosted its first practice run earlier in the day, will prove to be one of the top downhill courses in the world. In following up on a request from a representative of the Eagle Valley Leadership Coalition regarding creation of a regional council of governments, Bob Armour suggested sending a letter to the group expressing reservations about the concept. The Council voted 7-0 to authorize Sybill Navas and Bob Armcrur to pick out new chairs for the Council. The money will come from Council contingency fundr,. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead advised the Council that due to the revised GRFA ordinance, Todger Anderson's residence would qualify to convert an existing crawl space into GRFA, except for an added restriction that was entered into at the time of construction in 1992. The Council directed Moorhead to work with Anderson in agreeing to release the restriction. This will permit the project to go through the process to finish out the existing space. (more) t . TOV Council Highlights/Add 2 Evening Session Briefs Councilmembers present: Arnett, Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation There was no citizen participation. --Consent Agenda The Council voted 7-0 to approve the consent agenda which contained two items: minutes from the Nov. 4 and 18 evening meetings; and a resolution designating signers for library deposit transactions. --Outdoor Lighting Amendment/Accessory Uses The Council voted 7-0 to approve first reading of an ordinance that amends two sections of the Municipal Code. The first exempts low-to-the-ground outdoor lights from the total number of lights permitted on a residential lot. The measure is intended to improve the safety of residential stairs and sidewalks. The second amendment is a housekeeping measure that allows accessory uses to be conducted outside of a building in the Commercial Service Center Zone District subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The measure clarifies a Council decision earlier in the year to allow a batting cage to be operated outside at Garton's Saloon as an accessory use. For more information, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --TOV Police/Fire Employees' Pension Fund Amendment The Council voted 7-0 to approve an ordinance on first reading to amend the pension plan to reflect changes in the law. The amendment, among other things, allows the town to refund accounts less than $3,500 if there has been a break in service for one year. The administrative changes were recommended by the town's pension attorney. For more information, contact Steve Thompson, finance director, at 479-2116. --TOV Employees' Pension Fund Amendment The Council voted 7-0 to approve this ordinance on first reading that duplicates the changes outlined above. For more information, contact Steve Thompson, finance director, at 479-2116. --Supplemental Appropriation The Council voted 6-1 (Jewett against) to approve first reading of a$323,916 supplemental appropriation to the 1997 budget. In voting against the ordinance, Councilman Michael Jewett said he couldn't support the measure because it contains a$5,000 appropriation for noise mitigation at Vail Commons. Jewett has called the mitigation an inappropriate expenditure by the town because it subsidizes one of the largest grocers in the country. Jewett said there's even talk in the community about referring the matter to a vote of the people. The Council voted 4-2 (Jewett and Foley against) Oct. 21 to authorize the project to reduce noise levels caused by a compressor at City Market (City Market also agreed to contribute $5,000 to share in the mitigation cost). Last night, Councilman Kevin Foley said he also felt the mitigation was an inappropriate town expense. But Councilmembers Sybill Navas, Ludwig Kurz and Rob Ford said they stood by their decision because it provides direct benefit to the neighborhood, not City _ Market. Because the noise level wasn't in violation of town codes, the Council couldn't require City Market to improve the situation, they said. In addition, the three said it would be unfortunate if the matter were brought to a public vote, noting that the cost of the election might be higher than the matter in question. Also last night, Town Manager Bob McLaurin noted that the project had already been approved following Council authorization in October; the action before the Council now, he said, is to appropriate the funds. (more) ~ ; TOV Council Highlights/Add 3 --TCI Follow-up The Council heard a report from the Denver-based consulting firm of E3S1 (Enhanced Video, Voice & Data Systems, Inc.) regarding the town's franchise agreement with TCI Cablevision. E3S1 was hired by the town to evaluate TCI's current plant and to review various options for improvement of the plant. The work was initiated following TCI's request to modify the current 15-year franchise agreement with the town. Rather than rebuild the system with fiber optics by January 1998 as the current franchise requires, TCI has proposed a hybrid system containing a combination of fiber optic improvements along with digital compression technology. During last night's presentation, Chip White of E3S1 said plant improvements undertaken by TCI within the past year have already improved the signal quality by as much as 30 percent in Vail. Those improvements include installation of a fiber optic network from the plant's headend in Avon through Dowd Junction to West Vail, and from West Vail to Aspen Lane in East Vail. White recommends that TCI also upgrade its plant from an analog capacity of 330 megahertz to 400 megahertz, which will add capacity for 12 new analog channel s. From.there, he said, three of those analog channels could then be converted to digital channels at a compression ration of 12-to-1, netting 36 more digital programming sources. The end result would provide up to 46 analog channels and 72 digital channels for a total programmirig availability of 118 channels, he said. White also recommended that a consistent maintenance agreement be implemented between TCI and the town in which cut cable, pedestal damage and relocation requests are logged and reported. The current TCI system provides 37 available analog channels and 36 digital channels for a total of 73 channels; the franchise agreernent calls for a total of 78 analog channels by 1998. In response to questions by Councilmembers, White said the hybrid system of fiber optic and digital compression would serve the best purpose for cable subscribers because it would offer better quality, more capacity and more flexibility. The fiber optic rebuild proposed originally, he said, is no longer state-of-the-art technology. In addition, customers can choose whether or not they want to pay for the added digital channels, he said. With the fiber optic rebuild, TCI would have the authority to pass the upgrade costs on directly to the customers which would result in higher monthly bills. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said a staff recommendation would be presented to the Council in the next few weeks regarding next steps. For more information, contact McLaurin at 479-2105. --Code Codification The Council voted 7-0 to approve first reading of an ordinance adopting a recodified municipal code following two years of work. In addition to printed versions, the code has been formatted on CD-ROM for improved accessibility. --Town Manager's Report In his town manager's report, Bob McLaurin asked the Council to begin thinking about a date for a strategic planning retreat. --Other Councilman Kevin Foley acknowledged a letter from Vail Assor,iates complimenting the Fire Department for its response to a call at the Golden Peak ski base. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS Dec. 9 Work Session PEC/DRB Review Lionshead Master Plan Booth Falls Rockfall Mitigation (Site Visit & Discussion) (more) , . TOV Council Highlights/Add 4 Dec. 16 Work Session 20 Year Anniversaries (Dick Duran & Mike McGee) Lionshead Master Plan Dec. 16 Evening Meeting First Reading, Ordinance No. 26, Code Codification First Reading, Ordinance No. 25, Supplemental Appropriation First Reading, Ordinance No. 23, TOV Police/Fire Employee Pension Amendment First Reading, Ordinance No. 24, TOV Employee Pension Amendment Second Reading, Ordinance No. 22, Design Guidelines Amendment Lionshead Master Plan # # # TG RECEIVED DE~ 2 199? Gunter W. Koch, D.D.S. Y 11861 Red Bud Trail North Buchanan, MI 49107 (616) 473-2163 ' November 28, 1997 , r Vall 'I'OWIl CAU27C11 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Sirs: I was overwhelmed to learn that Vail Associates are a'skingfor approval to build a huge monstrosity in the open area in front of Lift House Condominiums and other surrounding buildings in Lionshead. A few years ago each property owner of Lionshead was asked to contribute to make the clock tower and Lionshead Circle more attractive, and we were only too glad to contribute to this project. It really gave this area a feeling of opealness and character that Vail should possess and the image it wishes to portray to the inter- national and national skiers who come to Vail. Now you,.want,to destroy all the effort extended in that direction because Vail As- sociates want to build the big buildings whose primary concern is only monetary and not in the interest of its property owners. This would obstruct the view for every- one concerned in the Lionshead Circle area, who have paid taxes and assessments since the early 1970s. If.we wanted skyscrapers, we would have bought in Chicago or New York. We want to preserve the scenic view that we invested in when we purchased pro- perty in Lionshead Circle. I also question the wisdom in making this a conjested area when it comes to fire pro- tection. How are you going to be able to get a Fire Dept. ladder truck into the area to rescue third and fourth story guests and tennants in case of a major fire? I feel if you allow this project to move forward, you will destroy this part of Lions- head in which we have invested. Vail Associates are only interested in monetary gains and could later sell to foreign investors that,.could be a contributing factor to crime and drug dealers in this area. Thank you for considering the wishes of the property owners in Lionshead. Very sincerely yours, . ter W. Koch, D. D. S. GWK s'esr?k RECElVEG DEC 4 1997 y--'_-.~-- ~4604 Southshore Drive Metairie, Louisiana 70002 November 24, 1997 Vail Town Council -Town of Vail 75. South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Lionshead Redevelopment Plan Dear Council Members: We have been owners of a Lifthouse Condo unit for 4 years, which looks out onto Vail Mountain. We have been following the redevelopment plans closely via our Vail Trail subscription as well as through correspondence which the Town of Vail has mailed to us. We are strongly opposed to any building that would block our corridor of view. Increasing the overall height and width of the old gondola building would prevent many people from enjoying their current views. It would also eliminate the sunshine that the established restaurants of Lionshead which are located on the ground level of the Lifthouse Condo unit enjoy. We purchased our unit because of our great view and believe that it is inappropriate for the construction of additional buildings that would block the view of the current owners. If additional buildings must be constructed to increase the number of beds available close to the mountain, then we respectfully request that the dimensions be kept in line with what is currently in place (height as well as width). We would appreciate receiving copies of plans so we may contribute our opinions to the process of redeveloping Lionshead. Thank you for including us in the process. We look forward to continued correspondence from you. Most sincerely, C~~,. ' • Michael and Colleen Block f ,-2I419 7 G w # sup~~~ . JACKSONV{LLE MAHINE 9UPPLY, INC. P.O. BOX 7309. JadksorrAlle. Florme 92239 UOCAL (9") 387•3524 w?n wArs (aoo) ia, -sM FACSIMILE (904) 387-9560 ~ E . J-MAR MARINE INDUSTRIES, DIV. P.O. BOX 11959, SL Petets6uYp, FbritlA 3373:1 LOCAL (573) 572-0192 , r,nn waTS (effl) MI-=582 FA(;$IMILE (613)579-1930 C^,~v ~ ~i~~~' v . ~ GL~- C-MAR MARINE INDUSTFitES, DIV. 5913 Lams noea. Henehen. SC 29408 Wca,L (eoa) 747•mes . sc wATS (eao) srz-0674 ~ ouTSioe sc tawi 43e-s027 FAc3iMILE (803) 747-2292 115 W Swwi+++ s~reet Abermarle, NC 2e00I ~ LOCl1L 1704) 8935050 ~ NATL WAT$ (800) 222-0174 . fACSIMILE (704) 982-148t WHOLE5A[.E MARINE 5UPPLY DISTRIBUTORS " rw?r~.a.~,a TO TEE '['HADE S1NGE 1910 excwsWF DIS7i1IBUTORS FOR rAr,nd' Aorla 10 3Jt/d ADIM2it7Q Q321-~ Li0Lb5850E Bb=IZ L66T/50/11 12/06/97 SAT 21:56 FAX 9709263978 SHAb[ROCK Town Council Mem Z001 ~ . . ~ Commitntcatwn ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ VVMA MEETING ; V I WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1997, 8:30AM ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~ COLORADO SKI 1WIUSEUM ' ~ COFFEE AND PASTRIES SERVED ~ i LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR ; ! , ~ LET'S DISCUSS: j ~ ~ ~ • FREE AFTER 3 The plan and the posters • L4ADING AND DELIVERY At iast a solution (for now!) ' i ~ • TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY What can we do to Tum Up the spirt? ; • T111E GUIDE We're on our way I • GROUP INSITRANCE Any interest? i • DUES Anybody still need a slci pass? • 1VIXER ~ • SPECIAL EVENTS The last chance for your input- i application is due 12/15 for aIl ~ 1998 events- HELP! ! ! ~ . i ~ ~ i i i ; i i i I i ~ •12/06.l97 SAT 21:57 FAX 9709263978 ' SHAMROCK Town Council Mem IM002 • . i i I Vdil ~ Village Merchant Association PO $ox 2135, vail, Co 81658 ~ WMA NOV.12THMEETING MI'ERNET: Patrick O'Neil from InterNetworks discussed the community page, which all WMA members I e listed on, located on WW'W.VAIL.NET. 100,000 people visit this page a month so it's a grea.t way to get your name out there. If you would like to set up a link with your businesses name or have any questions call him @ 827-930 i. FUNDING: Thanks to everyone who put time in on this project! T1U! 97 received $19,000.00 from the Town! of Vail. ~ SHOPPING GUIDE: Novus will contribute $13,500.00 if a certain percentage of the merchants accept Discovpr. If you do not take Discover please start to, there are no extra charges and the percenta.ge is the same. ; ~ SPECIAL EVENTS: Would be great if a special event could be held each month. There are a lot of ideas go ~g around. If you have one let it be known. ~ A) Chili Cookoff- The restaurant association wants to 3oin m for next year_ This event will be tied into family fest and be spread more throughout town. This will be held on the last weekend in 7une. i B) International Fest - Hopefully to beheld in July or Augast. C) Octoberfest - Will be September 19' and 20'h. ~ D) Vail On Sale - T'hinlQng of this for early October. Will be a huge fleamarket throughout the village_ i LOADING AND DELIVERY: Jennifer Linden from Centennial Engineering spoke about what her company b~as found out about parking in the village. Some short-term solutions they have come up with are: ' A) Enhance the enforcement of eadsting loading and Delivery regulations throughout Vail Village. i B) Restrict the times and/or the number of deliveries. ; C) Restrict access to trucks less than 35 feet. ~ D) Alter existing hours ~ There are, of course, pros and cons to alI. Interesting information is that while passenger cars that travel tl2rough Checkpoint Charlie make up 30% of the traffic class 5,6, &7 delivery trucks make up 17% and class 7 beverag'e trucks with a 5~' wheel only make up 7% of the traffic. ; ~ TURN IT UP! - Talang place Monday December 1" to Friday December 5h. Saturda.y December 6a' is the party at the Mazriott. ~ ~ RAGE ON THE RIDGE - Party at Adventure Ridge has been rescheduled. It will not be on the 7th as annouuced but will take place on Thursday December 10 instead. It takes place from 4:30 to 9:00pm. The cost is $5.00, wluch includes most acdvities, soda and piaa. Proceeds go to local Iughschool ski and snowboard teams. i GENERAL iNFO - ~ November 12, Red Lion @ 4:30 Loading and Delivery meeting ; November 13, Antlers @ 5:30 meet the Candidates ~ November 17, Vendettas (a3 5:30 merchant miicer I Dpcember 1-12 free lesson from VA with a merchant sia pass ~ ~ I i i i i v, f} 00 n )'1.- R E C E I VED D E C 8 199T ~ 38. Fla'" % U w'1 ~i a y~ Ci / o ,i ha~-e. fla gs P>9'' ~ i G 41 54r~~,~ y e fo L c, 7,) s Ne~ ~ ~'s , ~ 9 S S c~ f'' ol c~ S2 e.. ~ c~ w CA/,7j7a~ / ~ 1.1 !hl ti! M a K' n~ ~ G ''?'r y S~ re. I gx e;~ ~ ~ olE•~s : ~y ~h ~ Ct 5 )7,, + A a n o~_ ,S1 ~)c.ti S' rP c-~ ~ r ~ S er s ~ S-L--Q~ y-' 0 a 1997 N Q-(L o~y7~ . G ° o • n CJt,,~-r~ 0. s , . ~ G ~ • ~ ~ ~ _ 40 Cs . RECEIVEO DEC 8 1997 Kcrt -71 ~ ~2'`.~'"_.~.' ~ ~'r? CJ M cAt- a`- . ~ - -7 ~ 41 _ - - G-~-- ~r c~ ~ . c ` . o-c~~-- ec~~~ ' C s RECE0VED DEC 8 19p STA KLDEE~VELOPMENT CO. 39 BENTON HARBOR, MICH. 49022 ROGER CAYO PHONE (616) 927-3197 CHARLES D. GARLANGER December 0 1, 1997 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Vail Town Council, This letter is in response to the proposed redevelopment of Lionshead square. As a current owner of a condo in the Lifthouse Lodge, I would be strongly against the plan. We purchased our condo when it was built because of the unobstructed view of the mountain. The plans that I have seen indicate that we will no longer have that view. Also, Lionshead Square has always been special due to the openness and park like setting. By putting in more condos, reta.il stores, and hotels our park like atmosphere would be ruined. Vail and the State af Colorado has always had the image of God's Country, with the overdevelopment of such a small area you would be going against the gain of that image, which so many people have held Vail in such high regards. I also have a difficult time imagining that you will be able to construct the proposed buildings in such a confined area. I believe that I am able to make such judgements due to the fact that I have been on our local planning commission for 27 years and have faced similar developmental situations. As you are probably aware, overdevelopment has a direct impact of the quality of life in the long range of a community. I would hate to see Lionshead lose the quality of life that it has enjoyed for so many years, because someone feels that the financial gains for a few people are more important. Sincerely, Chazles D. Garlanger SFECIALIZING IN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING R E C EI VED D EC 9 1997 ~ G < / ~F SUP?~' . JACKSONVII.LE MARINE SUPPLY, INC. P.O. BOX 7309, Jacksonville, Florida 32238 LOCAL (904) 387-3524 NATL WATS (800) 741-5299 FACSIMILE (904) 387-9560 A J-MAR MARINE INDUSTRIES, DIV. P.O. BOX 11959, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 LOCAL (813) 572-0192 NATL WATS (800) 226-4562 ~ FACSIMILE (813) 573-1930 C-MAR MARINE INDUSTRIES, DIV. ~ 5913 Loftis Road, Hanahan, SC 29406 LOCAL (803) 747-0786 SC WATS (800) 922-0674 I OUTSIDE SC (800) 438-3027 FACSIMILE (803) 747-2292 115 W. South Street, Albermarle, NC 28001 LOCAL (704) 983-5050 NATL WATS (800) 222-0174 FACSIMILE (704) 982-1481 WHOLESALE MARINE SUPPLY DISTRIBUTORS ~ ' - TO THE TRADE SINCE 1910 EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTORS FOR r.rn.. A