HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0925 PECFAWN OF VA10
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 25, 2017, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657
Call to Order
Present: Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, John Rediker, and
Brian Stockmar, Brian Gillette
Absent: Karen Perez
2. Main Agenda
3. Staff requests that the report out to the Planning and Environmental Commission be
tabled to December 11, 2017 to address design considerations.
A report to the Planning and Environmental Commission on the Administrator's
approval of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to
Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a steel -
frame tensile fabric shelter at the softball fields spectator plaza area, located at 580
South Frontage Road East (Ford Park)/U n platted, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC17- 0032)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Motion: Table to December 11, 2017
First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application
establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences),
pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to
allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units
with 15 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10
employee housing units, and related uses and improvements, located at 430 and
434 South Frontage Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1,
Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D,
Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006)
Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Motion: Table to October 9, 2017
First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0
5. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor
Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a subdivision of a parcel of land located
at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC17-0041)
Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Motion: Approve with Condition(s)
First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 5-1-0
(Rediker opposed)
Conditions of Approval:
1. Approval of this plat shall expire on December 29, 2017, unless the
final plat is recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
2. This subdivision approval shall be contingent upon the applicant
receiving approval of the pending rezoning of the property for the
Housing (H) district on the western 5.4 acres of the property, and the
Natural Area Preservation (NAP) district on the eastern 17.9 acres of
the property.
Planner Neubecker introduced the project. Neubecker spoke to the related rezoning
application. Neubecker spoke to the applicable criteria for approval and the staff's
recommendation.
Kurz- Has the town attorney reviewed the application?
Neubecker-No, but it has been reviewed by staff including the Town's Engineer
Stockmar- Has anything changed related to the rezoning?
Neubecker-No
Rediker-What is the status of the rezoning and are they interdependent?
Stockmar - Asked if the applicant would be OK with a contingency that the
subdivision does not go into effect unless the Town Council approves the
associated rezoning application. Mauriello indicated "yes".
Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a short PowerPoint and referenced
that the criteria for approval is very similar to the rezoning.
Public Comment - None
Stockmar-1St step in a complex project. Supports the process.
Gillette -Agrees with staff
Hopkins -agrees with staff
Kurz -Agrees with staff
Lockman -Agrees with staff
Rediker-Agrees with staff but has reservations about the applicability of the criteria
at this stage in the process when the project and future development plan is
unclear. Would like Town Council to address this. We should not have to make a
decision without knowing what will be built here.
6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
to amend Section 12-2-2, Definitions of Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to
amend and clarify the definitions of Commercial Ski Storage, Ski Club, First Floor or
Street Level, and Basement or Garden Level; to create a new definition for Ski
Storage Lockers; to amend Section 12-14-21 Outdoor Display of Goods concerning
ski racks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0042)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Motion: Table to October 9, 2017
First: Gillette Second: Hopkins Vote: 6-0-0
Planner Neubecker brought the commission up to speed on status of the project
and some of the challenges between the regulations and guest expectations.
Neubecker spoke to proposed language and questions where feedback from the
PEC and the Town Council would be helpful. He spoke in general to these
remaining questions.
Commissioners Rediker and Gillette offered ideas on how to proceed.
Neubecker discussed how we ended up where we are.
Gillette asked about the genesis of the apparent problems.
Rediker spoke to his understanding of the original regulations and horizontal zoning.
He asked about the intersection of the definitions and operating characteristics.
Neubecker used the Four Seasons operation on Wall Street to illustrate the
challenges with the existing language.
Stockmar spoke to a need for a clear understanding of the problem.
Gillette asked for a clarification on what is occurring at the Four Seasons.
Neubecker explained the different levels of the structure used by the Four Seasons.
Rediker returned the discussion to the 5 questions included in the staff
memorandum. Rediker spoke to the question of pedestrian easements.
Neubecker spoke to the situation arising from pedestrian easements, and how many
properties in the commercial core areas are surrounded by easements.
Rediker spoke to his feeling that any encroachment into the easement is an
impediment and that long term encroachments can be problematic.
Kurz spoke to conflicting interests and overarching goals including safety, respecting
business investments and aesthetics; he feels that wholesale changes are not
warranted.
Rediker spoke to the definitions discussion in the staff memo.
A brief discussion concerning what is and is not taxed in relation to ski stores and ski
storage.
Hopkins asked for further clarifications regarding the Four Seasons building.
Lockman asked about what other communities are doing.
Neubecker spoke to other resort communities including Aspen and Breckenridge.
Rediker asked about how ski shops and ski stores are related to this.
Neubecker pointed to the challenges associated with the current regulations and ski
store operations.
Public Comment
Mike Brumbaugh, Venture Sports (Base Camp) -Spoke to the Four Seasons
operation, the basement situation and the easement situation. What is legal and
what is not illegal?
Rediker asked how the current regulations impact his operation.
Mike Brumbaugh spoke to what their operation is and the gray areas.
Tom Higgins, American Ski Exchange - Very difficult. Everyone has self -interests on
the task force. Want more bars and not more private clubs. Need to be concerned
with vitality. This issue is getting more complicated, not less. We have a short
season. Is ski storage a service or an amenity? Changing the rules penalizes those
that have played by the rules.
Rediker asked Tom Higgins to describe his operation.
Tom Higgins described his business operation.
Marco Valenti, Vail Resorts Retail - Spoke to the evolution of the discussions within
the task force. Spoke to mobile ski storage as opposed to ski clubs. Felt that certain
retail aspects are outside the purview of the task force. Spoke to guest expectations.
Rediker asked which ski clubs Vail Resorts operates
Marco Valenti spoke to the clubs and their operations. Supports adding clarity.
Concerned about easements and its affects on business operations.
Zach Meyers, General Manager of the Arrabelle, spoke to the Arrabelle operation
and how it was designed with the regulations in mind.
Sean Filiault, Pepi's Sports - Spoke about his operation. Was not a part of the task
force (out of town). Does not support wheeling lots of racks out onto the street.
Brent Martin, Four Seasons - Discussed the model that they run. Reminded the task
force and the PEC that they are not competing with each other, but with other
destination resorts (i.e. Jackson Hole). Spoke to the need for a location closer to the
hill which was what started the partnership with the Gorsuch. He described what
occurs on what level of the "Hong Kong" building on Wall Street. Does not see why
ski clubs on the second floor are a problem; they drive more traffic than office. Spoke
to the ski rack issue.
Jeff Evans, Christie Sports - Spoke to the changes in the economics of the ski
industry. Greatest growth will be with rentals.
Rediker asked about storage of skis.
Evans spoke about the 60 racks that store the rental skis.
Neubecker spoke to pedestrian easements in the vicinity of Christie Sports.
Tommy Neyens, Ski Valet in Lionshead - Greatest concern is equity. Would like to
keep things the way they are. No ski clubs on the second floor. Has concerns about
ski storage on the first floor. Supports horizontal zoning. Outdoor storage on private
property is OK. Hours may be too generous.
Commissioner Lockman- Still confused. Clarity? Operations all over the place. What
has been proposed will not necessarily help. Does not see the answers. Can some
7
91
of these issues be handled on a case by case basis?
Commissioner Hopkins- Understands the complexity of the issue. Sees it as old
school vs. new services. Understands the concerns with black holes (spaces that are
not used in summer) and ski clubs. Not ready to take action.
Commissioner Kurz- Not ready to act. Recognizes lack of agreement and feels that
pressure to act may result in more unintended consequences.
Commissioner Gillette- More than one issue. Bulk ski storage vs. skis for sale. How
many ski racks to we want to see? Bulk Ski Storage may be different than ski clubs.
Commissioner Stockmar- Understands the problem better, but not fully. Issues about
commercial vibrancy are present. Concern with just being a storage area. Have not
reached an answer. It's more than about ski storage. This is the tip of the iceberg
concerning vitality.
Commissioner Rediker-Appreciated the public's input. Horizontal zoning still valid
and important. What is ski storage? Maybe looking at what a rental shop does.
Impractical for ski rental shops to store skis in the basement. Don't want rental shops
to be fronts for hotels. Concerned with 2nd floor ski clubs. Spoke to pedestrian
easements. Not sure what the answer is. Case by case analysis of easements may
be necessary.
Approval of Minutes
September 11, 2017 PEC Meeting Results
Motion: Approve
First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-1
(Gillette Abstained)
Adjournment
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection
during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75
South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site
visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development
Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be
relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will
consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for
sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
TOWN OF VA10
VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2017
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor
Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting and subdivision of a parcel of land in the
South 1/2, Southeast 1/4, of Section 2, Township 5, Range 80 West 6th Principal Meridian, located
at 3700 N. Frontage Road East, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0041)
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
Description
PEC17- PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision - Staff
0041_Staff Memo East Vail_Employee_Housing_Subdivision.pdf Memo
A_Vicinity_Map_-_Vail_Resorts East Vail_Housing.pdf
B_Legal_Description_of_Vail_Resorts Rezoning.pdf
C_Applicant_Narrative_Vail_Resorts East Vail_Subdivision.pdf
D_East Vail_Workforce_Housing_Subdivision_Plat.pdf
E Attachment E_Rockfall_Hazard_Study_Part1.pdf
E Attachment E_Rockfall_Hazard_Study_Part2.pdf
E Attachment E_Rockfall_Hazard_Study_Part3.pdf
F_Attachment F_W ildlife Assessment.pdf
PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision -
Attachment A - Vicinity Map
PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision -
Attachment B - Legal Description
PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision -
Attachment C - Applicant Narrative
PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision -
Attachment D - Final Plat
PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision -
Attachment E - Rock -fall Hazard Study Part 1
of 3
PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision -
Attachment E - Rock -fall Hazard Study Part 2
of 3
PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision -
Attachment E - Rock -fall Hazard Study Part 3
of 3
PEC17-0041 East Vail Subdivision -
Attachment F - Wildlife Assessment
rowN of vain
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 25, 2017
SUBJECT: A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4,
Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting and
subdivision of a parcel of land in the South 1/2, Southeast 114, of Section
2, Township 5, Range 80 West 6th Principal Meridian, located at 3700
N. Frontage Road East, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC17-0041)
(Please see Attachment 8 for the full legal description of the property.)
Applicant: The Vail Corporation (aka Vail Resorts), represented by
Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Chris Neubecker
SUMMARY
The applicant, the Vail Corporation (aka Vail Resorts), represented by Mauriello
Planning Group, is requesting the review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13
Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for platting and
subdivision of an unplatted parcel of land in the South 1/2, Southeast 114, of
Section 2, Township 5, Range 80 West 6th Principal Meridian, located at 3700 N.
Frontage Road East.
The purpose of this application to subdivide the parcel of land in order to create a
legal description, and to delineate the boundary between two new zone districts
that are being reviewed under a separate Zone District Boundary Amendment
application. (Pease see Attachment 8 for a full legal description).
Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this
memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community
Development Department recommends approval of this application, subject to
the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map
(Attachment A), the legal description of the current property (Attachment B),
Applicant's narrative (Attachment C), and proposed plat (Attachment D) are
attached for review.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, the Vail Corporation (aka Vail Resorts), represented by Mauriello
Planning Group, is requesting the review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13
Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for platting and
subdivision of an unplatted parcel of land in the South 1/2, Southeast 114, of
Section 2, Township 5, Range 80 West 6th Principal Meridian, located at 3700 N.
Frontage Road East.
The purpose of the application is to subdivide the vacant, undeveloped, unplatted
property to create two lots, one of which will be used for future development of
employee housing units (EHUs), and the other lot which will remain undeveloped.
The proposed property line between the two new lots will also become the
boundary for a proposed rezoning of the property, which is currently under review
through a separate rezoning application, PEC17-0039. Please see the proposed
Final Plat, Attachment D.
The graphic below shows the location of the new lots with this subdivision. (See
Attachment D for a detailed Final Plat).
Aupust17.2017
III. BACKGROUND
On November 5, 1974 the subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail,
via Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1974. This annexation included most of east
Vail, and the Katsos Ranch area.
The property has not been developed, and remains void of any buildings. The
western portion of the lot contains evidence of an old road cut through the
property. This old road area is void of trees in a straight line, about 8-10 feet
wide. There is no pavement in this area, and it is unclear when or why the road
may have been originally built. However, there are utility manholes for electric
power along this old road.
On September 11, 2017, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed
an application for a rezoning of this property. The current zoning on the property
is Two Family Residential (R) District. The application was to rezone the western
5.4 acres of the property to Housing (H) District, and rezone the eastern portion
of the property to Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District. The PEC voted 6-0
to recommend approval to the Vail Town Council for this rezoning application.
On September 19, 2017, the Vail Town Council held the first reading of
Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2017, to rezone this property. The Town Council
voted 5-2 to approve the first reading of the ordinance.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code are applicable to
this request:
TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS (in part)
TITLE 13: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE (in part)
Chapter 4, Minor Subdivision, Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Vail
Town Code prescribe the review criteria for a request for a minor subdivision.
Pursuant to Section 13-4-2, Procedure, Vail Town Code, the criteria for
reviewing the final plat shall be as contained in Section 13-3-4, Commission
Review of Application; Criteria and Necessary Findings, Subdivision
Regulations, Vail Town Code. According to Section 13-4-2C, Review and
Action on Plat,
"The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the plat and
associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or
1IF/
disapprove the plat within twenty one (2 1) days of the first public hearing
on the minor subdivision or the minor subdivision will be deemed
approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted
subject to mutual agreement between the Planning and Environmental
Commission and subdivider".
According to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria and
Necessary Findings, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, (in part)
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the
application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter,
the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the planning
and environmental commission deems applicable. Due consideration
shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C of
this chapter. "
SITE ANALYSIS
Address:
Legal Description:
description)
Zoning:
Land Use Plan Designation
Current Land Use:
Geological Hazards:
3700 N. Frontage Road East
Unplatted (See Attachment 8 for legal
Two -Family Residential (R) District
Open Space
Undeveloped
High Severity Rockfall
Standard
Allowed / Required in
Housing (H) District
Existing
(tinplated Parcel)
Proposed
Site Area
Determined by PEC
1,015,470 sq. ft.
235,093 sq. ft.
Setbacks
Front — 20'
Side — 20'
Rear — 20'
Undeveloped
No change
Height
Determined by PEC
None
No change
Density
Determined by PEC
None
No change
GRFA
Determined by PEC
None
No change
Site Coverage
Max. 55% of site area
None
No change
Parking/Loading
Per Title 12, Chapter 10
None
No change
Landscaping
Min. 30% of site area
100%
No change
Standard
Allowed / Required in Natural
Area Preservation (NAP)
District
Existing
(Unplatted
Parcel)
Proposed
Site Area
No minimum
1,015,470 sq. ft.
780,377 sq. ft.
Setbacks
N/A
N/A
No change
Height
N/A
N/A
No change
Density
N/A
N/A
No change
GRFA
N/A
N/A
No change
Site Coverage
N/A
N/A
No change
Parking/Loading
Determined by PEC
No change
No change
Landscaping
N/A
N/A
No change
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Existing Use
Zoning District
North: U.S. Forest Service
None
South: 1-70 Interchange / Multifamily
None / Residential Cluster
Residential
East: U.S. Forest Service
None
West: Vail Memorial Park
Natural Area Preservation
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA
The following are the review criteria for a minor subdivision, as outlined in
Section 13-3-4, Vail Town Code:
1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the
development objectives of the town; and
Staff finds the proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable
elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of
the Town. Specifically, the subdivision will help to ensure a site for future
employee housing development, which is a goal identified in the Vail
Housing 2027 Plan, and the Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan. This
subdivision will also facilitate the creation of a large tract for nature
preserves. Some of the goals that this subdivision will help to advance
include:
Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan (in part)
LAND USE
Goal #2: Land use and development decisions will address environmental
sustainability as a priority of the community.
• Work with public and non-profit partners to ensure that environmental
issues within the town and region are being addressed.
• Educate developers and applicants on how to incorporate environmental
sustainability into projects.
Goal #4: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent
of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated
development.
• Address the zoning regulations to provide more incentives for
developers to build employee housing units.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Goal #2: Energy Management in Buildings and Transportation: Reduce the
town's 2007 baseline green house gas emissions.
• Support employee housing initiatives in order to reduce trips into Vail.
Goal #3: Ecosystem: Improve the health and diversity of the forest and
mountain ecosystem while recognizing the interdependence of the wildland
urban interface (WUI) corridor within Vail.
• Work with non-profit organizations and the Colorado Department of
Wildlife to improve wildlife conditions.
HOUSING
Goal: The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure
that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more
employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted
housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies,
regulations and publicly initiated development.
• Conduct inventory of all sites with development potential and pursue
opportunities for acquiring undeveloped or underdeveloped properties.
• Update the Vail Land Use Plan and identify more areas for employee
housing.
ECONOMY
Goal #3: Maintain a town -wide workforce in which at least 30 percent of
people who work in Vail also live in Vail.
• Support the local economy by working with the business community to
address future workforce housing needs as they relate to business in
Vail.
The Land Use Plan recommends this site for open space. Staff believes
that this designation was an error, and that open space use was
recommended at a time when this property was believed to be owned by
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and was not known to
be owned privately or have development rights. The property is currently
zoned Two -Family Residential (R), and the zoning will be used to determine
any allowed land use or development for the property.
2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the
standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning
Regulations", of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the
planning and environmental commission deems applicable;
Staff finds the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all standards of Title
13, Subdivision Regulations, and Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town
Code. The resulting new Lot 1 meets the existing development standards for
the anticipated zoning of Housing (H) District, which does not have a
minimum lot area or minimum lot dimensions.
The new Tract A for Natural Area Preservation (NAP) also meets the required
subdivision standards, and other relevant standards for this zoning district.
There are no minimum lot area or lot dimensions required for the Natural Area
Preservation (NAP) district.
3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious,
convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with
municipal development objectives;
Staff finds the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses that is consistent with municipal
development objectives. The subdivision will allow for a future development of
employee housing, a future nature preserve, and will also facilitate the legal
descriptions for the proposed rezoning of this land. These uses are
compatible with the adjacent residential uses, and with U.S. Forest Service
property.
4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the
surrounding area;
Staff finds the proposed subdivision will have no negative impacts on the
future development of the surrounding area. At this time, there is no specific
development plan for this property, and no current plans to install roads or
utilities. As a result, this subdivision will have no direct impact on the future
development of the surrounding area. Effects on the future development of
the surrounding area will be reviewed with future subdivisions, and also with
any future development plan for the construction of employee housing units.
5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed
to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the
delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature
extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of
development;
This property is already served by local roads and utilities, and other
necessary infrastructure to serve future development on Lot 1. There is
no need to extend utilities to the property. The property is also served by
existing transit and the bus stop for the Town of Vail free bus system is
directly in front of this property.
The property is located near other residential development, including the
adjacent property to the southeast, Pitkin Creek Townhomes. The
property is within the current boundary of the Town of Vail. Staff finds
the proposed subdivision will not cause any inefficiency in the delivery of
public services and will not require duplication or premature extension of
public services, and will not result in a leapfrog pattern of development.
6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned
ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land
disruption to upgrade undersized lines;
Staff finds the utility lines are sized to serve a complete build -out of the site,
which does not change with the subdivision of the property. It is not known at
this time what the planned ultimate population of the service area will be, as
no development plan has been created or submitted for review.
The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) has indicated that
the applicant will be required to dedicate water rights or pay a cash -in -lieu of
water rights, if accepted by the ERWSD board, as a condition of their
providing servicer. ERWSD has also indicated that they may need to create
a loop in the water lines in this area through any future development to
connect to the water line near Pitkin Creek Townhomes, in order to improve
hydraulics (water flow) in this area. The determination of the size and
location of water and sewer lines can not be determined until a site specific
development plan is created for this property.
7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of
an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the
community as a whole;
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an
orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as
a whole since the subdivision allows for the proposed Lot 1 to be developed
for deed restricted employee housing, and for Tract A to provide a site or
nature preserves. The proposed subdivision will help to advance the goals
in the Vail Town Council Action Plan, 2015-2017: "Grow a vibrant, diverse
economy and community and preserve our surrounding natural
environment, providing our citizens and guests with exceptional services
and an abundance of premier recreational, cultural and educational
opportunities. "
8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or
beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian
corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features;
Staff finds the proposed subdivision will not result in any adverse impacts on
the natural environment, including, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation,
riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. The property
is within the existing Town of Vail boundary, and is not sprawl. The
subdivision will facilitate the future development of employee housing
clustered on a small portion of the property, while preserving a large portion
of the property for natural areas and preservation of vegetation and wildlife
habitat.
This property is within a mapped rockfall hazard area. Development on steep
slopes and in hazard areas is discouraged, but not prohibited in all areas.
Development in rockfall areas is allowed, with proper mitigation. The future
developer of this property will be required to mitigate the rockfall hazards as
part of any future development of employee housing on Lot 1.
The geological investigation provided by the applicant's professional geologist
recommends the construction of a rockfall barrier at least 12 feet in height.
The final design of the barrier will require further study, and will be required as
part of the development plan for Lot 1. The development plan is required to
be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public
hearing. At the time of an application for a development plan, an
environmental impact report will also be required.
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval with
conditions of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail
Town Code, to allow for the platting and subdivision of a parcel of land in the
South 1/2, Southeast 114, of Section 2, Township 5, Range 80 West 6th Principal
Meridian, located at 3700 N. Frontage Road East, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC17-0041). This recommendation is based upon the review of
the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and
testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this
request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission
pass the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants' request
for a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town
Code, to allow for the platting and subdivision of a parcel of land in the South %,
Southeast %, of Section 2, Township 5, Range 80 West 6th Principal Meridian,
located at 3700 N. Frontage Road East, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC 17-0041). "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this
minor subdivision, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the September 25, 2017 staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence
and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.-
1.
inds:
1. That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in
Section 13-4 Minor Subdivision Vail Town Code; and
2. That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals,
objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and compatible with the development objectives of
the town; and
3. That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to
adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas,-
and
reas;and
4. That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and
harmonious development of the town in a manner that
conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of
the highest quality. "
The Community Development Department requests that the PEC add the following
condition of approval:
1. Approval of this plat shall expire on December 29, 2017, unless the final plat is
recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Legal Description
C. Applicant Narrative, August 28, 2017
D. Final Plat — East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, August 28, 2017
E. Rockfall Hazard Study, June 19, 2017
F. Wildlife Assessment, August 10, 2017
�k.,V/
ATTACHMENT B - LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Legal Description of Vail Resorts Rezoning
3700 N. Frontage Road East
Vail, Colorado 81657
A PART OF TRACT II OF BOOK 166, PAGE 61 NOW BEING ALL THAT
PART OF THE SOUTH 1/2 SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST, 6TH P.M. LYING NORTH OF
1-70 AND PITKIN CREEK TOWNHOUSES RECEPTION NO. 190521.
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2,
FROM WHENCE THE EAST 1/16 OF SECTION 2 AND SECTION 11
BEARS N89041'53"W, 1325.07' SAID LINE FORMING THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION.
THENCE N01 °51'14"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTH 1/2 OF
THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2 A DISTANCE OF 398.97' TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PITKIN CREEK
TOWN HOUSES THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES;
1) N 60000'00" W A DISTANCE OF 420.00';
2) N 90000'00" W A DISTANCE OF 339.75';
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 70 THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES;
1) N 02032'29" W A DISTANCE OF 2.90';
2) N 59059'34" W A DISTANCE OF 478.70';
3) N 65042'12" W A DISTANCE OF 301.50';
4) N 72013'06" W A DISTANCE OF 613.90';
5) N 55043'36" W A DISTANCE OF 297.66' TO A POINT
INTERSECTING THE NORTH LINE OF S1/2 SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
SECTION 2;
THENCE S 88009'34" E ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2
OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2 A DISTANCE OF 2253.37' TO
A B.L.M. MONUMENT FOUND IN PLACE AT THE SOUTH 1/16
CORNER OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2;
THENCE S 01°56'08" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTH 1/2
OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2 A DISTANCE OF 637.05' TO
A B.L.M. MONUMENT FOUND IN PLACE AT THE ANGLE POINT OF
SECTIONS 1 AND 2;
THENCE S 01 051'14" W CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF
SAID SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2 A
DISTANCE OF 222.52' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
BEING 23.3 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
ATTACHMENT C - APPLICANT NARRATIVE
East Vail
Workforce Housing Parcel
Minor Subdivision
IVUI
Mauriello Planning Group
Submitted to the Town of Vail: August 28, 2017
VAILRESORTS'
EXPERiENCL OF a LIFETIME
Introduction
Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a minor subdivision for the
property located just to the north of the East Vail 1-70 interchange. The existing zoning of the property
is Two -Family Residential (R) zone district. The property is proposed to be zoned Housing Zone
District (H) on the western 5.4 acres of the site, and Natural Area Preservation District (NAP) on the
eastern 17.9 acres of the site. The proposed subdivision is proposed for the sole purposes of
providing a legal description to unplatted property and to facilitate the zone district boundaries to
follow platted lot lines.
No development plans for any workforce housing project have been developed at this time. Once the
boundaries of the parcels are approved and the zoning is established, any development plan
submitted to the Town will need to stand on its own and comply with the Town's regulations, including
the submittal of an environmental impact report. A geohazard report, completed by Cesare, Inc., and
a wildlife report, completed by Rick Thompson of Western Ecosystems, Inc., have been included with
this submittal.
Photo of a portion of the property
2of13
Site Analysis
Property: Unplatted Parcel. Located just to the north of the East Vail interchange
Lot Area: 23.3 acres
Zoning: Two -Family Residential
Proposed Zoning: Housing Zone District (5.4 acres) / Natural Area Preservation District (17.9 acres)
Hazards: High Severity Rockfall, Some Slopes in Excess of 40%
As indicated in the Rockfall Hazard Study that was completed by Cesare, Inc., the report recommends
rockfall remediation, stating:
Based on the CRSP [Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program] analysis results and existing rockfall
mitigation structures on the neighboring site to the west, a rockfall barrier or wall at last 12 feet
in height is recommended. Based on site conditions, including such aspects as slope angle
and property boundaries, a rigid wall system would be more ideal than a flexible fence or
berm/basin.
In reviewing any landslide considerations for the property, the report states:
Based on the lack of evidence of recent landslide movement... Cesare does not recommend
monitoring of the landslide at this time. Slope stability should be a primary consideration if
ground modifications and development are planned in or near the landslide mass.
The geohazard report also recommends that debris flow hazard potential be considered in future
development stages.
Rockfall Map
:f;+:*y �* f - *�': �i � �''t a��`i�a�+Y� LC ..f.,`rs: x'.J'_:: 'x .�. .r •y-•~,r�J �' ��•_ �• �'
a j ray T i{,:.. j" "t' yr•
41
..a•` y }w
KSlopes >40%
i.
�'�
Slopes 30%-40%
41.
Criteria for Review: Minor Subdivision
Section 13-3-4: COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION; CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS, of
the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review of a minor subdivision. The following section
includes the criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria:
(1) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
Applicant Analysis:
The property is governed by the Vail Land Use Plan. In addition, there is specific discussion of this
property in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Other applicable plans include the Vail 20/20 Plan
and the Housing Strategic Plan, all of which are described below:
• Vail Land Use Plan
The adopted map of the Vail Land Use Plan shows a designation of "Open Space" for the property.
The Open Space designation is defined as follows:
0
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
HillsiCP. Rp,,&nrlal
1 ra-isitim Area
Low Density Rusioentiai
Publiosemi-Pub is
MR.dihim 11 -unity I ZP.RIdPntial
Sk Ease
- Hi-gh Density Res dei&il
Park
Rescrl Acconmadaticns and Services
Open Space
C Urrri nun i ty orr L; e
Not De sionated
Villagc rdnstcr Plan
yI Ski Petal
LionsHead Redeueiopment Ieas:er Plan
Gore Creek
�CommunityCDmnercialf
Town Eoundary
Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainage ways are the types
of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards
and slopes over 40% are also included in this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed
types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in
agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional /public uses.
5of13
This property was likely included in this category due to the confusion regarding ownership, in
addition to steep slopes and high rockfall hazard. At the time of the adoption of the Vail Land Use
Plan the zoning and private ownership status of the property was not clear and there was no detailed
analysis performed to determine the slopes on the property. The applicant believes the designation
to be erroneous and the result of incomplete or inaccurate information.
The subdivision proposal implements the zoning of Housing Zone District on the more buildable
portion of the property (slopes less than 40%), while the remainder of the site which is generally slopes
in excess of 40% will be zoned Natural Area Preservation, which precludes development. This would
be in keeping with the intent of the land use designation, while providing a developable site for
employee housing under the Housing Zone District in an area that is currently impacted by the
presence of 1-70 and the North Frontage Road.
• Comprehensive Open Lands Plan
At the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Open Lands
Plan, the applicant believes this property was thought to be
owned by CDOT. It is identified as Parcel 36. The plan
indicates that the existing zoning of the property is Two -
Family Residential, and its open space objective is
"environmental protection" with a proposed use of "open
space" and as a "high" priority. The map designation is
shown below:
With the steeper portions of the site proposed to be zoned
NAP, and only the flatter, more developable areas proposed
to be zoned H, the intent of the Comprehensive Open Lands
Plan is met, while simultaneously helping to meet the Town's
goals of providing more employee housing within the Town
boundaries. Clearly had the property been known to be in
private ownership, the recommendations of this plan would
have been different to avoid the taking of private
development rights.
• Vail 20/20 Plan
The Vail 20/20 Plan provides the following goals:
Parml 35- Parcels C: -Z CI -3. 6-4 and G-5
Lpw priority LOA parcels: T(YSi "Art, from U.S,
Forest Scrvicc. Thcn TOV should trade these parcels
to C:L7C)Tfof parcel 36 [which iS now owned by
Caan.
'T= e 13 & X111 VJ at ,Land Nortlt of Fast Vail
InWOO&ee
Filth priority; Tt]V acquire development rights for
open spere use or trade parcels) 35 for parcel 36.
Has potential for dcfvelopment.
Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through
policies, regulations and publicly initiated development.
The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community,
reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for
6of13
enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies,
regulations and publicly initiated development.
The proposed zoning of Housing on the buildable area of the site helps to further the goal of the Town
of Vail to provide deed -restricted housing for 30% of the workforce. This property creates an exciting
opportunity to create new workforce housing stock, while still protecting the steeper hillside from
development by zoning the steep portions NAP.
• Employee Housing Strategic Plan
The Employee Housing Strategic Plan outlines the Town of Vail's goals and policies to ensure
employee housing. It provides the following objectives:
•;• Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the community remains
competitive in economic terms.
•;• Increase and maintain deed -restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use
of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work.
The proposed subdivision and zoning will allow for the creation of new deed -restricted employee
housing units within the Town of Vail, allowing the Town of Vail to remain economically competitive in
attracting and maintaining a quality workforce.
The subdivision proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail
planning documents and helps to further one of Vail's critical needs: creating employee housing within
the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive while simultaneously
preserving the majority of the site as open space, another identified goal of the Town of Vail. That
these two objectives can be met on privately -owned property within the Town of Vail boundaries
furthers the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents.
(2) The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this title,
as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning Regulations", of this code, and other pertinent
regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; and
Applicant Analysis:
The proposed subdivision is to facilitate the zoning of the property from Two -Family Residential to
Housing on the western portion of the property (Lot 1) and Natural Area Preservation on the eastern
portion of the property (Tract A). The map below indicates the proposed zoning which has been
submitted under a separate application.
Section 12-61-1 provides the purpose of the H zone district:
7of13
The housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which,
because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately
regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone districts. It is
necessary in this zone district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for
each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of
this title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as
conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of
the district. The housing district is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the
zone district is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to
harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other
amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses.
Proposed Zoning
r Fwnu S.sC P
1 IE 3, 5'
x568' VWE 18.16' I S Fl Cl T C[RNf,F
Zr.pRa��RT T � aROR[Rr= rOEA CF TOK
Fn Pwn .325' FI Y AI IM IMIU CA'
The H zone district allows the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to set most development
standards, creating flexibility to create a housing project that is suitable to the individual site. As a
result, the proposed subdivision facilitating the zone district amendment is consistent with the H zone
district. There is no preconceived notion about densities, building layouts, or building height
associated with the proposed subdivision and zoning of the property. The PEC will evaluate any
development proposal, its impacts, and apply the review criteria in determining the final outcome.
Section 12-8C-1 provides the purpose of the NAP zone district:
8of13
N-4 I IN! 51j2 SCI j/ SE2'ION 2
1711N05_N LUI 1
P
NSING- IRC w
H OU1151NG ;F C71 5TP.ILT
I ^+
iRnCT A
A'a 1Y;
17.d ACRES +I-
PRpPnSFn /rp Nn
NARFML MEA PRESERVATION
IN
N
S�
V5- FORE5T 5=R4CE
—FOUND 175 A1111i
CAP 3W +091_AP
NO2'32'2rW_ N8C'CD' M-ia
•
FFC TON HOOFS !p
'n
a
#I NCL 190621'
.
•
[9r 1N'
BR95 OF EEJVRIRG6
eUn
---
u
n_MlruWL LN'
FIN 3.25"
ALUANVM CRP
The H zone district allows the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to set most development
standards, creating flexibility to create a housing project that is suitable to the individual site. As a
result, the proposed subdivision facilitating the zone district amendment is consistent with the H zone
district. There is no preconceived notion about densities, building layouts, or building height
associated with the proposed subdivision and zoning of the property. The PEC will evaluate any
development proposal, its impacts, and apply the review criteria in determining the final outcome.
Section 12-8C-1 provides the purpose of the NAP zone district:
8of13
The natural area preservation district is designed to provide areas which, because of their
environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by
any building or other improvement, other than those listed in section 12-8C-2 of this article.
The natural area preservation district is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in
their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and
preserving open space. The natural area preservation district includes lands having valuable
wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas
with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for
maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control,
protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural
character of Vail which is so vital to the town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude
improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where
necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements.
The majority of the site, including the areas of 40% slopes, will be zoned NAP. This allows for the land
area that is environmentally sensitive to be preserved as open space with no development to occur in
this area. This helps to preserve wildlife habitat and protects the natural character of Vail. As a result,
the proposed subdivision, facilitating the rezoning, is consistent with the NAP zone district.
Plans for the development of the housing site have not been initiated at this time, and any
development plan will comply with all applicable zoning regulations.
(3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and
Applicant Analysis:
The proposal to subdivide and rezone the property to H and NAP furthers two major development
objectives:
Provision of employee housing
Protection of environmentally sensitive land
It is rare that these two often-times competing objectives can come together in one project. The
proposal creates an opportunity for employee housing on a small portion of the developable portion
of the property, while protecting the remainder by precluding development. That these two
objectives can meet on this privately -owned property within Town of Vail boundaries, creates a unique
opportunity to create a harmonious relationship among land uses.
The subdivision is being proposed to generate a legal description for a current unplatted parcel of
land. The parcel could be zoned and developed without the need for a subdivision, but the applicant
believes its in the public interest to establish a formal boundary for the property. The property is also
somewhat removed and isolated from other developed residential areas, reducing the impacts of any
9of13
future development on neighboring developed properties thus ensuring a harmonious relationship.
As a result, the proposal is consistent with this criterion.
(4) The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and
Applicant Analysis:
Though the site is visible from the East Vail 1-70 interchange, it is relatively isolated from other uses in
the vicinity. The only directly adjacent residential property is the Falls at Vail (formerly Pitkin Creek
Townhomes). The Falls at Vail is zoned Residential Cluster and the land use designation is "Medium
Density Residential." The Falls at Vail consists of 23 townhouses constructed in the early 1980s and
three of the units are deed -restricted as employee housing units, based on the Town of Vail GIS data.
Permitted uses allowed by the RC zone district are primarily residential uses, including EHUs, multiple -
family, single family and duplex units. Some limited commercial uses are allowed by conditional use in
the RC zone district. These residential uses are separated from any developable areas by the large
tract proposed for NAP zoning.
10 of 13
The uses allowed by the H zone district are similar to those listed in RC, though EHUs are the only
permitted residential use in the H zone district. Free-market dwelling units are allowed by conditional
use and are limited to 30% of the GRFA constructed on the site. Similarly, limited commercial uses are
allowed by conditional use, but generally only to serve the residential uses of the site.
The property to the north is outside Town boundaries and is United States Forest Service land, and
Town of Vail open space is located across the Interstate and Frontage Roads. There are a few
residential properties far to the south of the property, across the Interstate and Frontage Roads, within
the Bighorn/East Vail neighborhoods. The Booth Falls neighborhood is located relatively far to the
west of the property.
Any future development of Lot 1 as proposed in this subdivision will not preclude or inhibit
development on any adjacent parcel of land and the proposed subdivision will not impact the future
development of the surrounding area.
(5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require
duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of
development; and
Applicant Analysis:
The proposed subdivision is located within the Town of Vail boundaries, adjacent to a transit stop, and
adjacent to existing residential development (The Falls at Vail). Public services are readily available to
the Proposed Lot 1 and there will be no duplication or premature extension of public facilities. The
proposed subdivision of this infill lot does not qualify as a leapfrog development pattern since it is
currently zoned for development and is located in close proximity to other residentially developed
properties, and all utilities and public services can be provided to the site. The proposal is to generate
a legal description for the property and create an open space tract. No extension of infrastructure is
being proposed with this subdivision. The property could be developed today with or without this
proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision complies with this criterion.
(6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the
service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines; and
Applicant Analysis:
Utilities are available in the general vicinity, and while some extension of services or upgrades to aging
utility lines may be required, they will ultimately serve the future development of the project. The
applicant of the future housing project will work with all utility providers prior to obtaining approval of
any development proposal.
11 of 13
(7) The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable
community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and
The proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community by establishing a
site for employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries, close to existing services and
transportation, while simultaneously protecting the environmentally sensitive portion of the site.
Employee housing is key to ensuring that the Town of Vail remain economically viable and
competitive, while protecting the environmentally sensitive lands that have created a place worth
living in. This does not constitute spot zoning, as both zone districts help further these goals and
because the entire property is already zoned for residential uses. As a result, the proposed
amendment serves the best interest of the community.
(8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the
natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation,
riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and
Applicant Analysis:
The proposed subdivision and rezoning allows for the future development of the portion of the site
that is buildable, while protecting the majority of the site in its natural state as undevelopable and
protected. This allows for a project that can protect the natural environment, including the steep
hillsides in excess of 40%. As part of this submittal, a wildlife report and geohazard report have been
included.
The wildlife report, by Rick Thompson of Western Ecosystems, Inc., evaluated the potential
development site (portion zoned H) to analysis the impacts to local wildlife populations. The report
identifies that based on CPW mapping, bighorn sheep and elk are of specific concern for the site.
With regard to bighorn sheep, the report states:
The relatively small potential East Peak [this East Vail property] development would result in a
further loss of winter range, but its location in an area whose habitat effectiveness has been
reduced by existing human disturbance and development should not result in any measurable
change in habitat use or herd size.
In the review of the impacts on the elk population, the report states:
Similar to sheep, the relatively small potential East Peak [this East Vail property] development
would result in a further loss of winter range, but its location in an area whose habitat
effectiveness has been reduced by existing human disturbance and development should not
result in any measurable change in habitat use or herd size. Approximately 75% of the parcel
would remain available for continued elk use.
The geohazard report was completed by Cesare, Inc, and was prepared in accordance with the Town
of Vail hazard regulations and mapping. The report focuses on rockfall and landslide hazards on the
12 of 13
site. Recognizing that there is evidence of rockfall events on the property, the report does recommend
rockfall remediation, stating:
Based on the CRSP analysis results and existing rockfall mitigation structures on the
neighboring site to the west, a rockfall barrier or wall at least12 feet in height is recommended.
Based on site conditions, including such aspects as slope angle and property boundaries, a
rigid wall system would be more ideal than a flexible fence or berm/basin.
In reviewing any landslide considerations for the
property (the east portion of the site), the report
states:
Based on the lack of evidence of recent
landslide movement... Cesare does not
recommend monitoring of the landslide at
this time. Slope stability should be a primary
consideration if ground modifications and
development are planned in or near the
landslide mass.
The geohazard report also recommends that debris
flow hazard potential be considered in future
development stages.
Booth Falls rockfall mitigation berm
Because the entirety of the site is currently zoned for
residential development, the proposed subdivision and zoning would limit future development to the
eastern portion of the site, with the majority of the property zoned to preclude development, and as a
result the proposed subdivision results in a net beneficial impact to the natural environment and
complies with this criterion.
(9) Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the
proposed subdivision.
Applicant Analysis:
Any other factors can be addressed as necessary.
13 of 13
a 0-
cn -2 T
Ett, n-0
Cf] C/I
C/I
1 1 mill
44
C/I
C/I
C/I
U) 0
<
co
a- U)
z
Z U)
LL
O
-17
F- W
Z c)
Of
0
ILL
0
O �
s M,eo ss.�os
O .8£'6ZZ
m
P
O
M„b 1, IS.IOS
�h
a�
3
do
��
�/
�/
M
//�
OO
�i
m�
vl
®
z
�
�
�
1
(y�(�
r�r,��,
���
3a
h
� � �
2y
� r�r��,
vl
4
N
®
= M 6�S F[Z Sti6ti 16ryf.
Zob<�
� � �
\� Q
W
� 3
ry
ry
� s
Soo d e
�� ��®
`o
_
hM
� e
�O
®�o�
���
��hp?pp
_,
�a�
��
��
^�
�
tCC�
�
C�
11
3�
r1rq
�1 � � �
S�
Q
r�
�1
�T
^�6
ti
3
M
hh
0
x
ATTACHMENT E - ROCKFALL HAZARD STUDY,
PART 1 OF 3
ESARE, INC.
Geotechnical Engineers & Construction Materials Consultants
ROCKFALL HAZARD STUDY
East Vail Parcel
Vail, Colorado
,.� � � •tom
77,
Report Prepared for:
Mr. Kevin Hopkins
Vail Resorts Development Company
PO Box 959
Avon, CO 81620
Project No. 17.5029
June 19, 2017
7108 South Alton Way, Building B Centennial, Colorado 80112 www.cesareinc.com
Phone 303-220-0300 1 Fax 303-220-0442
C"4ESARE, INC.
Geotechnical Engineers & Construction Materials Consultants
ROCKFALL HAZARD STUDY
East Vail Parcel
Vail, Colorado
Report Prepared for:
Mr. Kevin Hopkins
Vail Resorts Development Company
PO Box 959
Avon, CO 81620
Project No. 17.5029
June 19, 2017
Report Prepared by:
Julia M. Frazier, P.G.
Senior Geologist
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17
CESARE, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3
2. SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................................................ 3
3. SITE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................... 3
4. GEOLOGIC SETTING................................................................................................................
11
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY...............................................................................................................
11
4.2 SITE GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................
12
4.2.1 ARTIFICIAL FILL (AF).......................................................................................................
12
4.2.2 COLLUVIUM (QC).............................................................................................................
12
4.2.3 LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS(QLS).............................................................................................
12
4.2.4 PINEDALE TILL (QTP).......................................................................................................
12
Robinson Limestone Member (Pmr).......................................................................................
13
LowerMember (Pml)............................................................................................................
13
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS...............................................................................................................
14
5.1 ROCKFALL...............................................................................................................................
16
5.2 LANDSLIDE.............................................................................................................................
16
6. ROCKFALL ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................
18
6.1 ROCKFALL STUDY SECTION......................................................................................................
18
6.2 ROCKFALL MODELING - CRSP ANALYSIS....................................................................................
24
6.3 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS.................................................................................................
26
6.4 DISCUSSION OF ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS.........................................................................
26
7. LANDSLIDE HAZARD MAPPING...............................................................................................
27
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................
28
8.1 ROCKFALL CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................................................
28
8.1.1 PLACEMENT OF THE ROCKFALL CATCHMENT STRUCTURE ...................................................
28
8.2 LANDSLIDE CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................
29
8.3 DEBRIS FLOW CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................................
30
9. LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................................
30
TABLES AND DIAGRAMS
DIAGRAM 1. Cross Section D-D'.................................................................................................. 14
TABLE 1. CRSP Simulation Parameters....................................................................................... 25
TABLE 2. Slope Profile Parameters.............................................................................................. 25
TABLE 3. Summary of Rockfall Analysis Results......................................................................... 26
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 1
CESARE, INC.
FIGURES
SITE LOCATION MAP........................................................................................................ FIGURE 1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP.......................................................................................................... FIGURE 2
OFFICIAL ROCKFALL HAZARD MAP, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO .................................... FIGURE 3
OFFICIAL DEBRIS FLOW HAZARD MAP, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO .............................. FIGURE 4
GEOLOGICMAP................................................................................................................. FIGURE 5
LEGEND FOR FIGURE 5 GEOLOGIC MAP........................................................................... FIGURE 6
LANDSLIDE EXTENTS MAP................................................................................................ FIGURE 7
STUDY SECTIONS MAP..................................................................................................... FIGURE 8
ROCKFALL STUDY SECTION.............................................................................................. FIGURE 9
LANDSLIDE STUDY SECTION.......................................................................................... FIGURE 10
SLOPEMAP..................................................................................................................... FIGURE 11
APPENDIX
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................APPENDIX A
ROCKFALL HAZARD ASSESSMENT AT BOOTH FALLS CONDOMINIUMS AND PROPOSED
MITIGATION (COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY).......................................................APPENDIX B
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17
CESARE, INC.
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a rockfall hazard study for an undeveloped lot located on the
east side of Vail, Colorado and owned by the Vail Resorts Development Company (Vail Resorts). It
is Cesare, Inc.'s (Cesare's) understanding that a preliminary rockfall hazard analysis is desired prior
to potential development of the western portion of this site, along with other geologic hazards
which may have a significant impact on the proposed development. The site is located directly
north of the I-70 East Vail interchange. Geologic hazards, such as rockfall, debris flow, and
avalanche are recognized by the Town of Vail and delineated in the project area. The rockfall
hazard has been identified and addressed on the neighboring development to the west (Booth
Falls Mountain Homes), with multiple existing catchment structures.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of services for this rockfall hazard study generally included:
1. Review of available information, including published geologic maps, aerial photography,
and readily available studies performed on nearby sites.
2. Site reconnaissance to verify geologic and geologic hazard conditions on and upslope
from the subject site, with a focus on rockfall. This involved mapping the geology and
geologic hazards by traversing the site on foot, and through photography and video of
the site using an unmanned aircraft system (drone).
3. Modeling of the rockfall hazard potential using a critical cross section through the
project site and input into the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP).
4. Preparation of this report presenting our findings and preliminary recommendations
relative to the rockfall hazards potentially impacting the site, including conceptual
techniques that might be used to remediate and reduce the rockfall hazard. Also
included in this report are applicable figures, tables, and cross sections.
3. SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located directly north of the I-70 East Vail interchange on the north side of Fall
Line Drive (Figure 1). Pitkin Creek Townhomes (formerly named Falls at Vail) is located
immediately adjacent to the site in the southeast corner, and Booth Falls Mountain Homes (Booth
Falls) and Vail Mountain School are located on a neighboring property to the west-northwest. The
site is rectangular in shape and is located in the southeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 4 South,
Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Eagle County, Colorado. The approximate center of
the property is situated at latitude 390 3846" N and longitude -1060 18' 25" W.
Cesare performed site reconnaissance to characterize and map the geologic and geologic hazard
conditions during May 2017. The site is currently undeveloped with a variably sloping ground
surface ranging from about 7 to over 45 degrees (Figure 2). The elevation ranges from about 8375
feet in the west side of the site to about 8940 feet in the northeast corner, an elevation change of
about 565 feet across the site. The site is bound by undeveloped National Forest Service land to
the north, northwest, and east. Fall Line Drive and the I-70 Frontage Road bound the site along
the southern edge. Pitkin Creek forms a deeply incised drainage immediately to the east of the
eastern site boundary. Booth Creek, also deeply incised, is located about 3,200 feet to the
northwest of the site. Gore Creek is located on the opposite side of I-70, about 580 feet to the
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 3
CESARE, INC.
south at closest approach. A retaining wall borders the site along Fall Line Drive near the East Vail
I-70 off ramp in the area of the shuttle stop. Design or construction details for this retaining wall
were not available at the time of this study. Based on site observations, this retaining wall is
constructed of wood cribbage, with gravel placed directly behind the wood facing. The wall
appears to generally be in good condition, with one exception near the east end where the wall
has bulged out. An unpaved, single track road traverses the site along the edge that borders Fall
Line Drive and is barely visible in some historic aerial photographs. Multiple utility service
manholes were observed along this single track road and the manhole covers are labeled with
Alelectric utility".
Vegetative cover at the site includes grasses, shrubs, and aspen trees. The western part of the site
and the area upslope of the western part of the site are incised with a network of drainages which
contained flowing water at the time of our site visits. This western area is generally more densely
vegetated with low shrubs and aspen trees than other parts of the site and upslope areas. Refer to
Photographs 1 through 8 for views of these onsite features.
Photograph 1. View of the project site. Photograph taken from the eastbound lane of I-70 looking east
across the site. The photograph shows the relatively steep slope of the site and the rock outcrops present
upslope from the site.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 4
Aft
Photograph 1. View of the project site. Photograph taken from the eastbound lane of I-70 looking east
across the site. The photograph shows the relatively steep slope of the site and the rock outcrops present
upslope from the site.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 4
CESARE, INC.
rw
�y -t
Photograph 2. View of 1
retaining wall located along
edge of site that borders Fallr
Line Drive. Town of Vail shuttle 1 i
stop is visible in the left side of
the photograph.
w
Photograph 3. View of distressed part of the retaining wall along the edge of the site that borders Fall Line
Drive. The slope rises steeply upward to the north at the top of the wall. This photograph was taken near
the east end of the wall.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 5
CESARE, INC.
i 7 B Cp
} Z• L
O
0 -0
U) 0)
0)
� � a
70 }' O
O O
Cl
O a) N
V
C �
O .�
0 N
> Q �
c1 i
C
O
to -a ro
N � Q
O
F 70 U)
.U)
O
� L
0 �
a
a--+ _0O
0
0 4U-
U)
L � L
i � 0
4- V
a--+ (o
-2=o
0 0 ro
L
U V
V 'E
a) L
U)
a-+ -0
0
"
E
4.1
O L
L
+-
� L
L
V
O V
O
5 0
Q
�>
s 0
o
O 0
0 4- fl
s '� o
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 6
CESARE, INC.
Photograph 5. View of limestone boulders which have come to rest near the base of the slope in the
western part of the site. Boulders are about 3 to 4 feet in longest dimension, embedded in the soil,
surrounded by mature vegetation, and show lichen on the surface.
- 12 =Mr
Photograph 6. View of large sized limestone boulder located in the southern area of the site. Boulder
measures about 21 feet long by 16 feet wide by 6 feet high. A survey marker has been placed on this
boulder (Eagle County Survey Control, 1998).
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 7
CESARE, INC.
Photograph 7. View of the western part of the site. Note the dense vegetative cover, flowing water, and
exposed bedrock outcrops near the top of the slope.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17
Photograph 8. View of flowing
water in the western part of the
site.
CESARE, INC.
Rock outcrops are present upslope from the site and are rockfall source zones which have the
potential to impact the site and future planned development. Rockfall is a recognized hazard in the
site area, as depicted on the "Official Rockfall Hazard Map" for the Town of Vail (Figure 3). A
significantly sized rockfall catchment berm and basin, located about 1,300 feet to the northwest at
closest approach, has been constructed to reduce the rockfall hazard above the Booth Falls
development. It is Cesare's understanding that this consists of an earthen berm ranging in height
from about 10 to 15 feet, and an upslope catchment area spanning about 20 feet where the
natural slope has been laid back. An access road leading up to the catchment area begins at Fall
Line Drive near the western point of the project site. Additional rockfall remediation structures are
located upslope from Booth Falls Court and are visible in the aerial imagery. These rockfall
remediation features are shown in Photographs 9 through 11.
Debris flows are also a recognized geologic hazard for the area, as shown on the "Official Debris
Flow Hazard Map" for the Town of Vail (Figure 4). As shown on Figure 4, the site is not within a
debris flow hazard zone, although moderate and high hazard areas are delineated along Pitkin
Creek to the east-southeast of the site.
Photograph 9. Google Earth image of Booth Falls Mountain Homes to the west of the project site.
Examples of existing rockfall remediation structures are labeled.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 9
CESARE, INC.
"A a
r1k' .et�+lR� yr� yr'
^;q � � ..yam►, y '. 7'
✓,Y
•11s 1iJ�i1%�..SYi, '•y 5 .: .
`
ry 1 �ilz c x
KE" a -,T'�'1.
� �k ♦�"' rya �Ar! �.k�SS -;,�'v � �' ��r - ?� �� � - f� /`
ria\ �K •
a:I tip_ tt�?r -
ksie�s!?,
-i�
ADb�P �rr his r� 4� s yyF �i
� � 4 t '� ]��Pr '-3x ����. � tn. � ���"'D syr r✓ m � �
Photograph 10. View of rock -fall catchment berm and basin, upslope from Booth Falls Mountain Homes.
View looking west toward Booth Creek. The berm is between 10 and 15 feet high, and the ditch is about 20
feet from crest of berm to backslope.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 10
CESARE, INC.
ak^ �; a
AV
kn
fir, .S ixi
Photograph 11. View of rock -fall catchment berm and basin upslope from Booth Falls Subdivision. View
looking east toward the project site.
4. GEOLOGIC SETTING
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The site is included in the Southern Rocky Mountain physiographic province in an alpine setting
with elevations ranging from 8000 to 9000 feet. The site is located along the western flank of the
Gore Range, a northwest -southeast trending mountain range situated in north -central Colorado.
The Gore Range is separated from the Front Range Mountains to the east by the Blue River Valley
and Williams Range thrust zone. The core of the Gore Range is comprised of crystalline basement
rock uplifted during the Laramide mountain building event (orogeny) about 70 to 50 million years
ago (Ma). The Laramide orogeny also uplifted thick sequences of sedimentary units deposited
during the occupation of an inland sea in parts of Colorado. The sedimentary units are comprised
of shale, claystone, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone.
The Gore fault is located about 500 feet northeast of the site at closest approach and is not
considered active (Figures 5 and 6). The Gore fault is characterized as a zone of high angle
reverse faults. These faults have had at least five episodes of movement that span from
Precambrian (older than 540 Ma) to late Oligocene and younger (about 28 Ma), although most of
the displacement likely took place during the Laramide orogeny (Kellogg and others, 2011). A
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 11
CESARE, INC.
gentle regional tilt of 5 to 15 degrees down to the south-southwest, characterizing the
sedimentary bedrock in the site vicinity, is interrupted adjacent to the Gore fault. Beds of the
Minturn Formation are steeply dipping and overturned where located close to the Gore fault, as is
the case upslope and to the northeast of the site.
4.2 SITE GEOLOGY
The site is underlain by surficial units comprised of artificial fill, colluvium, landslide deposits, and
till of the Pinedale glaciation (Figure 5 Geologic Map). The bedrock underlying the site is mapped
as Minturn Formation (Kellogg and others, 2003; Kellogg and others 2011). Artificial fill is
associated with the construction of Fall Line Road along the southern border of the site and likely
with the unpaved, single track road (with buried utilities) in the southwest part of the site. A
wedge of colluvium is mapped mid -slope in the western half of the site, however, the colluvium
was actually observed to completely cover the site and largely obscure bedrock outcrops. The
eastern half of the site is predominantly landslide deposit and Pinedale Till underlies the
southeastern corner of the site. Bedrock of the Minturn Formation underlies the surficial deposits
at the site. Descriptions of these units are described below, from youngest to oldest. Refer to
Diagram 1 for a geologic cross section near the site.
4.2.1 Artificial Fill (afi)
Artificial fill is associated with the ground modifications that have occurred within and adjacent to
the site boundaries. Based on site observations, artificial fill is likely associated with the single
track utility road in the southwestern part of the site, construction of Fall Line Drive, and
construction of the shuttle stop and retaining wall in the southeast part of the site.
4.2.2 Colluvium (Qc)
Colluvial deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene; 126,000 years ago to present) cover most of
the slope in the site area based on site observations. Colluvium is characterized as unconsolidated,
generally non -stratified deposits mantling slopes less than 50 degrees. Colluvial deposits are
comprised of pebble, cobble, and boulder sized rock and fine grained material mixed together by
downslope movement. Colluvium is typically less than about 30 to 45 feet thick.
4.2.3 Landslide Deposits (Qls)
Landslide deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene; 126,000 years ago to present) underlie most
of the eastern half of the site. Kellogg and others (2003) characterize these mapped deposits as a
range of chaotically arranged debris to intact slump blocks of bedrock. The middle member of the
Minturn formation (Pmm) is notably susceptible to landsliding, although slope failures can occur in
most sedimentary units where over steepening of the ground surface has destabilized slopes.
Largescale landslide deposits may be up to about 120 feet thick.
4.2.4 Pinedale Till (Qtp)
Glacial till of Pinedale age (upper Pleistocene; 126,000 to 11,000 years ago) underlies the
southeast corner of the site and also a majority of the slopes to the east-southeast, and the area
upslope to the north of the site (in part). Pinedale Till is characterized as unsorted, unstratified,
and boulder. It tends to form hummocky topography with common depressions and small ponds.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 12
CESARE, INC.
Till deposits were observed upslope from the site and were bouldery (sedimentary and igneous
composition) and poorly sorted. This unit has been mapped as high as 900 feet above the present
elevation of Gore Creek, with thickness up to about 90 feet.
4.2.5 Minturn Formation
The Minturn Formation (middle Pennsylvanian; 315 to 307 Ma) underlies the entire site and
general vicinity. This unit is generally comprised of conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, claystone,
shale, and stratigraphically distinct layers of limestone and dolomite. The Minturn Formation is
divided into multiple units, two of which directly underlie the site:
Robinson Limestone Member (Pmr)
Marine limestone and dolomitic limestone, gray to yellow gray, fine to medium grained,
and locally contains fossils. Comprised of four separate sequences (each about 60 feet
thick) of limestone interbedded with pinkish tan, light tan, cross bedded, mica rich
sandstone and grayish pink sandy siltstone and shale. The sandstone, siltstone, and shale
layers weather in rounded forms, and the limestone and dolomite beds weather in
relatively angular forms. Outcrops of the Robinson Limestone member are visible in the
steep cliffs northwest and are also exposed directly upslope from the site. One large
boulder dislocated from upslope and came to rest near the base of the slope along Fall Line
Drive is sandstone containing purple gray coral, possibly representative of a reef facies
within the Robinson Limestone member. The Robinson Limestone member is about 360
feet thick north of Gore Creek.
Lower Member (Pml)
Conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale, pinkish gray, gray brown, gray green,
mottled maroon, and gray green. The Lower member may contain clasts of Proterozoic age
granite (2,500 to 541 Ma). This unit is generally obscured by vegetation onsite and
outcrops were not identified during our site visits. The Lower member of the Minturn
Formation can be up to about 1,200 feet.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 13
CESARE, INC.
DIAGRAM 1. Cross Section D -D'
D D,
FEET FEET
12.000 approximate downslope approximate upslope tz.voo
Ppm
extent of site extent of site
11,000 Q` Pmj GORE FAULT SYSTEM 11.000
--- ----
--------------- - -
-
10,000
X9
ml %
9.000 i1 9.000
Xu
7,000 Some thin s0iciel cepon% not sham 700o
Qa
Alluvium (Holocene)
0c .
Colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene)
otp
Pinedale Till (upper Pleistocene)
atb
Bull Lake Till (middle Pleistocene)
F'iPui
Manxm Formation (Lower Vermian to Middle
Pennsylvanian)
�m
Minlurn Forrrtatinn, smdi(feranlialed (Midd3e
Pennsylvanian)
Pm(
Jacque Mountain Limestone Member
Lipper sandstone and conglomerate member
�mwq
While Quail Limksiune Member
�rnm
Middle member
X01111
Individual Iinurstone bed
Prnr
Robinson Limestone Member
rl
Individual limestone bed
Lower member
4�mis
Individual limestone IMI
Xg I Cross Creek Granite
Cross section D -D' excerpted from the Geologic
Map of the Vail East Quadrangle (Kellogg and
others, 2003). This cross section is located
immediately east of the project site and
schematically depicts the surface and
subsurface geologic conditions in the site area.
S. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The current study focused on the geologic hazard related specifically to slope stability, including
rockfall and landslides in particular. Rockfall was analyzed using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation
Program (CRSP) for one study section located on the west side of the site where development is
most likely (per client communication). The landslide hazard was characterized primarily through
review of published maps and site reconnaissance to verify the nature, extents and evidence of
recent movement. Debris flows are a significant potential hazard in the site vicinity, although
debris flow susceptibility has not been determined for Vail or Summit County to date. The site is
not included in the Official Debris Flow Hazard Map for the Town of Vail, although Pitkin Creek
located near the southeast corner of the site is considered to have moderate to high hazard
potential. One debris flow located on the east -facing slope of Booth Creek (about 3,700 feet from
the western site boundary) and visible from the site is shown in Photograph 12.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 14
CESARE, INC.
Photograph 12. View looking west toward Booth Creek. The project site is located beyond the trees in the
right side of the photograph. Features are labeled.
Debris flows and rockfalls have damaged buildings in the Gore Creek area since development
increased in the 1960's. Debris flows can be triggered by intense summer rainstorms or rapid
melting of deep snowpack. Debris flows generally form on fan deposits, such as those composed
of glacial till. Freeze -thaw cycles in the spring tend to pry rocks loose, resulting in rockfalls of
varying magnitude and runout distance. The rockfall hazard is also related to a combination of
weak shale beds between harder sandstone and limestone beds, joints, and a regional bedrock dip
toward the valley. Large boulders from cliffs comprised of the Robinson Limestone member of the
Minturn Formation fell and damaged several residences in the Booth Falls subdivision in the
1980's. As a result, the homeowners and Town of Vail created a Geologic Hazards Abatement
District (GHAD) which aided in construction of a rockfall catchment ditch and berm that has
generally proven to be an effective protection measure (shown in Photographs 9 through 12).
The exception would include the event in 1997 when a large scale rockfall skirted around the
western end of the catchment structure, rolling downslope, and damaging structures below. This
event resulted in the construction of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls to add protection
for the downslope condominiums (some of which were not included in the original GHAD). A
report issued by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS; undated) summarizes the 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 t111, failed similarly 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.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 15
CESARE, INC.
As it fell down the slope, the rock fragments randomly fanned out such that the
,Hath of the rockfall formed a swath more than 500 feet across where they came to
rest. [..]
Approximately one third of the swath of rolling rocks were retained by the ditch and
berm. [..] The remaining two-thirds of the event came to rest, scattered around
the condominiums "
5.1 ROCKFALL
Rockfall is a potential hazard for the site and poses a risk to the property. Rockfall is the fastest
category of slope movement and is common in mountainous terrain near cliffs of broken, jointed,
or faulted rock, on steep slopes comprised of rocky material, or where cliff ledges are undercut by
erosion or human activity. Stability of a rock mass is generally influenced by the underlying
support provided to that rock mass and the structural nature of the rock, including the orientation
and spacing of discontinuities. After a rock dislocates from a rock mass, the controlling factors for
how far that rock will travel downslope include characteristics of the falling rock (composition, size,
and shape), characteristics of the slope (form, length, and angle), the presence or absence of
obstructions on the slope, and the height of the initial fall. The rocks exposed upslope from the
project site are comprised of the Robinson Limestone member of the Minturn Formation. The rock
exposures contain fractures and thin layers of siltstone and shale. As time passes, cracks can be
enlarged by weathering of the rock, accumulation of soil or vegetation growth, and the forces
associated with freezing -thawing of moisture within the cracks.
5.2 LANDSLIDE
Landslide deposits in the area occur on unstable slopes typically underlain by Minturn Formation
shale, siltstone, claystone, or glacial till, and are largely considered inactive. The extents of a large
landslide onsite were mapped during field visits, and the published boundaries were verified and
refined using available light detection and ranging data (LiDAR). Refer to Figure 7 for the
approximate landslide extents mapped for this study. Geomorphic features across the landslide
have been masked by heavy vegetative cover, and obscured and smoothed by natural processes.
The block sliding mechanism responsible for parts of the landslide mass enable large, relatively
intact bedrock masses to slide downslope. These masses may appear to be in-place, when in fact
they have moved downslope from their original position. Based on the high level of detail offered
by the LiDAR view, Cesare has confidence in the mapped extents of the landslide as depicted in
Figure 7.
The toe of the mapped landslide deposit is abruptly cut off by Fall Line Drive. The downslope
extents and western flank of the landslide are steep and form a recognizable break in slope shown
on the topographic map (Figure 2) and on the LiDAR (Figure 7). Photograph 13 is a view of the
landslide toe and western flank, looking eastward. The retaining wall built near the Town of Vail
shuttle stop is about 10 feet high and the slope above the top of wall is relatively steep (30
degrees or greater). According to Kellogg and others (2011), a large landslide was activated on
the north side of I-70 due to undercutting from highway construction. The landslide is located
about 1.5 miles west of the project site on I-70, involves the Minturn Formation (same unit that
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 16
CESARE, INC.
underlies the subject site), and is failing by combination of shallow earth sliding and deep
rotational movement.
y� ZS
My !Y ~
tip y _
Photograph 13. View looking eastward from the western flank of the landslide toe. The ground surface is
relatively steep along the toe and flanks of the slide mass, visible in the photograph.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 17
CESARE, INC.
6. ROCKFALL ANALYSIS
6.1 ROCKFALL STUDY SECTION
Cesare analyzed one rockfall study section through the west part of the site (Figure 8). The
location of this rockfall study section is representative of the slope on the west side and passes
through the area of the project site most likely to be developed in the future. The rockfall study
section is considered a reasonable representation of the slope in the western part of the site. The
section profile was derived from topographic maps available through the USGS, the Town of Vail,
and a topographic map for a portion of the western part of the site provided by the client. The
rockfall study section is depicted on Figure 9 and shown in Photographs 14 and 15.
Photograph 14. View looking upslope along the rockfall study section. Notable features include the
limestone bedrock exposures visible at the top of the slope and the dense vegetation on the slope. The
limestone bedrock forming the cliffs at the top of the slope are considered the primary rockfall source zone.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 18
CESARE, INC.
Y
y ` =
law
Photograph 15. View looking downslope along the rockfall study section. Notable features include the rock
exposures visible at the top of the slope, the steepness of the slope, and the density of the vegetation. Fall
Line Drive, I-70, and East Vail are visible in the background.
The rockfall study section begins upslope above the primary rockfall source area exposed in the
cliff comprised of Robinson Limestone and extends southward to Fall Line Drive, with a total
elevation change of about 760 feet over a profile length of 1,530 feet. The analysis for the rockfall
study section assumes the rockfall source zone is located in the exposed cliff face upslope from
the site at an elevation of about 9040 to 9080 feet. Photographs 16 through 18 show the
limestone bedrock exposed in the cliff face upslope from the site. Bedrock exposures (potential
rockfall source zones) were not observed further upslope from this area, although the glacial till
deposits above the primary rockfall source zone may be eroding and contributing to the rockfall
hazard. The slope above the western part of the project site is incised with active drainages and
covered in aspen trees, tall shrubs, and scattered boulders and outcrops.
Rocks deposited along the rockfall study section slope are primarily blocky to slab shaped, and
comprised of gray limestone interbedded with thin layers of sandstone, siltstone, and shale.
Boulders comprised of sandstone were also observed. The rockfall study section appears to be an
area of more recent rockfall events, compared to other areas of the site. A number of rocks in the
rockfall study section area display a comparatively "fresh" appearance, relative lack of lichen or
vegetative overgrowth, and some with minimal soil embedment. For other parts of the slope, a
majority of the boulders are more deeply embedded in the soil and overgrown with lichen and
vegetation (indicating much older rockfall events). Refer to Photographs 19 through 23 for
examples of boulders observed on the ground surface in the area of the rockfall study section.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 19
CESARE, INC.
Photograph 16. View of limestone bedrock exposure at the primary rock -fall source zone. Note the eroding
shale partings and vertical fractures (spaced about 10 to 15 feet apart).
r_—
Photograph 17.
Close-up view of
` primary rock -fall
source zone
bedrock. Gray, hard
limestone
interbedded with
thin, weak shale
layers.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 20
CESARE, INC.
O
0
o
U)
fo
..F - �� rr-J O N
0
L
a)
- Cnfo
cn
4-0
- -
! .lr —
r� fo
{ - _
21 E
o
to
O
O
-0
_ p L
C V
-- —_ _ p
• --'lL _ i_f ' -_ice - - ~ � - 2 � �
iii i _ -. s : _ _ - _ _ i i•n
. O O
E # > O
LL
a�p3_ •' ti: f_� i O N
T. "• r �a5a- ' — s 81 L 0
(n
E 4-
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 21
CESARE, INC.
Photograph 19. View of limestone
boulder, embedded. Blocky, angular,
and about 3 feet in diameter. Boulders
like this one are common on the
property and are either embedded in
the soil (older, ancient rock -fall events)
or are sitting on top of the soil with
minimal soil embedment or vegetation
overgrowth.
Photograph 20. Limestone boulder,
embedded, lichen growth. Blocky,
angular, and about 4 foot by 3 foot by
2 foot.
Photograph 21. Limestone boulder,
minimal soil embedment. Blocky,
angular, and about 3 feet in diameter.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 22
CESARE, INC.
Photograph 22. View of large, angular, slab shaped boulders near the base of the slope within the area
most likely to be developed in the future. Boulder sizes were observed to be at least (1) 12 foot by 8 foot by
5 foot, (2) 7 foot by 7 foot by 3 foot, and (3) 21 foot by 12 foot by 9 foot. These boulders are embedded in
the soil and have been resting here for some time.
... �• . � ...� � ,�.�� - �� �s° -,_ � t .0`3�' ..` 4; �y is '- .�?� .'�'.?' '� ..' ry �, - - .d"
iiiIL I
Photograph 23. Aerial view of lower slope in western part of the site. North is toward the top of the
photograph. Notice scattered boulders as large as about 7 to 8 feet in longest dimension and slab shaped.
Most boulders are 3 feet or less in dimension and are embedded in the soil, representing older, ancient
rock -fall events.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 23
CESARE, INC.
6.2 ROCKFALL MODELING - CRSP ANALYSIS
Factors which influence the runout distance, mode of travel, speed, and energy of a rock traveling
downslope include:
• Type, size, and shape of the rock.
• Type, length, height, and angle(s) of the slope.
• Potential launch points along the slope.
• Presence of obstructions on the slope (including trees, shrubs, and existing boulders).
• Height of the initial fall.
Based on site observations, the types of rocks traveling down the slope are comprised primarily of
blocky to slab like limestone. Rocks are also comprised of sandstone to pebble conglomerate and a
minor percentage of small, granite boulders (derived from the glacial till capping the slopes above
the cliff -face rockfall source zone). Sizes generally range from about 2 to 6 feet in diameter, but
can be as large as 20 to 30 feet in longest dimension. The larger dimension rocks are slab shaped,
irregular, with angular corners. The falling mechanism for the slab shaped rocks would be
primarily sliding after detachment from the source rock, although these rocks may roll downslope
end -over -end along the shorter dimension. Based on our experience with similar conditions, site
observations, and on opinions presented by the CGS for the rockfall hazard at Booth Falls to the
west of the project site, the limestone rocks falling from the cliff source zone tend to break apart
during their descent downslope. Cesare opines that some of the larger blocks on the scale of 20 to
30 feet in diameter may have been entrained in block slide movement of the landslide complex
onsite.
CRSP requires that the section analyzed be divided into regions (cells) based on areas with
uniform slope and characteristics. Cell boundaries are determined based on characteristics, such as
slope angle, material comprising the slope, and the presence of obstructions. Surface roughness
was estimated with consideration for the size of the rock and the irregularity of the slope surface.
The surface roughness (S) is defined as the perpendicular variation of the slope within a slope
distance equal to the radius of the rock. This value varied based on rock size analyzed. Based on
site observations and available topographic maps, there are no significant launch points below the
rockfall source zone along the section.
The tangential coefficient of frictional resistance (Rt) for the rock is the component of velocity
parallel to the slope, which is slowed during impact. The tangential coefficient was chosen with
consideration for the material which comprised the slope, as well as the amount of vegetation
characteristic in each cell. Vegetation would tend to increase the frictional resistance in the
direction parallel to the slope, thus decreasing the tangential coefficient. The normal coefficient of
restitution (Rn) considers the change in velocity of the falling rock normal to the slope after impact,
compared to the normal velocity before impact. For both the Rt and Rn coefficients for each cell,
Cesare referred to the CRSP manual which provides ranges of suggested values based on different
material types.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 24
CESARE, INC.
Cesare calibrated the model using the current conditions of the slope (no rockfall barrier, native
condition) and using rock sizes and shapes based on site observations. Simulation and slope
profile parameters are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
TABLE 1. CRSP Simulation Parameters
Parameter
Study
Section A
Length of section analyzed (ft)
1,530
Elevation difference across section (ft)
760
Total number of cells
6
Analysis Point 1 (x-coordinate)
1,000
Analysis Point 2 (x-coordinate)
1,200
Top starting zone (y-coordinate)
9,080
Base starting Zone (y-coordinate)
9,040
Number of rocks simulated
500
Starting velocity (x)
1 ft/sec
Starting velocity (y)
-1 ft/sec
Material density of modeled rock
160 Ib/ft3
Rock shape
Spherical
Rock dimension (diameter)
10
Starting cell number
2
Ending cell number
6
TABLE 2. Slope Profile Parameters
Rt: Tangential coefficient
Rn: Normal coefficient
Surface roughness varied based on rock size analyzed.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 25
Approx
Cell
Begin
(x,y)
Rt
Rn
Slope
Angle
Description of Slope
Geologic Unit
0
1
0,9140
0.65
0.15
35
Vegetated slope above rock -fall
Glacial till (Pinedale).
source zone.
2
100,9080
0.85
0.20
Near
Cliff face, rock -fall source zone,
Robinson Limestone member
vertical
approximately 30 to 40 feet high.
of the Minturn Fm.
Vegetated slope below rock -fall
Colluvium overlying
3
110,9040
0.70
0.15
30
source zone, runout accumulation
Robinson Limestone/Lower
zone.
members of the Minturn Fm.
4
930,8540
0.60
0.15
20
Vegetated slope, accumulation
Colluvium overlying Lower
zone.
member of Minturn Fm.
5
1180,8438
0.60
0.15
8 to 16
Vegetated slope, accumulation
Colluvium overlying Lower
zone.
member of Minturn Fm.
6
1411,8382
0.90
0.60
Paved
roadway
Fall Line Drive, asphalt paved
Not applicable.
flat
roadway.
Rt: Tangential coefficient
Rn: Normal coefficient
Surface roughness varied based on rock size analyzed.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 25
CESARE, INC.
6.3 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS
The results of the analysis using the current condition of the slope are summarized in Table 3.
Reported are results for common rock sizes observed at the site (3 feet diameter) and an
estimated maximum case (10 feet diameter). Although boulders as long as 30 feet in longest
dimension were observed embedded near the base area of the slope, these are considered more
likely to have been placed during block sliding of the landslide mass.
The rocks were modeled as spherical in order to represent the worst case scenario. Rocks which
are spherical will tend to have longer runout distances and higher velocities and kinetic energies
associated with them. Elongate, angular rocks will tend to lose momentum sooner than a rounded
rock as they travel downslope. Analysis Point 1 was placed about 200 feet upslope from the
property boundary and Analysis Point 2 was placed right at the upslope property boundary. Based
on observed runout and accumulation zones and calibration analysis results, it is Cesare's opinion
that the input values listed in Tables 1 and 2 adequately model the slope in question. Rockfall
analysis results are listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3. Summary of Rockfall Analysis Results
AP = analysis point
ft/sec = feet per second
ft -Ib = foot-pounds
6.4 DISCUSSION OF ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS
The CRSP analysis results show that a 10 foot diameter, spherical limestone boulder rolling
downslope along the rockfall study section from a source zone between 9040 and 9080 feet
elevation will have an estimated maximum kinetic energy of 1,846,786 foot-pounds (ft -Ib), an
equivalent of about 2,500 kilojoules, at the upslope property boundary. The slope gradually
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 26
Number
of Rocks
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Bounce
Height (ft)
Kinetic Energy
(ft -Ib)
Kinetic Energy
(kilojoules)
P_TassiAP ng
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Rock Shape = spherical; Rock Size = 3 ft (2,262 pounds),
API
492
37.6
19.2
4.3
0.7
65,545
18,906
90
26
AP2
21
16.9
8.0
0.3
0.1
13,957
3,649
19
5
Rock Shape = spherical; Rock Size = 10 ft (86,394 pounds)
API
499
52.9
35.7
3.9
1.1
4,570,623
2,240,805
6,197
3,038
AP2
497
33.2
20.8
2.7
0.7
1,846,786
800,467
2,504
1,085
Rock Shape = discoidal; Rock Size = 12 ft diameter by 5 ft thick (90,478 pounds)
API
499
46.7
37.6
3.4
1.0
4,112,846
2,861,685
5,588
3,880
AP2
499
33.8
24.7
2.6
0.8
2,243,475
1,270,950
3,042
1,723
AP = analysis point
ft/sec = feet per second
ft -Ib = foot-pounds
6.4 DISCUSSION OF ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS
The CRSP analysis results show that a 10 foot diameter, spherical limestone boulder rolling
downslope along the rockfall study section from a source zone between 9040 and 9080 feet
elevation will have an estimated maximum kinetic energy of 1,846,786 foot-pounds (ft -Ib), an
equivalent of about 2,500 kilojoules, at the upslope property boundary. The slope gradually
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 26
CESARE, INC.
decreases between Analysis Point 1 and 2, resulting in a decrease in kinetic energy of a rolling
rock between these points. The area of Cell Number 4 along the profile is a zonal transition from
rockfall runout in Cell 3 to rockfall accumulation in Cell 5.
For comparison, the worst case scenario considered in the CRSP analysis performed by the CGS for
Booth Falls was a spherical boulder 7 feet in diameter with an impact force of 5,000,000 ft -Ib
(about 6,800 kilojoules). This estimated energy is extreme when considering rockfall fences
(flexible mesh barriers) currently on the market are rated for impacts up to a maximum of 8,000
kilojoules. The ground surface in the area of the slope analyzed at Booth Falls is generally steeper
and vegetatively bare compared to the section analyzed for this study. CGS recommended the
design height for the proposed rockfall mitigation structure be at least 12 feet, if placed at the
analysis point located 30 feet upslope from the existing condominiums. An added option to
mitigate for smaller rock fragments which tend to break from larger rockfalls, included adding a
fence to the top of the berm or wall to be constructed. Cesare understands that for Booth Falls, a
pair of soil walls reinforced with geotextiles and sized 8 feet high by 10 feet thick and 12 feet high
and 12 feet thick were constructed after the 1997 rockfall event.
The nature of the ground surface at the project site acts to dissipate rockfall energies compared to
the slope above Booth Falls. The ground surface on the west side of the site is comparatively less
steep, heavily vegetated with aspen trees and large shrubs, dotted with scattered, embedded
boulders, with incised drainages that act to channel and slow rockfalls. Vegetation, incised
drainages, and embedded boulders act to increase surface roughness of the slope, creating
obstacles which decrease rockfall energies. Comparison of the ground surface characteristics and
the CRSP results for both the project site and the neighboring Booth Falls indicates the rockfall
hazard is higher for the Booth Falls area than for the project site.
7. LANDSLIDE HAZARD MAPPING
The extents of a large landslide complex were mapped on the east side of the site (Figure 7). A
landslide study section passes through the middle of the landslide, location shown on Figure 8 and
profile shown on Figure 10. The landslide study section begins upslope above an exposed outcrop
comprised of Robinson Limestone at about 8900 to 8920 feet elevation and extends southward to
Fall Line Drive, with a total elevation change of about 588 over a profile length of 1,220 feet. The
elevation of the Robinson Limestone bedrock exposure can be correlated to the rock exposures to
the west which are the primary rockfall source zone for the Booth Falls subdivision, although the
outcrop on the subject site is not as pronounced or as exposed as areas to the west. Based on the
landslide morphology visible in the LiDAR image, this bedrock exposure at about elevation 8900
likely slid down from a higher elevation upslope.
The LiDAR bare earth surface and the landslide study section both display a benched and
hummocky pattern characteristic of landslide terrain. The flatter parts of the benched areas range
from about 15 to 20 degrees, while the toe areas of the benches range from about 30 to 40
degrees. A slope map is shown on Figure 11 and depicts the range of slope angles across the site
and surrounding area.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 27
CESARE, INC.
Cesare understands that the Pitkin Creek townhome development located southeast of the site and
also at the toe of the mapped landslide extents has not reinforced the slope above the residences.
It was beyond the scope of this study to research potential landslide movement causing distress to
the Pitkin Creek development townhomes, and at this time Cesare is not aware of landslide
movement or related structural distress in the southeast area of the site. Chen and Associates,
Inc. (Chen) issued a soil and foundation investigation report for the proposed Pitkin Creek
Townhomes (dated September 20, 1978) which included subsurface exploration using test pits to
a maximum depth of 10 feet. The soils encountered were described as 1 to 3 feet of topsoil over
dense, sandy gravel, with cobbles and boulders to the maximum depth explored. Groundwater
was not encountered in the test pits. The Chen report mentions how the slope of the site rises
steeply to the north and that several large boulders were observed on the ground surface, but
does not discuss landslide or rockfall hazard or potential.
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report presents findings of a geologic hazard study specifically focused on rockfall. During the
course of the study, a significant landslide hazard was identified and is discussed in this report.
8.1 ROCKFALL CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the CRSP analysis results and existing rockfall mitigation structures on the neighboring
site to the west, a rockfall barrier or wall at least 12 feet in height is recommended. Based on site
conditions, including such aspects as slope angle and property boundaries, a rigid wall would be
more ideal than a flexible fence or berm/basin. The flexible fence system would require a
downslope buffer zone for flexure during rockfall events. A berm and basin system would require a
significantly sized footprint on the slope, something this project site does not necessarily have
flexibility towards. Cesare's CRSP model represents an estimate of rockfall energies at the analysis
point placed at the upslope property boundary along the section line and is not representative of
other locations on the slope. Changing the placement of the rockfall barrier will require changing
the location of the analysis point. Rockfall energies were modeled to be significantly higher at
Analysis Point 1 located 200 feet upslope from the property.
A catchment zone large enough for accumulation of boulders and for equipment to access the area
behind the barrier will be necessary, a width of at least 10 or more feet. It is the responsibility of
the wall designer to provide criteria for a wall that will withstand impacts with the sizes and
energies predicted by the CRSP analysis, and one which will allow for successful implementation of
recommended maintenance requirements. For rigid rockfall walls similar to those constructed at
the Booth Falls site, the height to width ratio is typically a 1:1 relationship. The rockfall catchment
will be reducing the rockfall hazard for a potential residential development and should be designed
with consideration for the nature of the structures (full-time occupancy).
8.1.1 Placement of the Rockfall Catchment Structure
Factors which influence the placement of the catchment structure include the rockfall energies,
sizes, shapes, and bounce heights estimated in the CRSP model for that analysis point on the
slope. Other considerations include site topography, site boundaries, and the spatial footprint of
the proposed rockfall catchment structure. The mitigation structure must provide an adequately
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 28
CESARE, INC.
sized catchment zone behind the wall and a buffer zone in front of the wall. The catchment zone
behind the wall must be sized to allow for accumulation of large boulders on the scale of 10 feet in
diameter, as well as access for equipment to remove accumulated debris from behind the wall.
Design considerations should include access for excavation equipment and adequate surface
drainage. Based on topography, the west side of the property provides adequate access for a track
mounted vehicle from Fall Line Drive and possibly a rubber tire vehicle (although access depends
on actual site development/grading plans, not available at the time of this study).
An adequately sized buffer zone in front of the wall is necessary in order to allow for a certain
amount of potential outward deflection in the event of an impact. The amount of deflection
depends on the type of wall to be constructed. The downslope buffer zone must be designed and
maintained as an open, empty space. The type of catchment structure has not been decided, and
may vary from a flexible barrier to a more rigid design, so it is important that this buffer zone is a
consideration during design stages. A flexible catchment fence will require more consideration of
outward deformation than a rigid wall, and will require a conservatively sized buffer zone. The
intent of flexible barriers is to slow the velocity and decrease the energy of the falling rock, not
necessarily to stop it completely. Rigid barriers have the limitation of being prone to damage
during high energy events, but this is generally the case with most constructed rockfall barriers.
The barrier should be designed to withstand the types of energies predicted by CRSP analysis
results described in this report. The catchment structure will require periodic and routine cleaning
of the accumulation areas to remove debris.
The rockfall remediation should be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure hazards
impacting adjacent or downslope properties are not aggravated. In its current condition, the
western half of the site is impacted by rockfall consisting of boulders the size of 10 feet or more.
These boulders have historically rolled and slid down the slope from the steep cliff faces exposed
upslope from the site. The vegetative cover on the slope above the project site acts to slow
rockfall events in its current condition. If this vegetative cover were to be removed for some
reason (e.g. clear cutting, wildfire), these obstacles would be removed and the rockfall hazard
would increase.
8.2 LANDSLIDE CONSIDERATIONS
Cesare did not observe evidence of recent landslide movement at the project site. The retaining
wall for the Town of Vail shuttle stop which is located at the toe of the landslide, appears to be
performing adequately. The landslide area displays benched and hummocky topography with over -
steepened toe and flank areas, however, fresh landslide features, such as tension cracks, scarps,
slumps, and other features, were not observed. Figure 7 shows the bare earth land surface and
provides a convincing depiction of the landslide extents. Cesare is not aware of landslide
movement causing distress to the townhomes in the Pitkin Creek subdivision notched into the toe
near the southeast corner of the site.
Based on the lack of evidence of recent landslide movement as observed onsite and through aerial
photographs and LiDAR imagery, Cesare does not recommend monitoring of the landslide at this
time. Slope stability should be a primary consideration if ground modifications and development
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 29
CESARE, INC.
are planned in or near the landslide mass. The landslide has the potential to destabilize if the
ground is disturbed or modified in adverse ways. Slope stability of the over -steepened toe and
flank areas, as well as large-scale global stability should be considered. In addition, the bedrock is
dipping gently out -of -slope, exacerbating the slope instability issue.
8.3 DEBRIS FLOW CONSIDERATIONS
Although the site is not within the limits of the Town of Vail Debris Flow Hazard zone, there exists
the potential for debris flows at the site. Material and debris which could mobilized in a debris flow
event cover the slopes at and above the site, including glacial till capping the ridge above, and
rock talus and colluvium on the slope above the site. Incised drainages actively flowing with water
are present on the west side of the site, and ground surface patterns visible in the LiDAR imagery
suggest erosive processes are underway in this area. A significant precipitation event has the
potential to trigger or increase the probability of a debris flow event, additionally, ground
modifications may alter or increase this debris flow hazard in some areas. Cesare recommends the
debris flow hazard potential be considered in future development stages.
9. LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geologic and
geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or
made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this
report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be
considered valid unless Cesare reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions
of this report in writing.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 30
eywpnsuo� s�nua1nyQ vojivngeva� g s.;aeu; Yuq prvzuyn7ua�
:31V0 'A -:M Li'9i'90 :31V0 JM4
deW �16o�oag SWC19 03J1O3HO MI :,kg NMViId
S 3Z ngi=i geed I1 A Ise] 'LPo3S PJ -2H lIP4A-b :3WVN-DI[Odd
6ZOS'Li :ON-DI[Odd
lop
ffi
.��jf•: >,';�� �--_ � �, Vit}, �����
I ( i
m f
\ f (� 1 • i 11� rfrJ �I
i y a
eyuvtlnsuo� .smv,;w vajry—.3 g s.�ae 0-gjvn}L+/aaFro�
'ONI HNVKF4�
:]IV0 'A -:M Li'9i'90 :]IV(] 9M4
S atn6ij deW a!6ojoaE) col pua6al jWC I :Ml 03)IO3HO I MI :1.9 NMViId
9 3unqu hated I1eA Ise] 'ApnIS ptezeH Ilel#I-b :IWVN-DI[Odd
s3l`JND'HOVl o °JNIONnotitins-E)NIMOHS dVW X34N1
yyC ¢C
�Qma
J'CSJ�
yatQ �
y�`t�r
SyaCr
atn#aeal to 11-1hews to d!p pue alliulS
Sy
uogeauq pa#etaosse
�a cp5
moa
Sia coS�
ema
(3;ozotalaia Al -g) gliloy#eq 3laat0. ssot0 aq} to s>taog
SJ
r
(w�l) sialawolnl 609'{ (iw) sad}w
(w) s'.Jm. 970£'0 (l1i laa;
(wo)-lawpuaa @G'.b ('upsauoul
welgool As AldAluW
(!w) Saltw 7469'0' 'Iw4l s�alawo�i�
4`u4-opy! Lf69'0: twg)stalawuuao
ulelgo of AS A!dllloW
F'F:171I FFx � Ci7 b�; p-re7, CiFI
lxal ut of paulaJai ulle3olsaleotpul Aaga-I
H-
(a!OzOmIOtd Alte3) sstauS alllotq allnewr)!W
tuX
pau!Iaul
T
atn#aeal to 11-1hews to d!p pue alliulS
e
uogeauq pa#etaosse
6X
to aSunld pue Suueaq pue uo!letlol lo. dtp pue 031tuls
deX
uoueautlto aSunld. pue Sutaeag 9*-
IeaivaA
paullaul
uai}enol to d!p pus allplS.
pau!pul - -
a
spaq to dip pus allu;s alewixoaddV
leluozuoH
pauanuano
IeDlq!aA
pautlaul
S`
spaq to dip pue wiplS
palpaauoa
-agm papo(j aueld tetxe }o aaeg SutmogS-eutlaUAS
paleaouoa
alagm papcU ,augd lelxe;o aoetl Su!moLIS-aullol;uV — —
(£961 S-ts pue olamj) auoz teags aAelsatwoH
diozosa;oad o} lalteled RpeaauaO-teat's aq!uolAlq
uopy mjp d!ts mgelaz mous smo ue :pateaouOo alagtr+ pauop
'paleaol fila;eullxotdde atagm pagse(]-}lnej dtls-ailu#S
umouil atagm umogs auetd llnel;o diQ
'afield taddn uo q;aaj pajeaouoo atagm pa400-}Inel #snug j
aletd.taddn uo salSuepaj 'paleaouoo wagm
pa}lop `paleoot .6ja;eua!xoldde aaagm pagseq-Ilnel asaanali r�
n'"nul a;agm umogs auetd ltne} go
dip ap!s tvnoag;umop uo jeq pue peg pateaouoa a aym
po4op pa4-ol :Zya;emlxotdde atagm pause()-#tnel lewtoN aT�
6ZOSYT I :ON-DI[Odd
sgdwBo;oyd ne wotj
pa;a[daa;ut #as))o;uaaedde ou'slInej awos and umou4
aiagm dtp. Suimogs -paleaauoo atagm pa;lop spa;eol
Alalewlxoldcle aiagm pagSe(j atnlaetl #uaunuotd to llne j T^
—Uo zaagm dip bulmogs !paleaauoo
auagm pa##op ;pa;eaot Ata;Qwjxoidde aaagm pagae (l-;ae#uoL)
(alozoaa}otd fgze3).ss!auS a#goig
6qX
(a!OzOmIOtd Alte3) sstauS alllotq allnewr)!W
tuX
allto!Q
!PX
aj!ueujalaatO.-WD
6X
a}tuetSat#!IdV
deX
(3;ozotalaia Al -g) gliloy#eq 3laat0. ssot0 aq} to s>taog
.
suogaas ssoto
w fituo umogS palequaaapipun 'shoot atozotalotd AIJe3
nX
SMDO'd OIOZOE31102id KIHVH l
(ueugweo aaddn).a#¢}:tenbga}emeg sa
ueugwe3 taddly uageutuoj ssaltaad d3
(uetuonadaadd[�uo!}EuuO,q Sul}ted d0
(catozoaled tamal) alltP otlselO
PoZd
SIINf) dVW 30 ISII
fuuo ;g -g uogaas ssoao uo umogS-pa#e!}uaualppun
's#lun ue!agweD o; ueluenlhsuuad
ncp
pact ouolsauul lenpwpul
sjw�
uagwalu tamo-1
paq auolsau-ql lunp!alpul
)lwdJ
amgmaW auo;satuq uosutgoH
Iwo
pagauo;sawtllenpm(pul'"
µuwd
tagwaw ajppjW
wwdl
tagwaW uol---j pent ajjgM
bmwE
taqumm a#etamolSuoo pus auo#spues taddr)
tagwaW ouolsaun`I u!elunoW anbaer
Iwd
(ueluenlA-uad
.y
a1pp!W) pa#e!}uatallIpun'uouewto� UtlgUll�
wd
(ueluu4iAsuuad
atppilll of uetuuad aamoZ) uol}eulao j uooaeyll
Wdd
(iUeipal,) uotllsodwoa atslal of a;elpauua}ut to s!laot mita
(auaao#staid tamol o} alppw) uolaiwem
PO
(--04slald a1pp!w) IpL aile711ng
910
(auaaols!ala -ddn) IPJ, allq-U!d
d}D
(auaao;scald Laaddn) play japing
AD
(auaaolstaldpue auaaoloH)'taawuasla3
uyD
(aua-lstald aaddn pus auaaol0H): s#tsodap apIppue-1
(auaaolstald Aaddn pue auaaoloH) umtnnpoj
(auaaolstald
taddn pue auaaoloH). papInlpun 'unuanlloa pue uminnlly
oeo
(auaao#scald xacIdn pue aua 101) sllsodap puepaM
MD
(auaao}siald aaddn pue auaaolol )) slisodap a !Julr)IJO#i
o
(auaao}s!ala uaddn pue auaaotoH) s}isodap moll-spga(l
JPD
(auaao#sald aacldn: pue auaaoloH) snlej,
ID
(aua?olslaldaaddn pue auaboloy) slisodop ued
ID
(auaooloo s}!sodap ap!lspual luaaag
ASID
(auaaolol{}uuunnUV
eD
(auaaoloH lsa#el)'flule!a!jpl
:; :,(�;•;a
o
(auaaoloH lsalel) plallmoaS
s
SIINf) dVW 30 ISII
V-4- -.3 W11o1y umPrtili'uoJ 1, uyvaloag
:31V0 'A3b LT/Z/9 :31V4 9M4
c deW s�ua�x3 api�spue�
HuvsrgeN 3WC :A9 43)IJ3HJ DVI :AS NMVNa
LJJ V L 3�1O9Id
IDDAed IIM 4Se3 /,Pn4S PAezeH IIeAW02i :3WVN iD3CO2dd
6ZOS'LT :ON 1O3CO'dd
""IIW 7
:31aa VON LT/ZZ/S :31y0 JMO
tleW suoiinqlD@S Apn�s =IN[ :AS CAAD-3H� 214 DVI :AS NMtl
s aan�ia
IDDAed IleA 4Se3 APn4S PAezeH IleAWob :3WHN 133CObd
6ZOS'LT :ON 133CO2dd
i
vnugnsuu,� V17"pipruxnmis-�%e u„i„s«�1�,.,,i,y.,�'.” :31tld 7132{ LT/T/9 :31VO 9M0
t�v Y uo!p@S ApnTS Ilej lood 3WC A GDAHO 9YI :1,9 NMVSQ
loll a 6 311i19Id
Ia:)aed I1eA Ise] 'Apn3S paezeH IlePOOb :3WVN 03CO2Jd
6ZOS'LT :ON 031Nd
O
N
$
unw�nsua3:�auam)y aan,a rrao� uaarnxg7 �rninq.ennr
'
ll��llll l}11
Taus
uoiToaS ApnTS ap!lspuel
OT 3anDId
3Ld0 71311 LT/T/9 :31tl0 EMI
3WC A8 03NJ3HJ Dy1 A8 NMHaO
aOaed HeA lse3 'Apn3S PaezeHIleWOO 1 :3WVN LJ3Mdd
6ZOS'LT :ON 1J3C0ad
m m m m m w
(33) uOilenal3
py-li —p --j f",-.9 clew @c1ols I :31V0 'AAd LT/Z/9 :31V4 9M4
'DNI 'HNVS r T.T. 3)jnE)xzi =1141 I :A2 03ADAHD DVI :AS NM"Cl
IDDAedl!eA4seg'/,pn4SPAezeHIleADOd :]kVNiD3[021d
6ZOSLT :ON 1D31021d
ell
SARE, INC.
Geotechnical Engineers & Construction Materials Consultants
APPENDIX A
Documents and Drawings Reviewed
References
CESARE, INC.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
DOC1. Chen and Associates, Inc., Soil and Foundation Investigation for Proposed Pitkin Creek
Townhouses Near Interstate Highway 70, East Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, Project No.
17,046, dated September 20, 1978.
DOC2. Chen and Associates, Inc., Geologic Hazards Reconnaissance, Lot 11, Block 1, Vail Village
12th Filing, Vail, Colorado, Project No. 25,474, dated January 26, 1983.
DOC3. Colorado Geological Survey, Rockfall Hazard Assessment at Booth Falls Condominiums,
and Proposed Mitigation, prepared for the Town of Vail, Colorado, undated.
DOC4. Nicolas Lampiris, letter re: Unit #13, Pitkin Creek Townhomes, prepared for Nedbo
Construction Company, dated September 12, 1987.
DRAWINGS REVIEWED
DWG1. Topographic Map of a Portion of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2,
Township 5 South, Range 80 West, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, prepared by
Peak Land Consultants, Inc., dated January 10, 2017.
REFERENCES
REFI. Kellogg, K.S., Bryant, B., Redsteer, M.H., 2003, Geologic Map of the Vail East Quadrangle,
Eagle County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -2375,
Version 1.1.
REF2. Kellogg, K.S., Shroba, R.R., Premo, W.R., Bryant, B., 2011, Geologic Map of the Eastern
Half of Vail 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Eagle, Summit, and Grand Counties, Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3170.
17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel Documents and Drawings Reviewed, References, Appendix A
SARE, INC.
Geotechnical Engineers & Construction Materials Consultants
APPENDIX B
Rockfall Hazard Assessment at Booth Falls Condominiums and
Proposed Mitigation
(Colorado Geological Survey)
1
w
r
j
L
1
L J
ROCKFALL HAZARD ASSESSMENT AT BOOTH FALLS
CONDOMINIUMS
AND PROPOSED MMGATION
prepared for
The Town of Vail, Colorado
by
Jonathan L. White
Colorado Geological, Survey
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, CO 80203
ph. (303) 894-2167
fax (303) 894-2174
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
0 *Booth Creek Rockfall Report, Page i
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 2
March 26,1997 Rockfall Event 2
Hazard Assessment 4
Rockfall Mitigation Options �}
Rockfall Analysis and Design Criteria t�
Recommendations 7
Current and Future Actions 8
Appendix A. Booth Creek Rockfall Hazard Area
by Bruce K. Stover
Appendix 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 S
Photo #3
Close-up of top cliff source area S
Photo #4
Location of proposed mitigation at Condos 8
Photo #5
Lower cliff above district to be monitored 9
' 0 Booth Palls Roclfall 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
(GRAD). The District has mitigated much of the hazard by the construction of a ditch and berm on
the slope above the residential area As far as the Survey knows, the ditch and berm configuration
has been 100% effective for rocks that continually fall from the cliffs of the Minturn 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 earlier 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 are two appendices. Appendix A, Booth 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 are 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 similarly 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 clif. 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 around 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 frarne, 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 structure. The rock came to rest, ominously so, next to a large boulder from an
earlier rockfall. A major impact, also about 34 feet in diameter 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 frame along its path before coming
to rest in the subdivision below. The third and worst impact was a 5+ foot block that broadsided the
easternmost 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 Hazard Area
- Vail, Colorado
Areal extent of rockfall impacts from
11:20 pm, 3/26/97 event.
6+a9. _ 3 447 I i
I.
ss�o,s
X
caurt
e3•t.2
e3•o.e
x ,
K
13 -My B17e8 I
X
P1JMK a
e1".1 �.0
figure 41.
I
Booth Creek Rockfall Report, Paa
Rockfall Source: Limestone bed at highest
point of upper cliff. See companion photos
in report. Location not shown on town GIS
map.
one inch = 200 feet
`0 The berm was 100% effective for that
1 portion of the ;/26/97 event that fell into iL
o337.G
LO k
x x . � � # ■tta 5�� x
y 1113.5 i
4a=
t
lA �
0
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 appeared 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 area 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
anyone'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 are 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. ~-WE QW- . _.-.� � ,�, � -� • __ . - —
The main source area
for Booth Falls �''`'-'
Condominiums is the upper _
cliff. The exposed, lower
cliff of sandstone reduces in
height as it trends to the
northwest. Photo #1 and a
close-up photo #2 show the
x
extent of the upper cliff
f J /S -
where it is not soil covered.
They reveal a benchy cliff of
beds of limestone, thin shales, =
and minor sandstone. It is the -- -
dense, hard, gray limestone
that creates the largest
rockfall boulders in the Booth
Creek area. The report by B. Photo 41. 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-
0
0
Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Page 5
eroding interbedded shale partings. Also in Photo 93 are several slumped and isolated limestone
blocks on the rock slope that have not vet 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.
Photo #2. Top cliff rockfall source area. White arrow marks location of March 26, 1997 rockfall.
Photo 43. Close-up aerial view of source area. Note sedgy appearance with joint defined blocks
undermined by erodin, shale partings. White arrow A marks scar from March 26. 1997 rockfall. White
arrow B marks rock pedestal that was hit by rockfall and may be destabfized. Note loose blocks, marked
by black arrows.
Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Page 6
1 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 area to prevent rocks from falling; and rockfall protection systems that acknowledge
that rocks will fall but structures or public areas are 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 Wilderness Area;
2. Source area stabilization at this site would need to cover a large 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 construction activity would present unacceptable risks that rock
could be inadvertently knocked down, by workers or equipment, onto the residential areas.
RockfallY
rotection systems that will be considered at this site are ditch and berm
P
configurations and impact barrier wall systems. Fences will not be considered because they can have
high maintenance cost and generally cannot withstand high impact forces without being destroyed.
I ROCKFALL ANALYSIS and DESIGN CRITERIA
Proper analysis of the hazard for design purposes requires accurate slope geometry and a
determination of appropriate rockfall sizes. For the slope geometry we used information gained from
our earlier 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 area. 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 larger rocks. A screen dump is shown on Figure 42 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 arrived at the following
Ibounce heights, impact kinetic energies (K.E), and velocities at this analysis point.
11
Rock
Rock
Bounce K.E.(rnax)
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
6' sphere
9878
17069
2.1
2.0
1,900,000
3,000,000
1,400,000
2,300,000
95
96
81
78
T 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'x6' cyl_
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
11
Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Page 7
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 are 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 afterwards. 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 earlier 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 -16s 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 parameters 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 Palls Rockfall 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, ora
combination of both, can be
designed for the site and be cost -
effective. No rockfall fence on
the market can probably -` y; _ -its sitz x
withstand the impact forces that
are being contemplated. The
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 careful 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 5-12 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 45. While we believe this
feature will not be a threat for many years it bears watching because of its size. If this feature were
to fail the vol - me 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 larger 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
0
Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Pale 9
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 areas 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.
it
11
iI
UI
1 • 1
Ll
APPENDIX A
1
fl
1
1
i
Boom CREEK RUCKFALL HAzARD AREA
Bruce K. Stover
Colorado Geological Survey, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715, Denver, CO 80203
Residences situated atthebasc of thevalleywatl at themouth
of Booth Geek in Vail Valley are exposed to varying degrees of
rockfall hazard (Figure 1). The hazard ranges from low to
moderate for structures near the limits of the runout zone on the
valley floor, to very !sigh for some rrside.n= eoustxacted in the
lower pad -of the aeceleradon zone at the base of the d*,- The
arca vrAs developed prior to the time when Vail had adequate
gcol4r, hazard mapping or zoning completed. The rmkfall
_hazard was thus not identified prior to development.
The problem was investigated in detail after a major rock:U
even# izt May 1983, caused serious damage to several strucn=.
in the years since the original hazard investigation was con-
ducted, several more significant rockfall, events have occurred;
boulders have destroyed timber patios and log retaining walls,
dwzagcd W¢erior walls, and smashed completely through struc-
tures causing considerable damage to interiors and fu mishings.
- The town of Vail and affected property owners are current-
lypursuing a means and framework for administering design and
construction of protective rockfall structures and barriers in an
attempt to safeguard the residential area.
Geology of Rockfail Source Meas
The geologic make-up of the diffs above Vail Village F -ding
12 is %%own diagrammatically in Figtue 2 Scdimcatary strata ex-
posed in the r.liB[s are past of the Minturn Formation of Middlc
Pennsylvanian age, and include beds of sandstone, shale, grit,
conglvmcratc, and limestone. The beds strike N85�W and dip
15° to 18° into tLe vafley axis. The lawer cliff consists of shaley
sandstone beds about 12 m thick resting on a weak, fissile, rapid-
ly eroding black to gray shaie. 'Me sandstone unit has two
prominent joint sets striking NMOW and N55°W. These joints
combine to separate large slabs and dei`me the cliff face angle
vistible from the valley below. Above the sandstone is a soft, fri-
able coarse sandy conglomeratic bed 1 m thick which weathers
to a smooth rounded ledge and continually undercuts a 0.6 to 1
m thick dense, hard gray limestone unit resting above it. The
Emestoac is jointed so that subangular blocks (.5 x.6 x 1 m) con-
tinuously detach from the bed and fall off the sloping diff edge.
These limestone blocks are commonly involved in the more fre-
quently recusing events that can often cause damage to struc-
tures in the runout zone.
A thick shale unit between the upper and lower cliffs has
weathered back to a 68 percent slope- The shale is soft, clayey,
and shows evidence of localized slippage and small slope failures
which probably oxer duuing iutcnse rainstorms or heavy snow -
=tit, Very small mudflows appear to start on this steep slope
and spill over the km-cr ells` c€ m They are capable of disturb-
ingor wditingrockbDsifboulders happ= to be in their paths,
or are resting near points of initial failure.
Above this soft eroding shale is a thicker cliff -forming unit of
the Robinson Limestone- This bed of dense, hard, gray lime-
stone varies from L5 to 10 in think in the study area and is the
source for the largest rockfall boulders encountered in the
runout zone. The limestone boulders that detach from the cliff
are quite resistant and tend not to break up or shatter on their
way downslope. The largest boulders found in the runout zone
appear to be derived from this upper cliff -forming limestone.
ne shala-zme upoo whirls the upper limestone CIM rest is
weak and by erosion tmdercau the massive limestone lcdgc:&,
creating pedestal -like blocks which eventually topple off their
perches. The limestone is jointed such that blocks approximate-
ly 3 m x 1.2 m x 12 m are separated from the cliff and tilt out-
ward toward the cliff edge- Thinner beds within the limestone
diff produce more slabby blocks that, if not turned onto their
edges by chance during the initial fall, remain flat -side down on
the steep slopes.
An eroding slope in glacial till rests directly above the cliff -
forming upper limestone in the northern part of the study area.
The eroding slope periodically sheds smooth, rounded granitic
boulders which tumble down the cliff into the runout zone.
Other areas of this till farther east along the cliff appear relative-
Figure 1. Location map of study area, scale, 1:7A,000
ly stable, and are not actively shedding large rocks to the slopes
below.
Ahave this tall, slopes flatten dramatically to Wades of 0 to 35
percent_ Large stands of maws aspen indicate that thmsc gentle
upper till slopes arc relatively stable. No other rorkfall sources
existaNwc these gentle slogs which start at an elevation of ap-
proximately 9,450 ft.
Physical Configuration
ThcAoep southwest-facingslope and rocky cliff tower 1,000
ft (305 m) abWe Vail Voltage Filing 12 cm its northern boundary.
These boots are attained within a horizontal distance of 1,700
h (520 m) resulting in an avm-ap slope of 58 percent. The slope
can be divided unto several zones (Figure 2)
A) Runout zone - slopes of 28 to 45 percent along the
foot of the vat wall. This area is mcoerawy
wooded with fairly youing aspen and has been
developed as a residential subdivisiosi. Tice Wjority
of rocks failing from the cliffs come to rest in this
nano.
B) Arcelerafion rope - slopes of 55 percaot to 65 per-
ecnt and steeper immediately below source area. So
boulders of significant size can remain at rest 08
tl m stapes due to the stcepocss. Sparse, stunted
aspen occur in small stands, but gencrAly the slopes
do not support much vegetation- Roves Vavcn ng
thisportion of tbeslope wnll continue to gain momen-
tum as they roll and skitter dowasloM
C) Lower vertical diff snurce area - A 50 ft high (16 m)
cWofjointed sandstone andlimestone mpouts 560
vortical ft (175 m) above the runout zone. Large slabs
15 to 20 ft (4-5 to 6 m) in diameter, periodically
detach from the cliff face and tilt outwards mlil they
topple over and shatter, showering boulders onto the
acceleration -zone slopes below. (Figure 3)
D) Upper shale -slope acceleration zone - A steep (68
punt) shale s]npo above the [owes vertical rdiff at -
lows boulders from a higher miff to gain momnutum
before becoming airborne at the stiff edge.
E) Upper verticil cliff source arca - Jointed slabs and
boulden 1,000 vertical ft (305 m) al}ow the runout
zone periodically detach from the cliff and free fall
and bound downslope and off the lower cli$ Most
rocks do not shatter, but remain as intact ap-
proximately 8 by 5 ft (2.5 by 1.5 m) limestone
boulders which are capable of reaching the farthest
Emits of the runout zone. (Figure 4)
F) Eroding upper till slope - Glacial till resting on top
of the upper cliff sheds rounded granitic boulders
' BODING GLACIAL TILL
UPPER �:D'•O••
! LNMESTONE CLIFF
ROCKFALL SOURCE AREA
LIPPfrA SHALE-
A+CCFLERAT*N SLOPE
LOWER SANDSTONE
LEDGE f�
f LOWER ..
SAJNDSTONC
CLIFFS
ACCELERATION ZONE
LOWER ERIMiTIGU =f f f
SHALE REDS
COLLUVIUM ON
ACCELERATION
� � SLOPES �fr—
RUNOUT ZONE
�RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES
BOULDERS IN
RUNOUT ZONE a !r
Figur 2. Geologic diagram of compound rock -fall slopes in study area. Drawn to scale with no vertical esmggastim Note dip of
strata toward valley.
downslope which roll and fall off the cliffs. This till
slope is considered to be a part of the upper source
area
Roc]dall Mechanisms
Several natural geologic and topographic facrors combine to
cause roWa% from the cuffs exposed on the uonh valley wall
of Gore Creek in the study area. These factors include joint pat-
terns, differential weathering of various rock types, dip of strata,
and the slope of cliffs and acceleration zones.
Jointing and Differential Weathering of Cliff Faces
joust patterns in the cliff forming rocks are canscd by stress
relief and physical proputies of the rock. The joints so Formed
defLue planar, vertical cliff faces and act to separate large scc-
tiozYs of the cliff uuo slabs along joints subparallel t o I he cif$ face.
Once a slab has detached from the sedimentary bed, it begins to
creep outwards owing to gravity and frost wedging in the joints.
The joints widen with time, and are often wedged farther apart
by tree roots, and smaller rocks that fall into the cracks formed
by the joints. (Figure 3)
UacrentW vo,_- theringof shales has andcrcut the mom sis-
tant averlying sandstones or limestones c mating a lsori=ntal
gro= or averhang at the base of the diff which removes sup-
port for the rocks above. Eventually, the overhanging ledge lie-
aames incapable of supporting its own weight, and fills or top-
ples from the Miff. If rhe overhanging slab tzar already detached
Form the cW aloag Joints and is res* preratiousiyon the shale,
txndcrcuxting and differential weanccr4 a k -Ac the Proms
which fma y results in inevitable toppling of the slab. As the
largeslabs topple ouzo the acceleration slopes below, they usual-
ly shatter into many smaller boulder mrd chw*s whirl► ac-
celerate downslope to the runout zone. The toppling may t4 -
ger adjacent unstable parts of the cliff to fall as well.
Dip of Strata and Topography
The dip of the rock ledges making up the source area also
contributes to rockfall along cliffs in the study area. The strata
in the two cliffs dip approximately 15 degrees into the valley,
causing any to= stones, cobbles, or boulders on the ledges to
inevitably move down to the edge of the 16 in vertical cliff
limestone bloclu separated from their beds by jointing and
weathering creep down toward the valley along these dipping
bedrock surfaces (Figure 5). Rounded glacial cobbles and gravel
1■
2.
�r
3.
�+
—77Jt'7 la
r.r ff a
•
Figura 3. Toppling SlalAaih re Segoenoe. L labial cliff eoaftarada& 2. Diaratial weathering of soft shale begins to undercut
massive diff forming subs. Joints open and widen due to slope er'erp and frost wedging. Springs issue from contact beneath dllL
3. Undercutting continoes. joints widen and arewedged open by smaller rocks, musing slab to tilt outwards. 4. Slab falls from diff
face onto aeon slopes, bringing down overlying rocks. S. Slab topples and shatters, showering runout zone below with
boulders, and aposing new diff face to erosion.
.f
•�#.r8 t• wen � � t
TLL
Figure 4. Limestone slabs resting on weak shale pedestals,
upper dict son= area.
Figure 5. Slope creep causing limestone blocks to move down
bedding planes and off lower cliff edgy Blocks are generally 2
it x 3 ft. This mechanism is responsible for frequent rock falls
in the study area.
jt
• % w
i
+
f •
•
Figura 3. Toppling SlalAaih re Segoenoe. L labial cliff eoaftarada& 2. Diaratial weathering of soft shale begins to undercut
massive diff forming subs. Joints open and widen due to slope er'erp and frost wedging. Springs issue from contact beneath dllL
3. Undercutting continoes. joints widen and arewedged open by smaller rocks, musing slab to tilt outwards. 4. Slab falls from diff
face onto aeon slopes, bringing down overlying rocks. S. Slab topples and shatters, showering runout zone below with
boulders, and aposing new diff face to erosion.
.f
•�#.r8 t• wen � � t
TLL
Figure 4. Limestone slabs resting on weak shale pedestals,
upper dict son= area.
Figure 5. Slope creep causing limestone blocks to move down
bedding planes and off lower cliff edgy Blocks are generally 2
it x 3 ft. This mechanism is responsible for frequent rock falls
in the study area.
1
1
0
OLDER ROCKFALL BOULDER
GRANITIC BOULDERS
IN TILL
SOIL PROFILE
DEPRESSION
IN SOIL
PITTED
WEATHERED
SURFACE
�r+
t �
• TILL
i
FRESH ROCKFALL BOULDER
NO DEPRESSION
t ' _f '
r +i-
• sa
t } ;. .
INCONSISTENT
DISCOLORATIONS
EDGES EXPOSM
Figure 6. Physical Merences between rockfall and glacially deposited boulders In runout zone. Roddall boulders are all llnaestone
or sandstone, while glacial boulders are mostly rounded granite or metamorphic 1lthologles. Note that soli exists below roddall
boulders, while itis absent beneath glacial boulder&
slough down along the dip slopes and eventually fall into open direction radiating fi om he point of initial fall. Thepattern or
cracks formed by joints, wedging slabs farther apart. trajectory a given boulder could follow is so unpredictable that
The glaciated valleys of Gore and Booth Creeks both possess it is impractical to delineate individual hazard zonas based on
relatively fiat bottoms and steep near lyvertical sides. The dopes the physical eonditioas of various segments of the diff Faces. In
are so steep that once a boulder or slab topples from the cliffs, the present situation, hazard zones are. more practically w1ated
it usuallycannot come to rest until it reaches the lower footslopes to horizontal .de tance from the source areas, zones farther away
of the valley wall. An examination of the runout zone shows that experiencing a smaller probability of being encompassed by a
large boulders and slabs have travelled onto and across parts of given ewmt. This approach yields an apprommately radialscrics
the valley floor due to the tremendous momentum they acquire of zonas radiating out from the source area; the more severe
in the acceleration zone. hazat+ds are obviously dosest to the diffs. it should be pointed
out, however, that any area within the cadent of the runout zonae
Factors Tdgger* RoclMls is subject to some degree of rockfall hazard
Most of the rockfalls reported in this area appear to be re-
lated to alternating freeze -thaw conditions. Events have oc-
curred at night in winter, spring, and fall, after warm days of
melting -have introduced runoff into joints and fractures. Upon
freezing, the ice expands in the cracks sufficiently to topple an
unstable block. Some events have also occurred on the other side
of the cycle, as sunshine thaws the frozen cliffs, releasing a
precariously perched block or boulder.
Hazard Classifreatlon and Zonation
The rockfall hazard associated with geologic and
topographic conditions and the proximity of dwellings as
described above is considered to be severe. The majority of large
boulders found among structures in the runout zone have fallen
from the cliffs. Feld study indicates that the question is not,
"Will significant rockfall occur?", but rather, "What is the recur-
rence interval between significant rockfall events?".
Acceleration slopes are so steep and smooth that rocks
traversing them are free to deflect and skitter laterally in any
Hazard Zone Delineation
Varying degrees of rockfall hazard severity can be ap-
proximated by examination of the nature and positions of
boulders and slabs in the runout zone. Each large boulder was
examined to determine several factors which was used to ap-
proximate the extent of the runout zone, and estimate the time
spans since each rockfall boulder came to rest. These factors
are
1) Whether or not a boulder was of rockfall origin or
Slay deposited.
-t) Whether or not a rockfall boulder was resting andis-
turbed in its original position or had been moved by
human activities.
3 j The physical nature of undisturbed rockfall boulders
with respect to basal contact, (resting on surface, em-
bedded, partially covered, etc.) and lichen, moss,
and weathering patterns on exposed surfaces.
4) The comparative size distributions of boulders
within the runout zone.
0
Rockfall Versus Glacial Origin of Boulders
In order to determine the extent of the rockfall runout zone,
it is necessary to determine whether boulders encountered
belowthe cliffs in Vail Village have fallen from one of the source
areas and come to rest on the surface, or if theywere transported
in and deposited by ice or outwasb durtug Pleistocene glacia-
tions. This distinetiou can be made by comparing the character
of boulders found embedded in undisturbed glacial deposits
with the limestone and sandstone boulders derived from the
cliffs (Figure 6). Glacially deposited boulders are mostly
rounded to subrounded smooth granite or metamorphic rocks
which are imbedded in the surroundingglacial deposits. The ex-
posed surfaces of these boulders are almost totally covered with
lichens and moss. The heavy lichen cover and other well
developed surface rock weathering features such as pits and
etched relief of individual mineral grains, suggest that these
boulders have been in place for 20 to 40 thousand years. The gla-
cially deposited cobbles aad boulders arc 85 to 94 percent
graniticandmetamorphic rock types, and very few limestone nr
sandstone cobblcss or bouldw can be found in the till. TU is
due to the fact that the only source area where valley glaciers
could senutr and iuwj poi ate Cemestonc blocks is a =now (rand
of rock one mile upsib-cam from the rwwur zone. The extensive
upper basin whieb spawned the glaciers is composed of
Precambrian igneous and metamorphic lkhologies, which
make-up the vast majority of the rock types encountered in Q
deposits found in the roeVall runout scat. In coatiaS4 large
boulders and slabs of rockfall origin are pular nr poorly
rounded, rest directly on the ground surface, do not shove an
equal amount of weathering on all exposed surfaces, and are al-
most mdtLsively limestone or sandstone. A few granitic rockfall
boulders are also preserst, and arc derived From 0 in the upper
S
ource area. These differences were used to map the laca6om
of large boulders of rockfall origin and determine the ap-
proximate limits of the runout zone.
Disturbed Versos Undisturkd Rocldall Booldm
tJnrc a spc6fic boulder was idrati6ed as being of probable
rockfall onoits position On the foot slopes could be used to
predict the nature and extent of the runout zone. A problem with
using the positions of rocltfall boulders in the subdivision and
adjaama areas to delineate the runout zone is that many have
been disturbed and moved from their original positions during
development and ctia&uction activities Many of the bouddcn
are too large (some weighing up to 15 res) to be maved easily,
even by heavyequipment, and itis assumed thatthey,}tre moved
only a few feet to several teas of feet from their original position
in order to carry out construction of roads and building founda-
tions. The accuracy of this assumption is not easily determined,
and Lbc present positions of the disturbrd boulders as izidicatm
of rusrsout zone and hazard zone rhanicteris ics are not endrety
reliable.
Disturbed or transported roddail boulders always show fres
gouges arid abrasions caused by heavy earth moving equipment,
Additionally, the• and lichen growth patterns, if any, are in-
consistent with the present orientations of the boulders, indicat-
ing that they have been moved after the patterns were estab-
1 hc4 Discoloration of the disturbed boulders c=etl by soil
wntact can be observed on the sides or top of those which bane
been pushed over and moved. Tlue boulders often leave trails or
marks where thcy have been pushed along the ground, creating
a small berm of scraped up sail along one of their basal edges.
Undisturbed rockfall boulders do not show fresh gouges or
scrapes, have consistent lichen and moss growth patterns, do not
show soil discoloration on their sides or tops, and are often sur-
rounded by young bushes, aspen trees, or natural vegetation,
which has obviously not beteg disturbed. 71m positions of Ihrse
boWders can be used to afore amtrately project the minimum
limits of the runout zoom since they can be inferred to have none
to rest in their present positioas after faIIing Ecom the cliffs.
Factors Used m Approximate Age and Recurrenct Intervals W
of Major Rockfall Events
Certain characteristics exhibited by undisturbed rockfall ,
boulders and slabs in the runout zone, suggest approximate or
relative time spans since they ease to rest after fatter ; and give
a rough estimate of the recur=ce =ervals between large s3ab-
failure events. The contact made by a boulder with the surfnce
suggests how long the rock has feces resting in its present posi-
tion As the length of time increases, thr, rock will tend to press
into the ground, and slope wash, soil creep, and frost wedging
will act to fill in around the base of the rock with soil materials.
Rocks which have been si g for long periods tend to be some-
what embedded in the soil, and if moved, would reveal an inden-
tarion in the ground. Docks which have reccatty fallen rest
directly on tlse ground surface, and may lie an brush or small
trees they have aushed beneath them. one can push a stick
beneath the edges of such a rock im some places.
Older rocks also have more consistent lichen growth patterns
than recently moved rocks which have detached from the cliff.
Recentlymoved rocks may possess differentially weathered sur-
as a result of their former positions on the kith If the
btrulder acquired a surfer vmatharing and cruor pattern while
on Lhc Jiffs, it is unlikely to roll to a stop in the same pasitint]
and the surfaces whicli. were previously against the ground or
fates joints may still possess a characteristic coloration o-a-
trastirug with older, expLwd weathered surfaces. Considerable
titne isneaessaryfor natural wcathcriug processes to remove-
discoloration
emovediscoloration and create a new uniform surface color on the
rock. I
Distribution of Roeldall Events
Examination of the source area and runout zone revealsthat
two basic types of rockfall events take place in the study area.
The first and most common involves smaller individual boulders
generally in the (03 x 1 m) size range, which detach front
sedimentary beds and eventu-}ily fall from the cliffs. These f
commonly involve several boulders, many of which are set in mo-
tion after being struck by the initial falling rock This type 01
minor rockfall is common, and based on examination of the
runout zone and cliffs above, can be expected to occur every one
to three years. This is the type of rockfall which occurred in the
rgpDaed events of May 1983, January 1986, and September 1987,
damaging several structures. Many rockfall events go un-
reported unless significant damage to structures occurs.
The second type of rockfall is much less frequent, but of far
greater danger and destructive potential. It involves massive slab
failures of the cliff faces, along joints which liberate large (4S x
6 m) slabs and (2S x L5 m) limestone boulders, showering them
onto the acceleration slopes below. The next rockfall of this mag-
nitude will almost certainly result in extensive damage or
destruction to structures in the runout zone below.
An imprecise preliminary estimate of recurrence intervals for
these large slab -failure events, based on examination of the
source area and undisturbed rockfall boulders in the runout
zone, is on the order of 40 to 100 years. Large boulders set in
motion during these events can travel through the runout zone
as far as the maximum probable limit. An estimate of the last oc-
currence of this type of event, based on the freshest, undisturbed
rockfall boulder in the runout zone, and weathering patterns on
the cliffs, is on the order of 40 to 60 years ago.
Potential Solutions to Roddall Hazards
The feasibility of protective structures and other preventive
measures were evaluated during the study.
Smaller boulders commonly falling off the lower cliff could
probably be arrested by protective structures built near the
lower acceleration zone on property within the platted sub-
division. The structures must be capable of absorbing the ener-
gies of one ton boulders traveling at 50 mph, and would probab-
ly involve energy absorbing materials held within timber or rock
cribbing. Maintenance of the structures would benecessary each
time a boulder is stopped, since the energy dissipation will
damage or deform that part of the structure involved It is
probably not feasible to build an armoring wall or other type of
structure which attempts to arrest the boulders through rigid
strength, due to the e:ttremely high momentum rocks gain
through the acceleration zone. The unpredictable paths and pat-
terns
atterns followed by rocks skittering down slope makes it difficult
0
to determine the best places to site the protective structures.
One approach would be to construct individual protective struc-
tures for each building within the runout zone. Alternatively, a
single large structure above the subdivision might provide as
much protection and create less overall disturbance to the area.
The structure would have to be carefully designed and con-
structed to be free draining and to prevent adverse snow or ice
accumulations from forming above the protective barrier. Siting
a community type protective structure appears to be feasible if
based on the detailed siting studies which would be necessary to
determine the most suitable location. In either case, costs for
these structures are estimated to be on the order of 0.75 to one
million dollars, and could be higher. Unfortunately, these struc-
tures would do little to prevent larger boulders or slabs derived
through toppling failures from destroying structures in the
runout zone. The energies possessed by such slabs or boulders
are simply too great to contain within the restricted space avail-
able between the source areas and existing residences.
REFERENCES
Mears, A.I., 1979, Colorado snow -avalanche area studies and
guidelines for avalanche -hazard planning: Colorado
Geological Survey Special Publication 7,124 p.
Robinson, C.S., and Associates, Geological Consultants, 1975,
Geologic hazard maps for environmental and land -use plan-
n_n& Eagle County, Colorado.
Rogers, W.P., et al., LW4, Guidelines and criteria for Wentifi-
cation and land -use controls of geologic hazard and mineral
resource areas: Colorado Geological Survey Special
Publication 6,146 p.
Shelton, D.C., 1974, Rockfall: variables which determine the
hazard Unpublished report, Colorado Geological Survey
Geologic hazard files, Denver, Colorado.
Tweto, Ogden, and Lovering. TS, 1977, Geology of the Min
turn 15 -minute Ouadrangle, Eagle and Summit Counties,
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 956,
96 p.
1
1
1
�I
F�l
I
APPENDIX B
1
C
1
1
t
ROCSFALL MITIGATICO
Jonathan L. White
Colorado Geological Survey
I TRODUC17ION
Rockfall is a geologic hazard that is catastrophic
in nature. For the most part it is viewed as a nui-
sance by highway maintenance personnel who
are required to clean the debris off the roadway
and periodically clean out the fallen rocks with-
in the roadside ditches. When rockfall occurs in
populated areas or areas frequented by people,
lethal accidents can occur.
In general, rockfall occurs where there is .
source of rock and a slope. Within the rock
mass, discontinuities (bedding planes, joints,
fractures, etc.) are locations where rock is prone
to move, and ultimately, fail. Depending on the
spatial orientation of these planes of weakness,
failures occur when the driving forces, those
forces that cause movement, exceed the resisting
forces. The slope must have a gradient steep
enough that rocks, once detached from bedrock,
can move and accelerate down the slope by slid-
ing, falling, rolling, and/or bouncing. Where the
frequency of natural rockfall events are consid-
ered unacceptable for an area of proposed or
current use, and avoidance is not an option,
there are techniques of mitigation that are avail-
able to either reduce rockfall rates and prevent
rocks from falling, or to protect structures or
areas of use from the threat.
There have been important technological
advancements in rockfall analysis and mitigation
techniques in the last several years. They
include rockfall simulation software, rock
mechanics software, and research and develop-
ment in new, innovative mitigation techniques.
This paper emphasizes mitigation techniques.
There are, many factors that influence a
selection and design of a mitigation system to
reduce or eliminate a rockfall hazard. They
include:
1. The rock source (lithoiogy, strength, struc-
ture, and weatherability) and expected re-
sultant fallen rock geometry (size and shape);
2. Slope geometry (topography);
3. Slope material characteristics (slope surface
roughness, softness, whether vegetated or
barren);
4. Proximity of the structure requiring protec-
tion to source area and rockfall nm -out zone;
5. Level of required rockfall protection (the
acceptable degree of risk);
6. Cost of the various mitigation options (con-
struction, project management, and design);
7. Constructability (mobilization difficulties,
equipment access, and other constraints);
S. Future maintenance costs.
For any public or private land use proposal,
in steep sloping areas, the geologic hazard
investigation should initially recognize those
physical factors listed above. If rockfall has
been identified as a hazard then a detailed rock -
fall hazard analysis is warranted. The conclusion
of such analyses, in addition to the detenrnina-
tion of the factors above, must include:
1. An accurate determination of anticipated
risk and frequency of rockfall at the loca-
tion of the proposed land use, and;
2. Site specific calculations of the velocities,
bounding heights, and impact forces for the
range of anticipated rockfall events.
Once all physical characteristics and calcu-
lated falling rock dynamics are determined then
the appropriate engineering and design can be
completed for mitigation of the rockfall threat-
ROCKFALL NUTIGATION
TECHNIQUES
The available techniques in effective prevention
and mitigation of rockfall, fall into two cate-
gories. One is stabilization of the rock mass at
the source to prevent or reduce rockfall occur-
rences. The other is the acceptance that haz-
ardous rockfall will occur, but with the place-
ment of protective devices to shield structures,
or public areas, from the threat of impact. There
is a third category that, while not a form of miti-
gation, is a method that can diminish the cata-
strophic nature of rockfall. It is rockfall warning
and instrumentation systems. Systems, electrical
and mechanical, that either will indicate that a
rockfall event is imminent, or has just occurred.
0
Stabilization and Reinforcement
Techniques that require in-situ or surficial treat-
ments of the slope to induce additional stability
to the exposed rock mass are termed rock and/or
slope stabilization and reinforcement. Stabiliza-
tion can be accomplished by any combination of
the following: removing unstable rock features,
reducing the driving forces that contribute to
instability and ultimate failure, and/or increasing
the resisting forces (friction or shear strength).
1. Scaling (hand scaling, mechanical scal-
ing, and trim blasting). Scaling is the
removal of loose and potentially unstable
rock from a slope. On slopes of poor rock
conditions scaling is generally viewed as a
continual maintenance procedure because
the loose rock removed exposes the rock
underneath to further weathering.
2. Reduce slope grade. Laying a slope back
can prevent rocks from falling from a
source area.
3. Dewater or drain rock slope to reduce
water pore pressures. The installation of
drainage holes in rock can reduce the pore
pressure in rock fractures—one of the dri-
ving forces mentioned above.
4. Rock dowels. Rock dowels are steel rods
that are grouted in holes drilled in rock,
generally across a joint or fracture in the
rock of unfavorable orientation. It is a pas-
sive system in which loading or stressing of
Figure 1. Rockbolts and dowels.
40
the dowel occurs only if the rock moves
(slides) along the joint plane. (See Figure
1.)
5. Rockbolts. Rockbolts are installed much
like dowels but are usually loaded or
stressed, which imparts a compressive force
on the rock. The loading of the steel rod
during the installation increases the shear
strength of the joint or fracture and pre-
vents movement, reinforcing the exposed
rock mass. There are wide varieties of rock -
bolts, including mechanical, grouted, and
binary epoxy resin systems.
6. Steel strapping. Steel strapping, also called
mine strapping, is a strip of steel that
bridges between offset rockbolts or dowels
to support the rock mass between them.
7. Anchored wire mesh or cable nets. Fence
wire or, depending on loading criteria,
cable nets are draped on a rock slope and
anchored to the rock mass by the bearing
plates of rock dowels or rock bolts. The
anchor pattern is set so that the wire mesh
or cable nets are,in continuous contact with
the rock face so that there is complete con-
finement of the loose rock material. (See
Figure 2.)
ms
Figure 1. Rockbolts and dowels.
40
the dowel occurs only if the rock moves
(slides) along the joint plane. (See Figure
1.)
5. Rockbolts. Rockbolts are installed much
like dowels but are usually loaded or
stressed, which imparts a compressive force
on the rock. The loading of the steel rod
during the installation increases the shear
strength of the joint or fracture and pre-
vents movement, reinforcing the exposed
rock mass. There are wide varieties of rock -
bolts, including mechanical, grouted, and
binary epoxy resin systems.
6. Steel strapping. Steel strapping, also called
mine strapping, is a strip of steel that
bridges between offset rockbolts or dowels
to support the rock mass between them.
7. Anchored wire mesh or cable nets. Fence
wire or, depending on loading criteria,
cable nets are draped on a rock slope and
anchored to the rock mass by the bearing
plates of rock dowels or rock bolts. The
anchor pattern is set so that the wire mesh
or cable nets are,in continuous contact with
the rock face so that there is complete con-
finement of the loose rock material. (See
Figure 2.)
1 • i
1
11
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
8. Shotcrete. Shotcrete is the sprayed applica-
tion by compressed air of concrete on rock
or rocky soil slopes for reinforcement and
containment. Shotcrete applications can be
strengthened by the addition of nylon or
steel fibers to the concrete mixture, or the
placement of a wire grid on the rock slope
prior to application. Weep holes are usually
drilled into the shotcrete to ensure that the
contained material is free draining. (See
Figure 3.)
Figure 3. Shotcrete.
9. Buttresses. Buttresses are used where over-
hanging or undermined rock features
become potentially unstable and require
passive restraint. Buttresses can be con-
structed from many types of material. For
concrete buttresses, rock dowels are gener-
ally installed into surrounding competent
rock to anchor the buttress in place. (See
Figure 4.)
IO.Cable lashings. Cable lashing is the wrap-
ping of high capacity cables around a
potentially unstable rock feature. The
cables are then attached to anchors (rock
dowels) installed in adjacent competent
rock. (See Figure 5.)
11.Ground Anchors. Ground anchors are
generally used to prevent large, potential
landslide -type failures in heavily weathered,
fractured rock and rocky soils. Their
installation requires the drilling of deep
holes and the grouting of thick bundles of
high-strength wire strand, which are attached
to large load-bearing panels and then stressed
(pulled) to a desired tensional load and
locked off.
I 1"f 1
Figure 4. Anchored concrete buttress.
Figure 5. Cable lashing.
Rockfall Protection Devices
When stabilization of rock slopes is not practical
and sufficient room exists, protective devices or
structures can be constructed to shield areas from
rockfall impact.
1. Fences. Rockfall fences come in a variety of
styles and capacities. They tend to become
less effective and are damaged if not
destroyed by larger rockfall events. (See
Figure 6.)
SOURCE
AXEAr
nvs.7car
Figure 6. Rockfall fence.
2. Ditches. Ditches excavated into slopes can
provide excellent rockfall protection. Care is
needed in analysis and design to insure that
bounding rocks cannot span the ditch width.
(See Figure 7.)
3. Impact barriers and wails. Impact barrier
and walls can be made from many types of
material, from fill mechanically stabilized by
geotextiles, rock gabion baskets, timber,
steel, concrete, or even haybales. Highway
departments commonly use Jersey barriers
on roadsides to contain smaller falling rock
in the ditch. The inertial systems, able to
absorb the forces of momentum of the mov-
ing rock, have higher capacities, without
costly impact damage, compared to more
rigid systems. (See Figure 8.)
4. Earthen berms. Berms are elongated
mounds of fill, commonly used in associa-
tion with ditches to increase the effective
height and catchment of the protection
device. (See Figure 7.)
5. Hanging fences, nets, and other attenua-
tion devices. In well-defined rockfall chutes
in steeper rock slope areas it is possible to
anchor cables to span the chute and hang
fence mesh, cable netting, or rock attenua-
tion elements. Rocks that roll and bounce
down the chute impact these devices, which
attenuates (reduces) the rock velocity. (See
Figure 9.)
F
� t
Figure S. Mechanically stabilized backfill barrier.
r
Figure 7. Rockfall ditch and berm.
U
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure 9. Tire impact attenuator.
6. Draped mesh or netting. Draped mesh is
similar to the stabilization technique
anchored mesh but is only attached to the
rock slope at the top. Rocks from the slope
are still able to fail but the mesh drape keeps
the rock fragment next to the slope where
they safely "dribble" out below to a catch-
r---nt ditch or accumulate as small detrital
fans. (See Figure 10.)
Figure 10. Draped mesh.
' 7. Rock sheds and tunnels. Rock sheds and
tunnels are mentioned here only because
they are used mostly for transportation coni -
dors. They have little or no application in
most types of land use.
AVOIDANCE -
THE 100 PERCENT SOLUTION
There is one more mitigation method that is nei-
ther a stabilization/reinforcement system nor pro-
tection system. It is strongly recommended at
locations where rockfall hazards are very severe,
and/or risks very high. Mitigation designs pro-
posed in such areas may not afford the necessary
level of protection. Bear in mind that no rockfall
mitigation is 100 percent guaranteed, even in
mild rockfall hazard zones. Avoidance is excel-
lent mitigation and must be considered where cir-
cumstances warrant. Any professional in rockfall
analysis and mitigation (as with any geologic
hazard) must, at times, inform developers, plan-
ners, and the public that a proposed land use is
incompatible with the site conditions.
SUGGESTED READING
Federal Highway Administration, 1989, Rock
slopes: design, excavation, and stabilization:
Publication FHWA-TS-89-045, prepared by
Golder and Associates, Seattle, Washington,
funded by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, U.S. Department of Transportation:
McLean, Virginia, Research, Development,
and Technology, Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center, [373] p.
Federal Highway Administration, 1994, Rockfall
hazard mitigation methods, participant work-
book: Publication FHWA-SA-93-085, pre-
pared for the Federal Highway Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Transportation
Publication by SNI International Resources,
Inc.: Washington, D.C., National Highway
Institute (NHI Course 13219), [357] p.
Hambley, D.F., ed., 1991, Association of
Engineering Geologists, 34th annual meet-
ing, Chicago, Illinois, Sept. 29—Oct. 4, 1991,
Proceedings, national symposium, highway
and railroad slope maintenance: Association
of Engineering Geologists, 180 p.
Hoek, Evert, and Bray, John, 1981, Rock slope
engineering, (rev. 3rd ed.): London, U.K., The
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 358 p.
Pfeiffer, T.J., et al., 1995, Colorado rockfall simu-
lation program, version 3.0a: Colorado
Department of Transportation Publication
CDOT DTD-ED3-CSM-89-2B. Available
from: Colorado Geological Survey Miscell-
aneous Information Series 39, diskette, 60 p.
10 0
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-2611
FAX: (303) 866-2461
March 12, 2002
Mr. Russell Forrest
Senior Environmental Planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
STATE OF COLORADO
- S14-18-0004
RE: Review of Rockfall Mitigation for Booth Falls Condominiums.
Dear Russ:
Oki
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
B i Il Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Vicki Cowart
State Geologist
and Director
The CGS was requested by you to provide some additional comments on the completed
rockfall mitigation at the Booth Creek Condominiums in the Town of Vail. At your earlier
request, I inspected the rockfall mitigation structures on October 22, 2001 after construction was
completed last fall and sent comments to you in a letter dated November 9, 2001.
A question arose concerning any potential impacts to adjacent owners from the
construction of the inertial barrier walls designed for rockfall impact. During my site inspection
last fall I did not note any way in which these structures would adversely impact adjacent
owners, except for a remote possibility to the access road to the Town water tank. There should
be sufficient room to stockpile the snow against the foot of the western wall if the water tank
road needs plowing for access during the winter.
Also the issue of maintenance and inspection of the structures was raised. The
mechanically stabilized earth impact walls are basically maintenance -free. One concern I raised
last fall was potential for sloughing or slumping of soil into the catchment zone from the bare cut
slopes. If not cleaned out, the soil accumulation could effectively reduce the wall height. The
cut slopes behind the walls (re -vegetated and stabilized as recommended) should be inspected
every spring or after an unusually heavy precipitation event. The barrier walls should also be
inspected after any rockfall impacts. Crushed portions of the wall facing after impact should be
quickly repaired. Yenter Companies can provide guidance on recommended repair techniques
for the wall facing.
The only other type of failure of the system that could arise is a bearing failure of the
native soils that the impact barrier wall is founded on. If tilting or sagging of portions of the
walls is observed, the homeowner's association should inform Yenter Companies and require
their staff to inspect the structure. Slight undulations along the length of the walls by differential
settlement will not effect the performance of the structures. While an unlikely scenario, adverse
tilting of the structures could be more problematic.
Inspection of the walls and catchment zone behind should be part of a normal
maintenance item of the condominium grounds by the homeowners association. I do not believe
this action needs to be conducted by city staff unless distress of the wall parallel to the water tank
access road is observed, which could possibly affect the roadway. Again, I believe it is very
unlikely that this would occur.
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the original rockfall assessment report the CGS
prepared after the March 26, 1997 rockfall event. If you have any questions, please contact this
office at (303) 866-3551 or e-mail: jonathan.whiteQstate.co.us
Sincerely,
Jonathan L. White
Engineering Geologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
EcotogicaCConsuttants
goy West Coach Road, Boulder, Colorado 80302
August 10, 2017
Dominic F. Mauriello
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 4777
2205 Eagle Ranch Road
Eagle, Colorado 81631
(303) 442-6144
email transmittal to dominic@mp".com
Re: Rezoning wildlife assessment of Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail.
Dear Dominic,
Vail Resorts owns the ± 23.3 -acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel and is interested in the
preliminary planning step of rezoning it for future residential development on a portion of the parcel.
Wildlife issues will be a concern in the Town approval process. At your request, this document
considers the more important wildlife issues associated with the parcel. A site visit specifically for this
project was conducted on August 4, 2017 and I am familiar with the habitats present and the general
wildlife issues from working on projects in the valley dating back to 1977.
1.0 LOCATION
Figure 1 is an October 9, 2015 Google Earth image showing the parcel's location between Pitkin Creek,
on the east, and Booth Creek, on the west. The parcel is located contiguous to the north of I -70's East
Vail interchange whose 24/7/365 traffic influences the effectiveness' of the parcel's wildlife habitat.
The Pitkin Creek townhomes are partly surrounded by the southeast portion of the parcel. Booth
Creek residential development and school are located below Booth Creek Cliffs and the Booth Falls
rockfall mitigation berm. The western end of East Vail occurs on the opposite side of the interstate.
Because the image was taken in October, after leaf fall, the aspen -dominated hillside on the parcel is
not apparent.
2.0 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
At this time it is unknown where and how much development could occur on the parcel. Steep slopes
and rockfall hazard are two significant considerations. However, to evaluate the significance of wildlife
issues, preliminary results of an analysis prepared by Mauriello Planning Group utilizing Town of Vail
GIS mapping were considered. Mauriello Planning Group (2017) identified a 5.4 -acre area (25% of the
entire parcel) in the far western portion of the property as the most likely developable area.
Habitat effectiveness is the ability of animals to use a certain area of habitat compared to its maximum possible use.
3.0 HABITATS PRESENT
The south -facing parcel is dominated by relatively young, pole -stage aspen with a mountain shrub
understory. Figures 2 and 3 show habitat on the east and west sides of the property, respectively.
t
F
JOf ` r
t �
Figure 2. View northeast of the East Vail parcel from the east -bound lane of I-70 across the widest
(south -north) part of the parcel just west of the Pitkin Creek townhomes (western -most townhome at
right). September, 2015 ground -level Google Earth image.
2
4.0 KEY WILDLIFE ISSUES
The Town and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), may have several wildlife concerns associated with
future development and habitation of residences on the subject parcel, however the current proposal to
rezone the property would have no effect on wildlife. Engagement with CPW, as an advisory agency,
should occur with any development application that is submitted in the future and considered in a more
extensive Environmental Impact Report, as defined by the Town Code. These issues are discussed
below, based, in part, on current (November 21, 2016) seasonal range files downloaded from the CPW
website. The mapping is part of CPW's database, which provides information on wildlife distributions
to public and private agencies and individuals, for environmental assessment, proprietary land
management resource planning, and general scientific reference. The disclaimer associated with all
CPW mapping is footnoted.z Polygons are defined by the observations of animal distributions over
many years.
4.1 Bighorn Sheep
Figure 4 shows six bighorn sheep seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail
parcel. Bighorn sheep winter range and severe winter range cover the same area and overlap most (±
2 NDIS [CPW kmz] mapping was derived from field personnel and is updated periodically [currently every 5 years]. A
variety of data capture techniques were used including drawing on mylar overlays at 1:50,000 scale USGS county mapsheets
and implementation of the SmartBoard Interactive Whiteboard using stand-up, real-time digitizing at various scales.
Information depicted on NDIS maps is for reference purposes only and is compiled from best available sources.
Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this data. Colorado Parks and Wildlife expressly disclaims
responsibility for damages or liability that may arise from the use of this data.
The wildlife distribution maps are products and property of CPW, a division of the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources. Care should be taken in interpreting these data. Written documents may accompany these maps and should be
referenced. The information portrayed on these maps should not replace field studies necessary for more localized planning
efforts. The data are gathered at a variety of scales; discrepancies may become apparent at larger scales. The areas portrayed
are graphic representations of phenomena that are difficult to reduce to two dimensions. Animal distributions are fluid;
animal populations and their habitats are dynamic.
3
75%) of the parcel. Winter range is that part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are
located during the average five winters out of ten, from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up.
Severe winter range (SWR) is that part of the winter range where 90% of the individual animals are
located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two
worst winters out of ten. The amounts, quality, and effectiveness of winter range are generally what
limit big game populations. The polygon boundary is not accurate. It likely extends southeast to the
treeline along Pitkin Creek, down to the interchange on/off ramps, and down to the north side of the
frontage road. There is no I-70 game fencing in the area. Sheep likely used the habitat in what is now
the Booth Creek residential area and it is unlikely that they continue to enter that development. The
winter range and SWR overlapping the entire subject parcel is approximately 1.2% of the overall winter
range and SWR polygons (approx. 1,880 ac.) that extends west along the north side of I-70 nearly to I -
70's Vail exit. This is the only sheep winter range polygon mapped on either side of the Gore Range.
High concentrations of winter sheep pellets were located along the top of the Booth Falls rockfall
mitigation berm during the site visit. Two homes located 107-177 feet below the berm give some
indication of residential compatibility with sheep winter range.
Winter concentration area is a subset of the winter range where animal densities are at least 200%
greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define the winter
range, in the average five winters out of ten. That polygon does not overlap the East Vail parcel, but
habitat effectiveness of that polygon could be influenced by residential development and habitation on
the parcel.
.19
Bighorn sheep production area is where sheep lamb. Production areas are defined as that part of the
overall range occupied by pregnant females during a specific time period in the spring (May 1 to June
30). The polygon occurs above the Booth Creek cliffs, extends 1.6 miles to the north, and is
topographically buffered from residential development below. Based on ewes selecting cliff -like terrain
inaccessible to terrestrial predators, it is unlikely that any of the forested terrain shown in Figure 4 is
actually used for lambing. The effectiveness of production areas could be affected by free -ranging dogs
and recreation originating from residences below.
Bighorn sheep migration pattern is a subjective indication of the general direction taken by migratory
ungulate herds. The line's location is irrelevant. What it indicates is that bighorns move downhill in
this area during fall towards their winter range, then move uphill in spring to their summer range.
A bighorn mineral lick is defined as a natural site known to be utilized by bighorn sheep for obtaining
minerals to meet basic nutritional needs. Whether natural or otherwise, such licks are particularly
important for pregnant and lactating ewes.
Potential residential development on the subject parcel will be of concern because of the net loss of
winter habitat (±0.24% of the overall winter range polygon) associated with residential development,
further impaired effectiveness of habitat within the influence of the development, and other potential
habitation -related effects (e.g., free -ranging dogs and dispersed recreation originating from residences).
However, sheep habitat use in this area has adapted and habituated somewhat to I-70 and frontage
road activity, Booth Creek neighborhood and The Falls at Vail townhome residential developments and
activities, Vail Mountain School, and dispersed recreational activity along the Pitkin Creek and Booth
Creek trails. The relatively small (5.4 -acre) potential East Vail development would result in a further
loss of winter range, but its location in an area whose habitat effectiveness has been reduced by existing
human disturbance and development should have minimal effects on sheep habitat use and should not
affect herd size. Approximately 75% of the parcel would remain available for continued sheep use on a
preserved and protected tract associated with the proposed rezoning and platting of the parcel.
4.2 Elk
Figure 5 shows one elk seasonal range mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel that
warrants consideration. The elk winter range definition follows that provided for sheep, above. No
elk winter range is shown overlapping the subject parcel, but that mapping is likely wrong. The winter
range polygon boundary along the north side of I-70 appears to follow an assumed land ownership
boundary. At the time of CPW mapping the County's and the Town's mapping assumed this parcel
was likely in CDOT ownership.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife appears to have adopted the Town's position and extended the polygon
along the U.S. Forest Service property line, rather than bringing it down to the north edge of the
frontage road where it probably should be.
The elk winter range on the subject parcel is part of a polygon containing the highest elevation elk
winter range in the Gore Creek Valley and some of the highest winter range in the Eagle Valley. This
higher elevation winter range is used more during the early part of winters and during milder winters
when excessive snow depths have not yet pushed animals to lower elevations down valley.
Nevertheless, these winter ranges are valuable because they support animals during portions of the
winter when animals would otherwise be further down valley on increasingly small and more crowded
winter range.
3 A learned behavioral change exhibited by greater tolerance of, and reduced avoidance to, benign human activities as a
result of chronic exposure. The extent of habituation is generally reduced in hunted herds.
Over the past 50 years there has been a considerable loss of big game winter range to secondary ski area
development in the Eagle Valley. Winter ranges generally occur at lower elevations along valley
bottoms that are dominated by private lands. Development of those lands has pushed elk further west
down valley. In recent years, CPW have increased their hunting permits to increase harvest and reduce
the elk and deer populations to levels that the smaller winter range acreage can support.
Potential residential development on the subject parcel will be of concern for elk for the same reasons
described for bighorn sheep (the net loss of elk winter range, further impaired effectiveness of habitat
within the influence of the development, and other potential habitation -related effects [e.g., free -
ranging dogs and dispersed recreation originating from residences]). However, as described for sheep,
elk habitat use in this area has adapted and habituated to I-70 activity, nearby subdivisions, and
dispersed recreational activity. Similar to sheep, the relatively small (5.4 -acre) potential East Vail
development would result in a further loss of winter range, but its location in an area whose habitat
effectiveness has been reduced by existing human disturbance and development should not result in
any measurable change in elk habitat use or herd size. Approximately 75% of the parcel would remain
available for continued elk use.
4.3 Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons are a sensitive species monitored by CPW and the U.S. Forest Service. There is an
active peregrine falcon nesting cliff on the opposite side of the Gore Creek valley in the vicinity of the
East Vail parcel (Fig. 6). The nesting area polygon is defined as the area which includes good nesting
sites and contains one or more active or inactive nest locations. The boundaries are drawn based on
professional judgment to include most known nesting habitat in the vicinity. Usually these areas are
mapped as polygons around cliffs and include a 0.5 mile buffer surrounding the cliffs.
6
Viable peregrine falcon nesting sites possess two components: (1) adequate nesting habitat and (2)
extensive hunting habitat with an adequate prey base to support the adults and their offspring (Craig
1978). Nesting sites are located on precipitous cliffs ranging in height from 40 to 2,100 feet, averaging
200 to 400 feet tall. Several ledges, potholes, or small caves must be present in the cliff face to function
as a suitable nest site. A breeding pair will frequently alternate their nesting activities to different ledges
on a cliff face between years, and they will often relocate to adjacent cliff faces. As a result, protective
measures must address an entire cliff complex (and potential nesting areas) rather than an individual
cliff.
Nesting peregrines will not tolerate excessive human encroachment or prolonged disturbance in the
vicinity of the nesting cliff. Any activity or development above the nesting cliff will likely cause
abandonment. Breeding peregrines become extremely agitated and may abandon the nest site if
disturbance occurs during courtship, prior to the initiation of egg laying. One explanation regarding
why some sites are occupied in spite of excessive human activity in the vicinity of the nesting cliff is
that the falcons occupied the site early in the nesting season prior to spring increases in human activity
and had eggs or young when the disturbance occurred. Once birds have eggs or young, they have a
strong fidelity to their invested resources. Such birds were, therefore, attached to the site and would
not abandon it at that time. The East Vail peregrines are examples of how wildlife, in general, can
habituate to chronic, but benign, human activities, although residential and golf course development
along the valley bottom has reduced their prey base.
In Colorado, peregrines usually return to nesting cliffs in late February or early March and initiate
courtship activities, which continue to mid- or late April when eggs are laid. The young hatch from
mid- to late May and fledge (i.e., leave the eyrie) in mid- to late June. The young and adults remain in
the vicinity of the nesting cliff up to several months after fledging.
�l
Extensive hunting habitat is a second key component of a viable peregrine nest site. Peregrines will
frequently travel at least 10 miles from their eyrie to procure prey and they have been documented
hunting up to 30 miles away from nest sites (G. Craig, CDOW, pers. comm.). It is, therefore,
important to maintain the integrity of important hunting areas within at least 10 miles of the nesting
cliff. All habitats within the 10 -mile radius need not be considered essential habitat, since only those
areas that attract or support peregrine prey need be protected. The primary prey captured by nesting
Colorado peregrines are small to moderately-sized birds, such as blackbirds, doves, robins, flickers, jays,
nutcrackers, meadowlarks, and pigeons, but prey as large as waterfowl are also taken. Any habitat that
supports or concentrates birds should be considered essential to locally nesting peregrines.
Key hunting areas fall into two categories: (1) those habitats that concentrate or support important prey
species, and (2) those habitats that expose prey and make them vulnerable to peregrine attack.
Peregrines capture their prey through precipitous dives from considerable height above their quarry.
Peregrines must, therefore, frequent habitats permitting this type of pursuit. Peregrines do not hunt
below the forest canopy, but capture birds flying above forests or across open expanses. Larger prey
are raked (with talons) or knocked out of the air and peregrines need open areas on the ground to
recover them. Nesting cliffs, are generally situated at considerable heights above the surrounding
terrain, so peregrines have a broad panorama from favorite hunting perches near the cliff top.
The East Vail pair's 2017 nest site was within 0.5 miles of the East Vail parcel and 590 vertical feet
above it. It is unknown where peregrines from this cliff complex hunt, but hunting is likely
concentrated over the Gore Creek valley. The wetland and riparian complex immediately below the
cliff is likely heavily used as those habitats concentrate and support higher prey densities, expose that
prey base to peregrine attack more so than other local habitats, while the cliff provides a convenient
hunting perch. The subject parcel contributes to the avian prey base, but unless those birds leave the
parcel they are not vulnerable to peregrine attack. The air space above the parcel is likely more
important hunting habitat, as it is along the entire Gore Creek Valley, as birds flying above the valley
are exposed to peregrine attack.
Potential residential development on the subject parcel will be of concern for peregrine falcons because
of the small, but additional net loss of foraging habitat, further impaired effectiveness of habitat above
and around the development, and the additive human development across from the nesting cliff. The
current nesting pair has habituated to current levels of human activity and development. These include
the 24/7/365 disturbance associated with I-70, the East Vail interchange and the frontage road, the
Vail Pass-Tenmile bike path (immediately below the nesting cliff), and residences associated with East
Vail, Booth Creek, and the Pitkin County Townhomes. Future construction and habitation of the
subject parcel, buffered from the nesting cliff by distance, elevation, and more acute intervening
disturbances/ activities would be more of the same type of structures and activities that should not
negatively affect the nesting pair. It is also likely, with an increasing peregrine population and
competition for nest cliffs, that future pairs of peregrines would also find the cliff complex viable with
future development of the proposed as currently considered. That assumes that the valley's prey base
remains adequate, which is likely given the avoidance of wetland and riparian habitats supporting higher
prey densities and the limited amount of further development potential. The subject parcel's airspace
would remain available for peregrine hunting and approximately 75% of the parcel would remain
available to support potential peregrine prey.
4.4 Black Bear
Colorado Parks and Wildlife have mapped two black bear seasonal ranges in the vicinity of the East
Vail parcel that warrant consideration (Fig. 7). Black bear summer concentration areas are defined
as those parts of the overall range where activity is greater than the surrounding overall range during
that period from June 15 to August 15. This polygon extends along and above the valley bottom from
east of East Vail to west of West Vail. This designation has merit overlapping the subject parcel.
During the August 4 field survey, the young, open -canopy aspen stands on the west end of the property
supported a moderate density of berry -rich serviceberry shrubs that represent important summer forage
for bears. A human/bear conflict area is represented by the same polygon along the Gore Creek
valley bottom. Such areas are defined as that portion of the overall range where two or more
confirmed black bear complaints per season were received which resulted in CPW investigation,
damage to persons or property (cabins, tents, vehicles, etc.), and/or the removal of the problem bear(s).
This does not include damage caused by bears to livestock.
Potential residential development on the subject parcel will be of concern for bears because of the
small, but additional net loss of summer forage habitat, further impaired effectiveness of habitat within
the influence of the development, and other potential habitation -related effects [e.g., potential garbage -
handling issues. Approximately 75% of the parcel would remain available for continued bear use.
Fri
0 2017 G.91.
Figure 7. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area (outlined and shaded
purple) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline).
5.0 SUMMARY
Several important wildlife species occur on or in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. Proposed rezoning
and platting would have no negative effects on those species. Future residential development, as
currently considered, would preserve approximately 75% of the parcel, but development would remove
habitat values in a 5.4 -acre area and affect, to some extent, adjacent habitat effectiveness that is not
already impaired by disturbances along I-70, its frontage road, and adjacent residential developments.
When future residential development is proposed, it is recommended that a wildlife mitigation plan be
developed to minimize wildlife conflicts and consultation with CPW occur at that time.
Please call or email me if you or others on the team have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ric( Thompson
Certified Wildlife Biologist, Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 442-6144; weiwild e aol.com
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Craig, G.R. 1978. American peregrine falcon, Falco peregr* anatum. Pages 40-45 * Essential habitat for
threatened or endangered wildlife in Colorado. CDOW, Denver. 84 pp.
10
TOWN OF VA10
VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2017
ITEM/TOPIC:
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations
Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-2-
2, Definitions of Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to amend and clarify the definitions of
Commercial Ski Storage, Ski Club, First Floor or Street Level, and Basement or Garden Level;
to create a new definition for Ski Storage Lockers; to amend Section 12-14-21 Outdoor Display
of Goods concerning ski racks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0042)
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
Commercial—Ski—Storage—Update 092517.pdf
Description
Commercial Ski Storage Update Memo
TOWN OF
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 25, 2017
SUBJECT: Commercial Ski Storage - Update
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memo is to update the Planning and Environmental Commission on
issues and progress relating to the Town's commercial ski storage regulations and to
present a draft of the text amendments necessary to update these regulations. There
are also a few questions for the Planning ands Environmental Commission to help
determine the direction of these regulations.
The Planning and Environmental Commission is asked to review the questions, and
draft text amendments and provide feedback on changes or additional information that
may be necessary before moving forward with a formal prescribed regulations
amendment.
II. BACKGROUND
As the Planning and Environmental Commission is aware from previous discussion on
this topic, the Town's current regulations of ski storage, ski valet and ski concierge
services have not kept pace with the evolving nature of the ski industry. As a result, the
Town is experiencing the following challenges with the current regulations on
commercial ski storage:
• Regulations that are ambiguous and vague
• Regulations that are inconsistent with evolving customer expectations;
• Regulations that are difficult and/or impractical to enforce, resulting in a
perception of inconsistent enforcement; and
• Regulations that may have resulted in unintended consequences, most
notably considerable storage of ski equipment outside that has both safety
and aesthetic implications.
On September 5, 2017, the Community Development Department presented the
Commercial Ski Storage Task Force's recommendations to the Town Council. The
Town Council supported the recommendations, and directed staff to begin to draft text
amendments to implement the changes.
On September 11, 2017, the Community Development Department presented the
Commercial Ski Storage Task Force's recommendations to the Planning and
Environmental Commission. The PEC requested more time to review specific code
language, and requested that this topic return for further discussion.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE
The current zoning regulations permit Commercial Ski Storage/Ski Clubs only in the
basement or garden level of a building in the following districts:
• Commercial Core 1 (CC1)
• Commercial Core 2 (CC2)
• Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1)
• Lionshead Mixed Use -2 (LMU-2)
• Ski Base Recreation -2 (SBR -2)
Following is a summary of the Task Force recommendations:
• Keep the existing horizontal zoning in
Storage and Ski Clubs as a permitted
structure
place, which only allows Commercial Ski
use on the basement or garden level of a
• Add graphics to improve the definitions for the following:
➢ First floor of street level
➢ Basement or garden level
• Separate the definitions for Commercial Ski Storage and Ski Club
• Create a separate definition for Ski Storage Lockers
• Set time of day limits on the placement of ski racks outside of a business
• Do not set limits on the number of racks placed on private property
• Ensure that public pedestrian easements are not blocked by ski racks
• Consider removing code language on outdoor displays stating that an outdoor
display "shall not visually detract from or block storefront or shop window"
• Clarify that a building used for delivery of skis to guests of a hotel, which is
separated from the hotel property, is considered Commercial Ski Storage (i.e.
Four Seasons at Gorsuch on Wall Street)
IV. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THESE REGULATIONS?
Depending on the amendments that are finally adopted, there may be impacts to local
business, the guest experience, code enforcement, or other unintended consequences.
After further consideration of these changes and clarifications, the Staff and Task Force
Town of Vail
Page 2
request feedback on the following questions in order to have clarity on these
regulations:
1. Several businesses in Town currently place racks of skis outside their business
during the day, and then roll these racks onto the first floor of the business at
night, when the business is closed. These are usually racks for skis that are
rented to a customer, and then returned to the same rental shop each night. In
some cases, these racks may be for skis belonging to hotel guests, where the
hotel has an agreement with the ski shop for storage of the skis.
• Is the placement of racks of skis inside a business when the
business is closed considered "Commercial Ski Storage"? If it is,
then it is currently prohibited on the first floor.
• How is this operation distinguished from storage of private skis for
an individual? Does it matter if the skis are rented from the same
business?
• If it is not considered "Commercial Ski Storage", then what is it?
• Is the PEC comfortable with additional businesses following this
business model, which may lead to more floor area dedicated to ski
racks, and less floor area dedicated to retail sales?
• There may also be fire and safety issues with too many racks of skis
blocking emergency access inside a business.
2. The Task Force recommended setting time limits on the placement of racks of
skis outside a business. The recommended time limits are from 7:00 AM until
9:00 PM. This timeframe was recommended to allow skis to be placed outside
before the lifts open, and late enough that it allows a business to remain open
late, if they desire, without brining the skis in while the shop is open.
Is 7:00 AM — 9:00 AM a reasonable timeframe to allow outside racks
of skis?
3. Ski Clubs are currently permitted only in the basement or garden level. There is
at least one Ski Club that currently operates on upper level of a building, which
was permitted as the result of a determination of similar use by a previous
Council. In that case, the Ski Club was determined to be similar to an "Eating
and drinking establishment". Many ski clubs have a significant ski storage aspect
to the club.
• Should Ski Clubs be permitted on the second floor or above?
• If so, this would be a change in policy.
• What are the impacts of allowing Ski Clubs on the second floor or
above?
• The Task Force recommended no policy changes.
Town of Vail Page 3
4. The Task Force recommended adding language to prohibit placement of ski
racks on access easements. After further research, Staff has determined that
many developments in Vail Village and Lionshead are surrounded by pedestrian
access easements. For example, Arrabelle at Vail Square, the Hill Building, and
Concert Hall Plaza each have significant access easements in front of shop
entrances Prohibiting racks of skis on easements would severely impact
businesses that operate in these developments.
Should placing racks of skis on pedestrian easements be prohibited?
Is there a size or number of racks that would be acceptable?
This language may not be needed, as each easement is different and
requires a case-by-case review, and may require a legal opinion based
on the specific language in the easement document.
5. The Task Force recommended that Commercial Ski Storage and Ski Clubs be
defined separately, to improve clarity in the regulations. During staff's review of
this recommendation, it was determined that there exists very few differences
between the two uses and those differences do not necessitate different
regulatory approaches. As such, staff believes that separate definitions are not
warranted.
• Should there be separate definitions of Commercial Ski Storage and Ski
Club?
• Unless these uses will be regulated differently, there may be no reason
to separate the definitions.
Following are the proposed text amendments, based on the recommendations of the
Task Force and as previously presented to the PEC:
(New language is shown in bold and underline. Language proposed for removal is
shown in strikethrough.)
Title 8 — Outdoor Display on Town Property
8-7-1: PURPOSE:
The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards for the licensed use of town
owned property by retail establishments for outdoor display of goods. Businesses
that are located in buildings without adequate privately owned exterior space
may obtain a license to use adjacent town owned property for outdoor display of
goods, for the purpose of increasing the vibrancy and economic vitality of the
commercial cores. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2)
8-7-2: DEFINITIONS:
ADMINISTRATOR: The director of the department of community development
Town of Vail Page 4
and/or his or her designee that administers and enforces the guidelines outlined
in this chapter.
FRONTAGE, BUSINESS: The horizontal, linear dimension of any side of an
above grade level that faces a major vehicular or pedestrian way and has its own
public entrance for the exclusive use of said business.
OUTDOOR DISPLAY. A temporary outdoor arrangement of objects, items, or
products representative of the merchandise sold or rented by a retail
establishment, and further regulated by section 12-14-21 of this code.
PUBLIC WAY.- Means and includes a public street, easement, right of way,
highway, alley, way, place, road, or bike path, and any nonexclusive utility
easement.
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT: Any licensed business within the town of Vail with a
physical location that is open to the public for the purpose of selling, leasing or
renting tangible personal property or services at retail. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2)
8-7-3: OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS REGULATED:
It shall be unlawful to place or maintain any outdoor display of goods on town
owned property or on other publicly owned sidewalks or rights of way without
complying with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2)
8-7-4: PERMIT REQUIRED.-
It
EQUIRED:
It is unlawful for any person or retail establishment to utilize town owned property
or other publicly owned sidewalks or rights of way without first securing an
outdoor display on public property permit. Such permit shall be issued by the
administrator and shall be pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. Permits
may be approved for a time period of up to two (2) years. Permits shall be
automatically renewed for additional two (2) year terms unless otherwise
terminated. Prior to final approval of a permit, the retail establishment shall enter
into a license agreement with the town of Vail, to be executed by the town
attorney. Permit applications, application requirement, application fees and
license fees are on file with the department of community development. (Ord.
32(2007) § 2)
8-7-5: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
The administrator shall review the application and make a determination of
approval, approval with modifications, or denial within thirty (30) days of submittal
of a complete application. The determination by the administrator shall become
final at the next planning and environmental commission public hearing following
Town of Vail Page 5
the administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up for review by the
commission. Determinations shall be based on the criteria in section 8-7-6 of this
chapter. All appeals shall follow the procedures outlined in section 12-3-3,
"Appeals"; of this code. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2)
8-7-6: CRITERIA FOR DECISION.-
Outdoor
ECISION:
Outdoor display of goods on town owned property or on publicly owned right of
way shall be lawful at specific locations for use by a specific retail establishment
approved by the administrator. Retail establishments may be allowed to utilize
town owned property for the use of outdoor display should the following
conditions be met.-
A.
et:
A. Zone District: The retail establishment shall be located in one of the following
zone districts.-
1.
istricts:1. Commercial core 1 (CC 1) district.
2. Commercial core 2 (CC2) district.
3. Lionshead mixed use 1 (LMU-1) district.
4. Lionshead mixed use 2 (LMU-2) district.
5. Ski base/recreation 2 (SBR2) district.
B. Area: The area of town owned property to be utilized shall be a maximum of
twenty (20) square feet for retail establishments. Businesses displaying bicycles
may be permitted to license additional square footage of town owned property at
the discretion of the administrator.
C. Location: The property to be licensed shall be a contiguous piece of property
that is directly adjacent to the business frontage.
D. Circulation: The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not
impede circulation and thus, shall not block or encroach upon the required
ingress/egress of doorways, walkways, stairways, and parking or loading/delivery
spaces. The placement of ski racks on pedestrian or vehicular access
easements is prohibited.
E. Street And Sidewalk Width: A minimum street width of twenty two feet (22 )
shall be maintained in order to allow for emergency vehicle access. Sidewalks
shall remain a minimum width of six feet (6). Connection of exit discharge to the
public way, as required by the adopted building code, shall not be blocked.
F. Public Safety: The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not
pose any risks to public safety. The use of town owned property for outdoor
display shall not block or encroach upon any fire lane, fire staging area, and shall
maintain a minimum distance to fire hydrants of seven feet (7) to side or rear,
and fourteen feet (14) to the front.
Town of Vail Page 6
G. Maintenance Access: The use of town owned property for outdoor display
shall not block or impede street sweeping, snow removal or snow storage/loading
operations. The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not block
access to trash receptacles, dumpsters, mailboxes, manholes, water valves,
flowerbeds or other landscape areas.
H. Aesthetics: The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not
negatively impact established view corridor or acknowledged "postcard" images
on
shall Apt 1i/rC�Lloll detraGt fnm er b1GGk sterefrept Ar chem winrews
1. Lack Of Available Space: Retail establishments may only be located on a site
without twenty (20) square feet of privately owned exterior space adjacent to the
business frontage.
J. Outdoor Display Fixtures: Outdoor display fixtures shall be freestanding,
temporary in nature, and shall be removed from the exterior location when the
business is closed.
K. Code Compliance: All aspects of the outdoor display shall remain in
compliance with this code and the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2)
L. Ski Racks: The outdoor placement of racks used for display of skis or
the distribution and/or collection of rental skis, shall be prohibited between
the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
Title 12 — Definitions
12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS
COMMERCIAL SKI STORAGE/SK4-��: Storage for equipment (skis,
snowboards, boots and poles) and/or clothing used in skiing related sports, which
is available to the public or members, operated by a business, club or
government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly,
seasonal or annual usage. This use may have, but does not require, the following
components.-
A.
omponents:
A. Personal lockers,
B. Boot dryers,
C. Ski storage racks,
D. Ski tuning,
E. Food and beverage service,
Town of Vail Page 7
F. Areas for congregation and/or socializing,
G. Restrooms and/or shower facilities,
H. Nonwinter activities,
/. Concierge ski services,
J. Retail sales,
K. Business center.
Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee is not charged,
is not considered commercial ski storage/ski club. A building separated from
the hotel property that is used for ski storage or delivering skis to a _quest
is considered commercial ski storage, and is not exempt from this
definition.
Ski Club - A private membership organization, catering exclusively to
members and quests for social, recreational and athletic purposes, who
Pay a fee on daily, monthly, seasonal or annual basis, and which is focused
Primarily around skiing and similar winter outdoor sports.
Ski Storage Lockers - Storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and
poles) and/or clothing used in skiing related sports, located within a
designated enclosure or cabinet which is available hourly, daily, monthly,
seasonal or annual usage.
Title 12 — Outdoor Display on Private Property
12-14-21: OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS:
A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish regulations for the outdoor
display of goods by retail establishments.
B. Applicability: Outdoor display of goods shall be permitted by retail
establishments in the following zone districts and shall be prohibited in all zone
districts not listed.-
1.
isted:
1. Housing (H) district;
2. Commercial core 1 (CC 1) district;
3. Commercial core 2 (CC2) district;
4. Commercial core 3 (CC3) district;
5. Commercial service center (CSC) district;
6. Lionshead mixed use 1 (LMU-1) district;
7. Lionshead mixed use 2 (LMU-2) district;
Town of Vail Page 8
8. Ski base/recreation 2 (SBR2) district.
C. Permit Not Required: Outdoor display on private property, where permitted by
the provisions of this title, are not subject to design review. A permit is required to
obtain a license to utilize town owned property for outdoor display of goods by
retail establishments, per title 8, chapter 7 of this code.
D. Requirements For Outdoor Display. Where permitted, outdoor display shall be
subject to the following limitations:
1. Location: The area used for an outdoor display shall be located directly in front
of the retail establishment displaying the goods. Outdoor display shall be entirely
upon the establishment's own property unless the retail establishment is
permitted to utilize town owned property, per the requirements in title 8, chapter 7
of this code.
2. Circulation: Outdoor display shall not impede circulation and thus, shall not
block or encroach upon the required ingress/egress of doorways, walkways,
stairways, and parking or loading/delivery spaces. The placement of ski racks
on pedestrian or vehicular access easements is prohibited.
3. Street And Sidewalk Width: A minimum street width of twenty two feet (22)
shall be maintained in order to allow for emergency vehicle access. Sidewalks
shall remain a minimum width of six feet (6'). Connection of exit discharge to the
public way, as required by the adopted building code, shall not be blocked.
4. Public Safety. Outdoor display shall not pose any risks to public safety, shall
not block or encroach upon any fire lane, and shall maintain a minimum distance
to fire hydrants of seven feet (7) to side or rear, and fourteen feet (14) to the
front.
5. Aesthetics: Outdoor display shall not negatively impact established view
corridors or acknowledged "postcard" images and shall not visually detract from
or block storefront or shop window.
6. Outdoor Display Fixtures: Outdoor display fixtures shall be freestanding,
temporary in nature, and shall be removed from the exterior location when the
business is closed.
7. Height: No part of any outdoor display shall extend more than six feet (6)
above existing grade.
8. Signage: Sale signs may be permitted on outdoor displays, as regulated by
subsection 11-6-3F of this code. No other signage is permitted on or adjacent to
outdoor displays that is not otherwise approved by the administrator, subject to
the regulations of title 11 of this code.
Town of Vail Page 9
9. Cardboard Boxes Prohibited: Outdoor display of goods shall not include any
cardboard boxes, unless part of individual packaging of goods.
10. Code Compliance: All aspects of the outdoor display shall remain in
compliance with this code and the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 32(2007) § 13)
11. Ski Racks: The outdoor placement of racks used for display of skis or
the distribution and/or collection of rental skis, shall be prohibited between
the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
V. NEXT STEPS
The next step in this process is for the Community Development Department to present
a Prescribed Regulation Amendment to the Town Council on October 3, 2017, and to
bring these text amendments to the Planning and Environmental Commission for a
formal recommendation to Town Council adoption on October 9, 2017.
Following are the upcoming meeting dates on this topic:
• Town Council — October 3, 2017 — Present draft text amendments
• PEC - October 9, 2017 — Public hearing and recommendation on text
amendments
• Town Council - October 17, 2017 — Town Council — 1s' Reading of Ordinance on
text amendments
• Town Council - November 7, 2017 — 2nd Reading of Ordinance on text
amendments
• November 17, 2017 — Vail Mountain Opening Day
Town of Vail Page 10
TOWN OF VA10
VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE:
ITEM/TOPIC: September 11, 2017 PEC Meeting Results
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
pec results 091117.pdf
Description
September 11, 2017 PEC Meeting Results
E
TOWN OF VAIL'
Call to Order
Present:
Absent:
Site Visits:
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 11, 2017, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657
Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John
Rediker, and Brian Stockmar
Brian Gillette
1. Vail Workforce Housing Rezoning — 3700 North Frontage Road East
The purpose of this work session is to discuss issues relating to the Town's commercial
ski storage regulations, and to present a draft of possible text amendments to Title 12.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner Chris Neubecker
Neubecker provided an update of potential changes to the Vail Town Code. It was
decided that horizontal zoning is working, but certain areas of the code require
clarification and a refocus on regulations based on time, place, and manner. Neubecker
discussed potential changes and their impact on outdoor display (both on town and
private property), use of easements, aesthetics, and hours of operation/storage.
Neubecker discussed special provisions for ground floor storage available to hotels and
resorts. Separate definitions are to be created for ski storage lockers, ski clubs, and ski
storage.
Rediker — Asked the purpose of separating the definition of ski clubs. Neubecker
responded that it is proposed to be separated because they are two (2) distinct uses.
Rediker asked how businesses will be prevented from mislabeling themselves as ski
clubs in order to avoid regulations.
Stockmar — Asked why 9 PM was the proposed end time for ski storage. Neubecker
responded that this was based on feedback from local businesses in the ski and lodging
industry.
Hopkins — Asked what will happen if First Tracks programs increase and require the
hours of operation to begin prior to 7 AM. Neubecker responded that the hours of
operation for storage can be evaluated.
Rediker — Stated that he requires more time to reflect on the proposed text amendments.
Asked for an additional work session on September 25, 2017.
Perez — Asked if non -ski businesses were considered in establishing the hours of
operation for ski storage. Neubecker responded that the proposed hours were based on
the premise of allowing ski storage businesses to operate their retail business during
traditional hours.
Tom Higgins, American Ski Exchange — Stated his opposition to ski clubs as they can
avoid regulations by simply offering a minimal amount of food and beverage. He also
stated that he feels there have not been a lot of problems related to ski storage, but just
a small group of businesses that do not follow existing regulations.
Cheryl Ann Peter — Stated concerns that proposed changes could negatively impact
local residents.
Jeff Babb, Vail Resorts — Stated that the chamber of commerce was included in the task
force so that they could relay information to other businesses. The impetus for the
project was not to debate ski clubs, but to address changes that have occurred in the ski
service industry. The purpose of the task force is to focus on improving the guest
experience.
Dr. Penny Wilson — Stated that she has a locker at American Ski Exchange. When the
second level ski club businesses are busy they create congestion and make it difficult to
access the mountain base. Encouraged the PEC to consider regulations that keep skis
less visible and out of the way.
Tom Neyens, Ski Valet — Has operated a ski storage business in Vail since 1988.
Encouraged the PEC to maintain basement level as the only permissible level for ski
storage. Feels that storing skis overnight on ground level, inside a retail shop may
represent a fire hazard. Wants clarity as to what is and what is not allowed on the
ground level.
Stockmar — Is not sure what is proposed will resolve the issue. Is unable to provide any
recommendations on how it should be addressed.
Kurz — Stated that the changes proposed are reasonable and in line with changes in the
ski service industry. Wants additional clarification provided based on the comments
provided. Any rule we come up with is only as good as our enforcement of the code.
Perez — Thinks the definition of ski storage needs to be clearly defined. Stated that the
display of bicycles has become a similar issue within the town and wants bicycles to be
included in the discussion, too.
Hopkins — Needs additional time to review proposed text amendments.
Lockman — Agrees with Commissioner Kurz in that the amendments seem minor, but
wants additional time to review them. Would like to hear more from the Task Force.
Rediker — Agreed that additional time for PEC review of the proposed text amendments
is required.
3. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to
Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public and private schools, Vail Town Code, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a renovation and addition to the existing Red Sandstone Elementary
School, a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Public
parking structure, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail
Town Code, to allow for the construction of a public parking structure, and a request for
the review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, in
accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town, to allow for
the construction of a retaining wall with an exposed face height greater than six feet (6'),
located at 551 North Frontage Road West/Lots 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0031)
Applicant: TAB Associates
Planner: Matt Panfil
Motion for a Conditional Use Permit for a Public Parking Structure
Motion: Approve, with three (3) conditions
First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 5-1-0
Conditions:
1. The conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant
obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review
application;
2. The applicant shall revise the submitted plans to depict a minimum
twenty foot (20') wide drive aisle, instead of the currently depicted
twelve foot (12') wide drive aisle, along the southwest part of the access
drive and in the general direction of the southwestern crosswalk and
the access point for the second level of the public parking structure;
and
3. The applicant shall reconfigure the proposed landscape island, located
south of the proposed entrance to RSES and in the Pre -K Parking Area, to
allow for a complete turn by Fire Department equipment.
Motion for a Variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code
Motion: Approve
First: Lockman Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-1-0 (Rediker)
Panfil summarized the concerns expressed by the PEC at the last meeting on August
28, 2017. Panfil then described the revisions and additional information that has been
provided by the applicant. There are 3 approvals as part of the original application: 1.)
amended conditional use permit for Red Sandstone Elementary School; 2.) conditional
use permit for a public parking structure; and 3.) a variance for the construction of a
retaining wall greater than six feet (6') in height.
At the last meeting, the PEC asked for more information on safety measures for
pedestrians, ADA parking, proposed signage, and impacts to public health based on
vehicle exhaust near the students.
Level 1 of the public parking structure now has 30 standard parking spaces, five (5) ADA
parking spaces, and two (2) electric vehicle charging spaces. Special ADA parking
permits will be available that will allow access to the first level regardless of the time of
day. ADA parking spaces for the school will be surface spaces, not in the parking
structure. Level 2 and 3 will each have 39 parking spaces. Level 3 parking passes can
be assigned to employees that arrive early. Level 4 is restricted to school/faculty use,
but public parking will be allowed on Level 4 when school is not in session. Stair towers
will have an open design to maintain better visibility. The majority of students are
accompanied by staff, and should not be in the stair towers without an adult. As
requested by the PEC, a flashing crosswalk sign has been added near the main
vehicular entrance off of the North Frontage Road. Turning simulations have been
provided for each level, based on the size of a Chevrolet Suburban.
Perez — It was indicated that all students would be accompanied by staff. Does that
include students that arrive by public transit? Panfil indicated that the applicant would
answer that question.
Rediker — Asked if the proposed flashing signs are similar to those located in the
crosswalks at the town's roundabouts. Panfil confirmed.
Stockmar — Stated that the location of the parking level occupancy sign does not make
sense. Panfil asked if it would be better located on the east side of the Level 1 entrance
rather than the west side. Stockmar confirmed.
Lockman — Asked for clarification as to the timing for access to parking structure, and
when it would be open to the public. Panfil reviewed the proposed hours of operation for
each level.
Stockmar — Stated the retaining wall makes sense for air circulation, but wanted to know
what type of protection system is in place for the space. Panfil responded that the
applicant can confirm, but he believes there will be grating or other security measures.
Greg Macik, TAB Associates —There is no intent for Level 3 to be closed all day. Until
7:30 AM, only Level 3 will allow public access, in order to fill it early in the day, prior to
RSES student and faculty arrival. From 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM all levels will be open. It is
anticipated that Level 3 will get very little use during these hours as it is the least
desirable level based on its location. Push button flashing yield signs are proposed on
each side of the crosswalk. In regards to on-site vehicle exhaust, the applicant team
researched the topic. Every year there are new, stricter, regulations on vehicle exhaust.
The applicant can also install "No Idling" signs and they will look at additional filtering
methods for the exhaust from the parking structure as well as additional filtering options
for the air intake at the school. In regards to the gap between the public parking
structure and retaining wall, the design intent is that there is no gap from the top level of
the parking structure down the retaining wall. The applicant is further refining their
design to see if this is possible.
Perez — Asked to confirm that people with ADA parking passes will be able to access
Level 1 at any time. Macik confirmed.
There was no public comment.
Lockman — This has been a thorough process, and well done by staff and the applicant.
The focus is on student safety and believes parking will be managed well with the
automated system. Responses to our questions were provided. Supports the proposed
project.
Hopkins — Agreed with Lockman.
Perez — Staff and applicant have done an impressive job in responding to the PEC's
questions and concerns.
Kurz — This applicant has been hammered by the PEC about safety and circulation. All
the members of the Commission feel responsible for the safety of children at the school.
As a result, it is a better project than we saw many weeks ago. He has no issue with
height of the wall as it is not visible except from the structure itself. He is in favor of
moving forward with the project.
Stockmar — Thanked the applicant for all the changes made to the project. He supports
the project.
Rediker — Stated that the applicant did a great job responding to PEC concerns, though
he is not overly excited about the congestion that will occur between 7:30 AM — 8:30 AM
during school days as it will lead to more congestion on that road, especially during
pickup. He stated he does not support the idea of adding two more stories on top of the
parking structure and he encouraged the other commissioners to address that in any
motion that is made. He still is concerned about installing a parking garage right next to
a school and he has read studies that show exposure to tailpipe emission, even in small
amounts, can have negative health impacts to children.
Stockmar — Asked staff to clarify that the PEC is not being asked to approve Level 5 and
6 at this time.
Panfil — Panfil confirmed and stated that if Levels 5 and 6 were to be built, the project
would need to return to the PEC for an amendment to a conditional use.
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing
Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to
Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 15 attached
accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing
units, and related uses and improvements, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage
Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5,
formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006)
Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Motion: Table to September 25, 2017
First: Kurz Second: Perez Vote: 6-0-0
Staff requests that PEC17-0006 be tabled to September 25, 2017.
5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary
amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
rezoning of a parcel of land located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Unplatted. The
rezoning will change the Zone District from Two -Family Residential (R) district to
Housing (H) district and Natural Area Preservation (NAP) district, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0039)
Applicant: The Vail Corporation (Vail Resorts), represented by Mauriello
Planning Group
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Motion: Approve
First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0
Referencing a PowerPoint presentation, Neubecker introduced the project by
summarizing the nature of the zoning request from Two -Family Residential (R) district to
Housing (H) and Natural Area Preservation (NAP) districts. As the subject property is
currently zoned Two -Family Residential (R), the entire site could be developed with two-
family residences. The applicant is proposing to set aside a large portion of the site for
Natural Area Preservation (NAP) to focus development on a smaller area of the western
portion of the site.
Neubecker described the location of the site, the relevant criteria for a rezoning, and the
PEC's role in making a recommendation to the Town Council for a rezoning application.
Neubecker discussed the relationship between the master plan / comprehensive plan,
land use plan, and zoning ordinance. If the rezoning were approved, a development
plan would need to be submitted and reviewed by the PEC prior to any development
occurring. An environmental impact report would also be required at that time.
Neubecker reviewed the anticipated timeline for the project.
Rediker — Asked about the recommendation in the staff memo to continue the item until
the next PEC meeting. Neubecker responded that information from Colorado Parks and
Wildlife and Colorado Geological Survey was expected, but the departments will not
provide comment without a specific development plan, and thus the PEC could approve
today, if it meets the criteria.
Rediker asked how many two-family residential lots would fit on the subject property as
currently zoned. Neubecker replied approximately 10-15 lots, but the applicant will
confirm. Rediker asked how many EHUs could be provided based on the size of the
proposed Housing (H) district parcel. Neubecker stated that there is no limit and that the
number of units is subject to PEC discretion and review of the development plan.
The applicant's representative, Dominic Mauriello of Mauriello Planning Group, provided
a PowerPoint presentation and introduced the rest of the applicant's team.
Chris Jarnot, Vail Resorts, discussed the need for employee housing and Vail Resorts'
commitment to developing new employee housing. Jarnot discussed how the proposal
could help to achieve the goals and vision of the Vail Housing Strategic Plan.
Mauriello described the process required for the proposal. The proposed rezoning and
plat for the subdivision are the first step in the process. The Housing (H) district requires
a development plan to be approved by the PEC. According to Mauriello, the Vail Local
Housing Authority (VLHA) supports the request. Mauriello then described the location of
the site and its proximity to other significant development and other key features within
the town. The subject property has been owned by Vail Resorts since 1961 and was
annexed into the town in 1975. There has been past confusion over ownership of the
parcel that influenced town planning documents. Mauriello reviewed what is currently
permitted on the parcel due to its two-family residential (R) zoning. Mauriello stated that
approximately 10-15 lots, with 2-3 units per lot, could be established.
Mauriello described the size of the two (2) proposed zone districts and where the
proposed division line of the districts will be located. It is approximately 100' from the
southeast corner of the proposed Housing (H) parcel to the nearest bus stop on the
North Frontage Road. Mauriello reviewed the purpose of the Housing (H) district being
for employee housing.
A development plan would be required to be approved by the PEC prior to any
development of the site. The PEC can determine density/number of units, GRFA, and
building height. Setbacks, site coverage, and landscape are established within the
development standards of the Housing (H) district. Mauriello also reviewed the uses
permitted and associated standards for the Natural Area Preservation (NAP) district.
Mauriello emphasized that they are not currently requesting anything that would
constitute a vested right because there is no specific development plan at this point. He
also emphasized that the proposal is not a "Development vs. No Development" scenario.
Development will occur on this property, it is up to the PEC to determine the type of
development. Mauriello referenced several housing studies and plans that have
demonstrated a need for employee housing within the area.
Mauriello stated that wildlife and rockfall hazard were environmental characteristics
specifically review by consultants. The subject property is located within a high rockfall
hazard area and has slopes greater than 40%. Although an environmental impact report
is not yet required, the applicant performed a geologic hazard study. The study
concluded that the rockfall hazard can be mitigated. A certified wildlife biologist, Rick
Thompson, has also reviewed the proposal in regards to its potential impact on wildlife.
Rick Thompson explained that the study focused on the four (4) species of greatest
concern: bighorn sheep, elk, peregrine falcon, and black bear.
Thompson explained the range of the bighorn sheep in the area and stated that the
Bighorn sheep winter range overlaps the subject property. While development of the
site would result in a further loss of winter habitat, the location of the subject property is
in an area whose habitat effectiveness has been reduced by existing human disturbance
and development. There should be a minimal impact on the bighorn sheep habitat area
associated with the development of the Housing (H) parcel. Thompson stated that the
situation for elk is similar to bighorn sheep. For peregrine falcons, there should be no
meaningful impact to the nesting cliff above the subject property. In regards to black
bear, Thompson stated that bears are currently using the property, especially to feed in
late summer. The development of the subject property may impact the black bear
population, but may be addressed through wildlife mitigation plan. Thompson concluded
by stating that wildlife will be impacted by any development on the subject property and
the question is which type of development would minimize said impact. It is his opinion
that rezoning to the Housing (H) and Natural Area Preservation (NAP) districts would
minimize any negative impact to wildlife.
Mauriello reviewed the applicant's responses to the rezoning criteria, including: 1.)
compliance with the Vail Land Use Plan, Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, Vail 20/20
Plan, and Employee Housing Strategic Plan, 2.) suitability with the existing and potential
land uses on the site and surrounding land uses, 3.) a harmonious and convenient,
workable relationship among land uses, 4.) orderly growth of a viable community that
serves the best interests of the community as a whole, 5.) the ability to mitigate any
adverse impacts on the natural environment, 6.) consistency with the purpose
statements of the proposed zone districts, and 7.) the change in conditions since the
original zoning designation warrant the proposed zone district changes.
Kurz — Asked what factors went into the determination of the size of the two (2)
proposed zone districts. Mauriello responded that the decision was made based on
geography and topography.
Stockmar — Asked if the property remained Two -Family Residential (R) and went
through the proper process, the subject property could be fully developed with houses
and roads? Mauriello confirmed. Hopkins opposed the statement based on her belief
the steep slopes would limit the amount of development on the subject property.
Mauriello stated that the Two -Family Residential (R) district does not restrict construction
on steep slopes. In the Housing (H) district, development cannot occur on steep slopes.
Hopkins — Asked Rick Thompson about mountain goats or mountain lions. Thompson
responded that mountain goats do not descend that low in elevation and mountain lions
range may cover the area.
Rediker asked for clarification of the source of information in determining the range for
bighorn sheep. Thompson stated he relies upon Colorado Parks and Wildlife map,
which was updated in the fall of 2016.
Lockman asked what the secondary impact may be of the development on wildlife.
Thompson stated that there may be some reduction in range as wildlife stays further
away from development beyond the area of the subject property. Pets and occupant
behavior could also impact the wildlife.
Rediker — Stated his belief that a lot of the questions from the public will pertain to what
will happen on the site and asked if there is any intention to include a free market
component of the development of the site. Mauriello responded that there is no intent,
unless there was a creative idea as to how such development could be incorporated.
Hopkins — Asked if the applicant is considering any commercial use. Mauriello
responded that they are not considering commercial uses at this time, but a developer
has not yet been selected.
Perez — Asked if there is an estimate for a total number of employee housing units
available. Mauriello responded that it is premature, but at minimum one could assume
the same number of units that would be allowed by right under existing zoning.
Rediker — Asked for clarification of the steep slopes on the subject property
Rediker opened the item for public comment.
Julie Hansen, Board President, Falls at Vail — Concerned with the lack of a master plan
for the east Vail area as there is development opportunity within the four corners of the
Interstate -70 interchange. Asked if the Natural Area Preservation (NAP) district is a
permanent designation. Expressed concern with flooding into the bus stop area. There
are also moose in the area that were not addressed in the wildlife study.
Bill Eggers — Is concerned about the impact on the Booth Falls neighborhood, which is
already congested with traffic. Stated his belief that most of the people that support Vail
Resorts' request live down valley. Expressed his displeasure with the amount of
vehicles parked for the Booth Falls trail.
Molly Morales, Vail Local Housing Authority — Expressed VLHA's support for the
proposed rezoning.
Dr. Penny Wilson —The Bald Mountain Road neighborhood is also impacted by the
existing level of traffic congestion. Opposed to creating more traffic in the area.
Disagreed with Thompson's statement that bighorn sheep do not come down to the
North Frontage Road during the winter. Believes that the proposed rezoning may be the
lesser of two (2) evils.
Lauren Phillips, Vail Ski Patrol — Supports the rezoning of the property to allow for Vail
Resorts' employees to be part of the community.
Jeff Wiles — Believes something must be done to help keep employees in town or else
Vail will no longer be a world class resort community.
Alan Danson — Opposes the proposal due to the location of the proposal. Employee
housing needs to be addressed, but not through this proposal. Suggests the town -
owned property east of Solar Vail and west of Middle Creek be swapped with the subject
property.
Richard Leslie — Wants the PEC to deny the rezoning, but does not deny that employee
housing is a town need. Believes that the applicant knows the number of units and
building height that will be proposed. A development plan should be attached to any
rezoning approval.
Pam Stenmark — Is not necessarily against the rezoning or employee housing, but is
concerned about approval without any development plan. Concerns about impacts on
bus service and wildlife and the ability of the neighborhood to support a large
development.
Susan Bird — Is concerned that this proposal, if approved, will set a precedent for other
areas of town.
Alison Wadey, Vail Chamber & Business Association - Expressed the board's support
for the rezoning. The serious discussion about housing is now. Don't kick this down the
road just because its a hard decision
Mike Steimle — Mentioned his previous experience with rezoning with the Vail Mountain
School. Feels threatened by employee housing to the east and west of his property and
would like the subject property to remain as is. There are too many unknowns
associated with this proposal.
Lee Kuhlke — Opposes the proposal. East Vail's character is completely residential and
this proposal would change that. Opposes another megastructure like those to the west
of the subject property. Is concerned about setting a precedent for other areas in town.
Pati Marsh — Opposes the proposal. Believes it is important to maintain the existing
zoning. Does not deny the need for employee housing, but this is not a reasonable
solution. Believes alternative locations exist that are better for employee housing.
Kim Bell Williams, Eagle County Housing Director — Eagle County is short 4,500 homes.
Expressed Eagle County's support for the proposal. Believes that it is important towards
creating a sense of community.
Carl Cocchiarella — Believes that there is a strong sense of community as evidenced by
the turnout for the public hearing. Is concerned about the impact on wildlife. Suggested
Ever Vail as a better location for employee housing.
Mary McDougall, member of the VLHA — VLHA is fully vested in trying to create
community and has been aggressive in trying to obtain employee housing because of
the danger to the community that a lack of housing represents. Expressed the need for
available land and a willing private partner to create employee housing. Supports the
proposal.
Joe Joyce — Employee housing is critical to the town, and the proposal is a benefit to the
town and the people that live and work in town.
Doug Scofield — Believes that this is an essential development for the town and is a step
in the right direction.
Bobby Lipnick — Supports the rezoning request. Acknowledges that people do not like
employee housing in their backyard. The proposal will help with the survival of the
community for the next 50 years. While there is no perfect solution to the housing
problem, this is a commitment to workforce housing. Recommends the applicant
consider a percentage of the development be market -rate housing. Feels it is important
in creating a sense of community.
Michael Hazard — Believes that should the request be approved, the PEC should
strongly evaluate the potential character of any housing development to ensure that it
creates a sense of community.
Gina Grisafi — Discussed her experience with subdividing a lot and being told that her
proposal would increase density too much. Asked why Vail Resorts should be allowed
to do something to improve their financial position when she was not.
Brian Eggleton — As a resident of Minturn that works year-round for Ski and Snowboard
Club of Vail, he supports the proposal as it will provide more affordable and employee
housing within the town. Approving the proposal would allow for more of a balance
between mountain and resort community.
Jason Plante — Is concerned about the impact on wildlife. Does not trust just the wildlife
study in making a decision.
Kirk Dwyer, Ski and Snowboard Club of Vail — Supports the proposal as employee
housing is a necessity within the County. Zoning needs to adapt to the conditions and
be able to house young professionals.
Wolf Mueller — Believes Vail Resorts should increase their employee compensation so
that employees can help solve the housing problem on their own.
Becky Vickers — Discussed her experience commuting from Eagle -Vail to a job with Vail
Resorts. Is concerned about the impact of the proposal on bighorn sheep.
John Bailey — Is concerned about the impact on wildlife, but trusts the expert studies
presented. Believes there are positives associated with the proposal and supports the
proposal.
Public comment was closed.
Stockmar — Emphasized that there is no development plan associated with the rezoning
request. Discussed the issue of the potential duplex or single-family development that
could be built by right on the whole parcel versus a limited area of employee housing
with the guarantee of a large area of open space. Any development would require a
thorough review process as the next step.
Kurz — Concurs with Commissioner Stockmar. Added that he lives in the neighborhood
and is familiar with the issues. The affordable housing issue is critical to the long term
survival of the community.
Perez — Have to find a balance between wildlife preservation, addressing density
concerns, and providing employee housing. Believes there is a transparency issue
created by the applicant in not specifying the number of units proposed, building height,
etc.
Hopkins — Stated that she believes the process the applicant will have to go through in
order to get any development approved will result in a benefit to the town.
Lockman — Thanked the public for their input. In regards to the request, he concurs with
Commissioner Stockmar that there is no specific project associated with this request and
that the PEC will have the ability to control the specifics of the project as it moves
forward. Believes that the proposal meets all of the criteria required for a rezoning
request.
Rediker — Thanked the public for their input and urged them to continue to be involved in
PEC meetings. Concurred with Commissioners Stockmar, Lockman, and Kurz and
believes the project complies with the rezoning criteria. Rediker cited specific ways in
which the proposal meets said criteria. Understands the concerns regarding potential
density and impact on wildlife and encourages the public to maintain their interest as the
project moves forward to make sure these concerns are addressed. Agrees that it is
odd that an applicant can request a rezoning without a development plan, but if that is a
problem, it is up to the Town Council to change the rezoning procedures.
6. A request for final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to
Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16,
Vail Town Code, for an existing healthcare facility, amending the development plan to
allow for the reconstruction of the east wing, including healthcare facilities, ambulance
district facilities, heliport building and associated structured parking located at 180 South
Frontage Road West (Vail Valley Medical Center)/Lots E, F and 2E, Vail Village Second
Filing, and Lot 2E-1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. (PEC17-0022)
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
Planer: Jonathan Spence
Motion: Approve, with twelve (12) conditions
First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 6-0-0
Conditions:
1. This Conditional Use approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining
Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application(s);
2. WMC provides a construction management plan for review and approval
by town staff prior to the issuance of building permit for the East Wing;
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the East Wing, the applicant
shall provide an updated drainage study for review and approval;
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the East Wing, the applicant
shall provide an updated Traffic memo for review and approval;
5. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the East Wing,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the required employee
generation mitigation;
6. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the East Wing,
the applicant shall provide the town with the necessary easement or other
legal instrument for public access through the property from the South
Frontage Road to West Meadow Drive (the north/south pedestrian
connection). A public easement for those portions of the West Meadow
drive public walk that extend onto VVMC's property shall also be provided;
7. During the restoration of the W. Meadow Drive paver sidewalk, the Art Flow
Line shall be restored back to its original configuration and alignment. A
detailed survey of the flow line shall be completed prior to demolition, so
that the flow line can be restored in the exact alignment and width. Contact
Public Works department prior to reinstalling the Art Flow Line;
8. Prior to the occupancy or use of any of the identified shell space, the
applicant shall have obtained an amendment to this conditional use permit,
per 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code;
9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the East Wing, the applicant
shall amend the existing development agreement with the Town of Vail to:
• Outline roles and responsibilities of WMC related to the South
Frontage Road improvements including:
o The snow melting, operation and maintenance of the South
Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive sidewalks with a
recognition that the snow melting in front of the MPB may be
delayed until its redevelopment;
o All improvements shown on the provided plans related to
improvements to the South Frontage Road that are located
south of, and including, the new curb and gutter including
sidewalk, concrete bus pull out, landscaping, irrigation and
lighting;
o A $15,000.00 contribution towards the construction of a bus
stop structure;
o The construction of or the payment for a maximum of two
storm water inlets and 75' of associated storm sewer piping
immediately adjacent to the property within the South
Frontage Road ROW; and
o The construction of a right turn lane if determined to be
necessary through consultation with the Town of Vail and
CDOT.
• Update traffic fee mitigation requirements to reconcile the
Transportation Impact Fee for the 118 net new trips or 110,225 net
new square feet of development, in accordance with the pending
new Vail Transportation Impact Fee;
• Require an employee generation audit for the East Wing; and
• Address obsolete or unnecessary provisions.
10. The applicant shall adhere to the Plan for Managed Parking Program,
August, 2017, in all matters referenced unless amended per 12-16-10,
Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code; and
11. The applicant shall adhere to the management plan for the operation of the
loading facility, included on pages 20-22 of the application narrative, unless
amended per 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code.
Specifically, as outlined in the WMC Site Specific Redevelopment Master
Plan (pages 19-21), the allowance of loading and delivery utilizing West
Meadow Drive is allowable only under a certain set of conditions. Principal
among these conditions is that under no circumstances will vehicles be
allowed to back in or out of the loading facility. Any vehicle unable to meet
this required condition, due to size or other characteristics, shall use the
West parking lot and shall at no times be permitted to access the loading
facility.
12. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the East Wing, the applicant
shall obtain title to Lot 2E-1, Vail/Lionshead, Second Filing, Block 1, a
resubdivision of Lot 2W, according to the plat to be recorded in Eagle
County, Colorado.
Spence introduced the application. This is the fifth, and hopefully final, hearing on this
application. The Master Plan identifies the development objectives for the expansion of
the hospital, 10 of the objectives are relevant to the East Wing phase. The proposal
meets the development objectives of the Master Plan and the Town Code. Applicant
requests a Condition of Approval contingent upon the applicant obtaining title to the
adjacent property.
Tom Braun, Braun Associates — We worked long and hard to identify the development
objectives. These objectives made our job easier. We told you we would come back to
identify the employee housing. We will buy units for deed restriction. We have identified
how we meet the review criteria. A bike share program is proposed to allow and guests
employees to run errands. We propose to add landscaping up on the second level, with
taller trees. We will add more plantings between road and sidewalk. We will work with
town staff to determine the actual size, and also working on more detail for the railing on
the second floor deck.
Lockman — How will the bike share be managed? Braun indicated that they will need to
work on how that will happen.
Rediker — Parking for contractor and workers during construction, will this be a real
concern, and what are the solutions? Braun — Peak time will be 250 people working. We
expect about 60 people in the first year, then about double that in year 2. Then the peak
will be when we have all trades working on site. We cannot tell you there will be no
parking in Lionshead, but we will direct workers where they should park. Many
contractors bring their employees in shuttle vans.
Public Comment —
Gwen Scalpello — Asked at the last meeting of the impact of traffic on Meadow Drive. We
have ambulances on Meadow Drive. Some loading and delivery will be moved to
Mountain Plaza; that sounds like a good thing. Request that we get more detail on
deliveries from semi -trucks. We should find out the total impact of traffic on Meadow
Drive.
Commissioner Comments —
Lockman — Applaud applicant. Each item has been addressed as needed. Vail Health is
an asset in Community. This will be a great project. I will always have concerns about
parking in community. But applicant has a good plan to address parking
Hopkins — Agree. Staff will make sure the restaurant looks great.
Perez- I did not see if the parking plan is part of the conditions (Spence, construction
management plan is part of the conditions.)
Kurz — Appreciate the new landscaping, I know it's in a narrow corridor, but it will
enhance that area. Traffic management will be difficult, but this applicant can handle it.
Stockmar — Appreciate the work that staff and applicant have performed. The
contingency space will ensure that it will be a long time before we do this again. It will be
an excellent project
Rediker — Impress upon staff, prior to building permit, we need to address contractor
parking. That is my concern, we cannot blow it off. We can't allow them to take up
parking in the parking garage; we need those spaces for our guests.
Spence handed out a revised condition #9, and a new condition #12.
Rediker — Read revised Condition #9, regarding the concrete pull out at South Frontage
Road, to add clarification language. He also read a new Condition #12, concerning
obtaining Title and ownership to Lot 213-1.
7. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to
Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10,
Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for reconfiguration of existing
accommodation units, fractional fee units and dwelling units, located at 1 Vail Road/Lots
A -C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0038)
Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: Matt Panfil
Motion: Approve, with conditions
First: Kurz Second: Lockman Vote: 6-0-0
Conditions:
1. The exterior building changes associated with this major amendment to
SDD No. 36, Four Seasons, are contingent upon the applicant obtaining
Town of Vail approval of an associated design review board application for
all exterior changes to the property;
2. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any unit associated
with the altering of the unit mix and/or unit count in the subject property,
the applicant shall cause an offsite Town of Vail deed restriction to be
recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder for an employee
housing unit, with a minimum of two -bedrooms and 788 square feet,
located within the Town of Vail; and
3. Prior to issuance of any building permit for altering the unit mix and/or unit
count in the subject property, the applicant shall pay to the Town of Vail a
traffic mitigation fee, the amount of which is yet to be determined, per net
new P.M. peak hour vehicular trip.
Panfil began by instructing the PEC that if any motion for approval were to be made,
condition of approval number two (2) on Page 18 of the staff memo, should be changed
to read, "prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy" instead of, "prior to issuance
of any building permit." The request is for a major amendment to the SDD due to the
proposed change in the unit mix. There may be some minor exterior alterations which
will require Design Review Board review, but they are not relevant to this specific
request.
Panfil reviewed the current mix of fractional fee units (FFUs), dwelling units (DUs),
accommodation units (AUs), and employee housing units (EHUs) on site. The applicant
is proposing to: 1.) add eight (8) AUs to increase the total number of AUs from 122 to
130; 2.) add twelve (12) DUs to increase the total number of DUs from 16 to 28; and 3.)
reduce the number of FFUs from 19 to six (6).
To achieve the proposed unit mix, the applicant will: 1.) convert three (3) suites to three
(3) DUs; 2.) convert nine (9) FFUs to nine (9) DUs; 3.) convert four FFUs to 16 AUs; and
4.) convert two (2) suites to four (4) AUs. A total of 18 AAUs / lockoffs will be added to
the twelve new DUs.
There are no changes to development standards such as setbacks and building height.
There is no increase in GRFA, therefore there are no inclusionary zoning fee required.
However, the amendment does increase the parking demand by 19 spaces, from 211 to
230 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 20 additional parking spaces. The
additional parking spaces will be created by restriping of the parking spaces to allow for
compact vehicle spaces. Said compact vehicle spaces are permitted by Town Code.
There is no physical construction associated with the new parking spaces.
Panfil stated that based on the change in unit mix, the commercial linkage formula
generates 0.28 new employees. The applicant has proposed to deed restrict a minimum
two-bedroom unit at least 788 square feet in size.
Lockman — Asked about the existing 28 deed restricted units on site. Panfil responded
that the 28 EHUs were negotiated as part of the original SDD agreement, prior to the
existing town requirements.
Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Applicant's Representative — Braun explained that since
purchasing the property in November 2016, the new owners, Extell, have a new vision
for the property. Braun described the history of the property, back to its former use as a
Holiday Inn. He explained how the SDD, especially the proposed unit mix, has changed
over time; Fractional Fee Units have been reduced multiple times. The current proposal
is for 130 AUs, 28 AUs, and 6 FFUs. There is a hotel suite that is 5,000 sq. ft. in size.
Someone thought that was a good idea when this was first built. Extell has a lot of data
on the types of rooms in demand, and how much their guests spend in the restaurant.
Fractional Fee Units were the buzz in the 90s and in response the town added FFUs as
listed in the late 90s. Some Four Seasons have had successful sales of Fractional Fee
Units, but some are still available for sale. In Scottsdale, they only sold one-third of the
units. The reality is there are 13 unsold unites at this site. There are also more suites
than needed. This property has 37 suites, which is far too many. The owners want to
increase unit count and bed count in order to be able to generate funds to add revenue
to a capital improvement fund. What is good for the owners is also good for the Town of
Vail. The proposal works within the units on site and where changes can be made. The
owners have evaluated what they want to accomplish, but also what they could achieve
based on current floor plans, code considerations, and carrying capacity of the resort.
There are also cost and efficiencies to consider.
Braun continued by stating that there is no exterior expansion proposed. He discussed
the expansion of number of parking spaces. The resort has valet parking that allows
minor deviations to the standards. They will accommodate employee housing for 2.25
people, which is above and beyond the 0.28 required by code. The average AU size is
approximately 500 square feet.
Rediker — Asked for clarification on the new parking spaces. Braun responded that the
proposal is to restripe the existing parking garage to create 20 new parking spaces.
Panfil — Added that the Town Code allows 25% of parking spaces to be compact spaces.
Staff calculated 21.3% of the spaces will be compact.
Kurz — Asked if the layout of the garage allows for restriping without constructing spaces
while still meeting code and if the applicant had data pertaining to the usage of the
parking lot. Braun confirmed that the layout of the garage allows you to restripe and
meet code without any additional construction. He stated that there have been days
when the hotel was at 99% occupancy, such as on the Fourth of July, when there were
158 of the existing 211 parked spaces occupied. That is the most intense utilization.
Kurz — Asked the applicant to define their premise of "what's good for the applicant is
good for the town."
Braun — The applicant is providing almost two (2) more EHUs than required. The resort
will have a higher occupancy rate with the new unit mix, and that is good for the town.
Rediker — Asked if the AAUs / lockoffs will be required to be offered for rent or at the
option of the owner.
Braun — The applicant cannot require participation in renting the unit, but they will
provide incentives. At the very least, the town is assured of eight (8) new hotel rooms.
Rediker — Asked for further clarification of the unit mix
Tom Noonan, Extell — Some of the Fractional Fee Units will be converted to dwelling
units.
Perez — Asked for clarification as the language on page 14 of the staff memo. She
wanted it made clear where the new deed restricted EHU will be located, on or off site.
She suggested a change to the language for the second condition of approval.
Public Comment —
Gwen Scalpello, HOA President at 9 Vail Road — There are easements between the two
properties. One is specific to parking on the Four Seasons property for 9 Vail Road
residents. There is a requirement for Four Seasons to provide six (6) parking spaces for
9 Vail Road residents. She added that when the Four Seasons was first approved,
increasing the number of hot beds was an issue and she understands that part of this
request.
Panfil — Described the existing and required parking, as well as the additional parking.
Braun — Until now the six (6) spaces have been included within the garage. The
applicant is adding 20 spaces. He does not believe that the requirement to
accommodate parking for 9 Vail Road will be impacted.
Stockmar — Asked to confirm whether or not 9 Vail Road's access to parking will be
impacted by the proposed changes.
Gwen Scalpello — They were valet parking, and should be accommodated.
Stockmar — This project makes sense economically
Kurz — Agrees.
Perez — Agrees.
Hopkins — Agrees.
Lockman — Agrees.
Rediker — Fractional fee units are not being productive. It is a benefit to the town to add
accommodation units. He supports the application.
8. Approval of Minutes
August 28, 2017 PEC Results
Motion: Approve
First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 6-0
9. Adjournment
Motion: Adjourn
First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that
precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times
and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine
at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call
(970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48
hours prior to meeting time.
Ad #: 0000119118-01
Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMT
Your account number is: 1023233
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
VAIL DAILY
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the
VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole
or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said
newspaper has been published continuously and
uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more
than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first
publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and
that said newspaper has published the requested legal
notice and advertisement as requested.
The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium,
only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule
provision.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every number of
said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that
the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said
newspaper dated 9/22/2017 and that the last publication of
said notice was dated 9/22/2017 in the issue of said
newspaper
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
9/25/2017.
Mark Wurzer, Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for
the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 9/25/2017.
Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public
My Commission Expires: November 1, 2019
PAMELA J. SCHULTZ
NOTARY PUMIC.
STATE. OF CQL4F�Ai3�
i�6�R.RY iI7 #799946309Y5
6Fgr,",Wrmk0nE iresh��smtrar7,20'18
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS-
SION
September 25, 20179 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1. Call to Order
2. Main Agenda
Staff requests that the report out to the Planning
and Environmental Commission be tabled to De-
cember 12, 2017 to address design considerations
A report to the Planning and Environmental Com-
mission on the Administrator's approval of an
amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit,
pursuant to Section 12-16-10, Amendment Proce-
dures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a steel -frame
tensile fabric shelter at the softball fields spectator
plaza area, located at 580 South Frontage Road
East (Ford Park)/Unplatted, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC17- 0032) 5 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council of an application establishing Special Devel-
opment District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residen-
ces), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Develop-
ment Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the de-
velopment of a mixed use building consisting of 12
dwelling units with 15 attached accommodation
units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10
employee housing units, and related uses and im-
provements, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage
Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore
Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known
as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail
Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC17-0006) 60 min.
Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by
Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Jonathan Spence
A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title
13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code,
to allow for a subdivision of a parcel located at 3700
North Frontage Road East/Unplatted, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0041) 30 min.
Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Chris Neubecker
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment,
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to amend Section 12-2-2, Definitions of
Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to amend and
clarify the definitions of Commercial Ski Storage,
Ski Club, First Floor or Street Level, and Basement
or Garden Level; to create a new definition for Ski
Storage Lockers; to amend Section 12-14-21 Out-
door Display of Goods concerning ski racks, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0042)
60 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
3. Approval of Minutes
September 1 1 , 2017 PEC Meeting Results
4. Adjournment
The applications and information about the propos-
als are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Devel-
opment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to attend the project orientation and
the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject
to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine
at what time the Planning and Environmental Com-
mission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-
2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for
sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meet-
ing time.
Community Development Department Published in
the Vail Daily September 22, 2017 00001 191 18
Ad #: 0000110860-01
Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMT
Your account number is: 1023233
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
VAIL DAILY
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the
VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole
or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said
newspaper has been published continuously and
uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more
than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first
publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and
that said newspaper has published the requested legal
notice and advertisement as requested.
The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium,
only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule
provision.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every number of
said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that
the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said
newspaper dated 9/8/2017 and that the last publication of
said notice was dated 9/8/2017 in the issue of said
newspaper
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
9/11/2017.
Mark Wurzer, Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for
the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 9/11/2017.
Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning
and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with
section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on September
25, 2017 at 1.00 pm in the Town of Vail Munici-
pal Building.
A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Ti-
tle 13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a subdivision of a parcel locat-
ed at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Unplatted,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-
0041)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello
Planning Group
Planner_ Chris Neubecker
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amend-
ment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment,
Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-2-2, Defini-
tions of Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to
amend and clarify the definitions of Commercial
Ski Storage, Ski Club, First Floor or Street Level,
and Basement or Garden Level; to create a new
definition for Ski Storage Lockers; to amend Sec-
tion 12-14-21 Outdoor Display of Goods concern-
ing ski racks, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC17-0042)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
The applications and information about the pro-
posals are available for public inspection during of-
fice hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop-
ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to attend site visits. Please call
970-479-2138 for additional information -Sign lan-
guage interpretation available upon request with
24-hour notification, dial 711.
Published September 8, 2017i n the Vail Daily.
(00001 10860)