Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-12 PECTOW?J OF ffl�� PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 12, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John - Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: None 1.2. Executive Session, pursuant to: 1/ C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal 15 min. advice on specific legal questions; Regarding: Planning and Environmental Commission Process. Matt Mire, Town Attorney Brian Gillette moved to convene Executive Session. Karen Perez seconded the motion. Brian Gillette moved to adjourn Executive Session. Karen Perez seconded the motion. 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 20 min. 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road bridge (210111101001)/Lot1, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0023) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Jonathan Spence presented the case. Mr. Barrie stated that this is an effort to improve an existing condition. Mr. Barrie stated that construction is removing an existing put -in area. He noted that the idea is to use an area that is about 100 yards downstream to build a similar access point to one over at Stephens Park or over a Lions Square Lodge. Mr. Barrie described the 10 -minute drop off zone. Chairman Stockmar called for public comment. Henry Pratt, resident across the street, stated that the two biggest issues were parking and pooping. He stated that he is in favor of moving the launch downstream but noted that people ignore signs. He stated that his concern is the lack of porta pottys. He stated the rafting companies show up with 50 guests and daily there is a constant parade of people using the area. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Barrie stated that the opportunity for a permanent bathroom would best be located at the parking area. Mr. Gillette asked staff to explore ways to conceal the portapotty. Mr. Lockman commended staff and appreciated the effort to approve and is in support of the application. Ms. Hopkins stated that she was in support and was in support of a more permanent structure. Ms. Perez stated that staff did a great job and it meets all the criteria and does like the idea of a more permanent structure. Mr. Kurz stated that he is in favor of the project. Mr. Gillette stated that he is in favor. Mr. Kjesbo stated he is also in favor. Mr. Stockmar stated that he is also in favor, though he is concerned that the two time -restricted spaces would be abused and enforcement was necessary. Mr. Stockmar closed comments. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6 Setbacks, Vail 15 min. Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front and side setback for a new deck, located at 4237 Columbine Way, Unit 21/Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0026) Applicant: Chris Olsson Planner: Jonathan Spence Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. The applicant shall execute an encroachment agreement with the adjacent property, to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder within 90 days of the date of approval, or the plans shall be amended to not encroach. Planner Spence introduced the application and presented photos of the existing conditions. Mr. Spence described the zoning requirements and described how this lot was different from the surrounding neighborhood and noted a strong disconnect with the code language and the built condition. Mr. Spence stated that staff has found that the application does meet the criteria for a variance. Mr. Gillette asked about the deck going over the property line. Mr. Spence stated that should the board approve the variance an encroachment agreement will be required. Mr. Spence clarified that this is one development lot, so individual property lines were not considered in terms of setbacks. Mr. Olsson had no further comments. Mr. Stockmar opened up public comments. Mr. Stockmar closed comments from the public and applicant Mr. Kjesbo was in support. Mr. Gillette was in support and wanted to add a condition that the applicant shall submit an encroachment agreement that would run with the land within 90 days of the PEC approval. Mr. Stockmar closed commissioner comments. Mr. Kurz moved to approve with the condition that the applicant submit a recorded encroachment agreemen t to the Town of Vail within 90 days of their approval. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail 15 min. Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to required rear and east side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0029) Applicant: Peter Smith, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this Variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Planner Spence presented the application for a variance and noted the addition does not extend the footprint of the existing building. He noted the home was conforming when it was built. Mr. Spence stated that staff finds that this application meets the requirements for a variance. Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Spence clarified that the special circumstances contribute to the variance. Mr. Mauriello stated that he has a presentation ready Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Mauriello described the special circumstances and noted that they built the house before setbacks were changed. He stated that everyone else in the neighborhood has been able to build additions and this home cannot. He stated the other option would be to do an addition somewhere else on the building, but that would require a variance for site coverage. Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Spence stated that the home was constructed in conformance with the town code that subsequently changed. Mr. Stockmar called for public comments. Mr. Stockmar closed comments from the public and staff Mr. Stockmar called for commissioner comments. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 11-10-1, Variances, 15 min. Vail Town Code, to allow for an internally illuminated menu board for McDonalds located at 2171 North Frontage Road West/Lot 2B, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0027) Applicant: McDonald's Real Estate Co., represented by Site Enhancement Services Planner: Ashley Clark 1. No more than two (2) menu boards shall be permitted. 2. No single menu board shall exceed 20 square feet in size, including framing. 3. No additional materials or signage, including, but not limited to, promotional advertisements or riders, shall be attached to the menu boards at any time. 4. The internal illumination of the menu boxes shall not be utilized when the restaurant is closed to the public. 5. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Ms. Clark presented the case. Langdon White echoed staff comments and noted that they are a significant improvement. Mr. Lockman inquired if the two signs are still working as intended for flow of traffic. Mr. James Nelson stated that the two signs help the restaurant to function efficiently. Mr. Stockmar opened up for public comment. Mr. Stockmar closed public comments. Mr. Kjesbo was in support along with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Kurz, Ms. Perez and Ms. Hopkins and Mr. Lockman. John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 10 Min. 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) 10 min. Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker Mr. Stockmar called for item 2. 6 review of a development plan. Mr. Gennett, Director of Community Development, provided a statement. Mr. Gennett provided some clarification to some issues that have been raised. He stated that the wildlife biologist's comment that "no development is the best mitigation" is not within the purview of the PEC. He stated that the property is zoned for development and has been for 45 years. He stated that 18 acres of the 24 were zoned natural area and preservation with the remaining 5 acres as Housing. He noted that the PEC is not reviewing an application to change any development rights. He noted the application for a development plan is being reviewed today. Mr. Gennett stated that staff has found that the application meets all the criteria. He noted that staff has an obligation to process the application under the code. He noted that refined conditions of approval have been circulated to the board and that there are no substantive changes. Ms. Perez stated that no development would be tantamount to a regulatory taking. Mr. Spence described the changes to the bus stop and keeping it on the west end of the site. Ms. Clark and Mr. Spence provided a presentation on the changes that have been made to the application. Mr. Spence reviewed the review criteria according to Section 12-61- 13 A — F. Mr. Kassmel stated that a question raised was the validation of why the traffic counted happened and the impact if school as in session. He stated that the traffic counts are done at the busiest time of the year, which is typically Christmas/New Years. He stated that with a count during school the impacts would be slight but the existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating those increases. He stated that the road can handle approximately 1,800 cars and according to the study there are 300 cars projected. Mr. Kassmel stated that they requested a budget for a sidewalk and stated and council requested counts. He stated that the count will be done in the next few weeks. Mr. Gillette stated that council should consider the impact of the new development in considering a sidewalk addition. He stated the town needs to think about the future and how it is used. Mr. Stockmar stated that the existing condition of the underpass is an issue which will be exacerbated with this development. Mr. Spence referred to Criteria B and reviewed how it meets the criteria. Ms. Clark and Mr. Spence reviewed the rest of the criteria for review. There was a discussion regarding the prohibition of dogs on the entire site. Mr. O'Connor provided a presentation of the Booth Heights Neighborhood. There was a discussion regarding a conservation easement. Relying on a slide show titled "Booth Heights Neighborhood: Development Application and Conditional Use Permit" dated 8/12/19 PEC Meeting, Mr. O'Connor reviewed the current iteration of the proposal. Mr. O'Connor referred to page 200 of the planning documents that outlines the changes that have been made. He stated that they have made some units smaller to arrive at the required 70/30 EHU to market rate GRFA ratio. . He noted that a landscape buffer has been added at the bus stop to buffer the space behind. Mr. O'Connor stated that his team is present and prepared to answer any questions. Mr. O'Connor reviewed the wild life mitigation plan. He stated their goal is balancing the need for housing in the community with the protection of wildlife. Mr. O'Connor stated that the dialogue with the wildlife biologists was helpfu I and productive and assembled a list of what can be done to help wildlife. Mr. O'Connor reviewed slide "Revised Onsite Wildlife Mitigation Plan" and described how they have decided to allocate their resources in the mitigation plan as a result of meeting. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. O'Connor stated that through the discussion with the wildlife biologists they have modified their fence. Generally, the conclusion of the wildlife biologists is that fences have ends and people will go around. He stated instead the strategy is to focus on getting people to not go into the protected areas. Mr. O'Connor noted additionally that a fence traps wildlife and would restrict grazing area; the idea was to keep people in rather than keep wildlife out and there are instead other avenues to achieve keeping people out without the negative externalities of a fence to the wildlife. There was a discussion regarding the proposed dog condition. Staff's drafted condition prohibits all dogs in both the rental and homeowner units. Mr. O'Connor stated that he is in support of restricting the rental units, however, would like to allow owner occupied units to have dogs. Mr. O'Connor discussed the revised offsite wildlife mitigation plan and identified areas that would most benefit from wildlife enhancement. Mr. O'Connor stated that they have created a mechanism to allocate resources to these areas or others. Mr. Gillette asked regarding the parcels that the town has control of — how many of those were included in the green polygons on wildlife distribution report? Rick Thompson, Western Ecosystems, stated that there is considerable overlap of the 2017-2019 winter range polygon with the Town of Vail parcels that extend above bald mountain and the booth creek. Mr. Thompson explained a categorical exclusion. He stated that there are conditions where there cant be any significant impacts including those that threaten endangered species or allows a habitat enhancement project that have little opposition or issues. Mr. Thompson stated on J my 29, all the resource specialists got together and were provided with information they needed to consider a sweep of projects ranging form habitat modifications, as benign of clearing trails to other things. Mr. Gillette clarified that Mr. Thompson has already presented to the Forest Service. Mr. Gillette asked about the timeline for starting the project. Mr. O'Connor stated that they would start in spring if they got approval today. Mr. Gillette then asked if the enhancements proposed will help the sheep during the first winter. Mr. Thompson stated that some displacement of sheep to the west and driveway entrance, where a buffer zone is proposed. He stated there are different types of enhancements that can be done. Mr. Thompson stated that implementation is tricky because you do not want to disturb the sheep or do enhancements not in season. Mr. O'Connor stated they would begin construction by June 1 and have the implementation in place for the following winter. Mr. O'Connor then discussed the Community -wide actions to help wildlife. He stated that this effort would be the framework for helping the Big Horn Sheep. He noted that these strategies need to be implemented not because of one project but because of a cumulative. There was a discussion regarding the mortality rate of sheep collaring, which is around 3% versus 4 out of 9 sheep in the previous study. There was a discussion regarding community wide efforts to protect the sheep through a town or community wide effort. Mr. O'Connor stated that the sheep are here and are habituated to human activity in the valley. Mr. O'Connor stated the town code and planning documents require us that the environment needs to be maintained or improved from existing conditions. He stated that hey are proposing a responsible development and are supporting the larger effort. He stated his development is committed to wildlife protection, more so than any other project. Matt Yamashita and Devon Duval from CPW answered questions from the PEC. Mr. Yamashita stated that they have reviewed the final letter put out by the independent biologists. He noted that the conversations tried to encompass and review the wild life mitigation plan. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Yamashita stated that some points are implemented exactly while other points that they do not agree with. Mr. Yamashita stated with regard to the fence, in their initial comment letter they advocated for a fence based on the idea that people need to be contained. He noted that in discussions with other wildlife biologists, they agree that fences in general are not good for wildlife. Mr. Yamashita stated that having a fence that only delays the human encroachment might not be the best solution when it will restrict the sheep to move freely. Mr. Yamashita described the mitigation efforts as a shot in the dark and trying to replicate a habitat is difficult and can't always be done. He stated the mitigation work is a guess. Mr. Yamashita stated there are some ways to mitigate and offset impact however, it doesn't always work. He stated that they could put $10 million worth of mitigation and there's still no way to guarantee protection. Mr. Yamashita stated that as this is the only winter range left, therefore it is very valuable. There was a discussion over fertilization and the appropriate time to fertilize Bill Andre stated that fall is the best time to fertilize and provided several reasons why, namely to improve the root system. Mr. Gillette asked what size of an area would be feasible to do with a backpack. Mr. Thomson stated that it can be done with a backpack. He noted that the grass would be treated separately for cheatgrass control. Mr. Andre stated that a larger site is needed to be feasible for a plane. Ms. Hopkins stated that this year has been exceptional for moisture but asked what happens with the grass and fertilizer during a drought. Mr. Andre stated that if there is a drought after a burn or fertilization there will be no benefit. He stated a burn may provide some benefit over a fertilizer. He stated with a fertilizer; the area should be changed. He noted that in regards to size, 166 acres is what a semi carries. He stated you do not want to do a 5 -acre patch by itself; you create an area that will be decimated, so a treatment needs to be large enough to spread the animals out. It should be done in linear trips to make the animals move. Mr. Andre thought getting the Forest Service involved would be good, however, did not know what their desire is based on their workload. Mr. Yamashita stated that he appreciated the consideration the planning commission has put into this and their diligence and appreciated being able to work with the town and the developer. He noted it's been a very collaborative process. Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the traffic study and methodology and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Stockmar stated that he relies on the expertise of Tom Kassmel and the traffic report and is comfortable with what is presented. There was then a discussion regarding parking. Mr. O'Connor stated that adding parking does a disservice to the community amenities. Mr. Stockmar stated that he is comfortable with the town home unit parking ratio. Mr. O'Connor stated the apartment building compared to other locals housing projects, Booth Heights is excess of all of those. Mr. Stockmar stated the other properties are different because of their locations. Mr. O'Connor stated the town code gives the PEC flexibility through the parking management plan. He stated it's a rental community that can be controlled by leases. He stated if their lives require two cars per household, they will not live here. Mr. O'Connor stated that the households that live in the apartment building will be bound by their lease. He stated the story would be different for condominium buildings. Matt Jones, Vail Resorts, stated that he oversees the five Colorado resorts and oversees the employee housing. Mr. Jones stated that they have direct control over the housing management of their employees. He stated that in their agreement to have a master lease for 36 units, that includes 1 space per unit and they have seen that as a successful ratio. He stated that the bus system is sufficient and an employee living in the Town of Vail does not need cars. Mr. Stockmar stated that he is glad to hear Vail Resorts housing employees are being managed differently. Mr. O'Connor then discussed the bus stop and noted there are two options for the PEC to consider. Mr. O'Connor discussed the unfeasibility of the bus stop at the east side location. Mr. O'Connor then discussed the geology and rock -fall study. Julia Fraser reviewed the LI DAR ground surface and noted that for their rock -fall analysis they looked at the site from three cross sections. She noted that the results of that study are summarized in the table and stated that the results are less intense than results from a proposal to the west of the site. She reviewed the berm that has been designed for the site. Ms. Fraser reviewed the ancient landslide map. She noted the general understanding is that these ancient landslides are largely inactive in their current condition. Upon inquiry from Mr. Stockmar, Ms. Fraser stated that she cannot guarantee that no major slide will happen. Mr. Stockmar stated he wished there was a way to quantify the risk. Ms. Fraser stated that we live in a slope risk zone, being in Colorado. Mr. O'Connor stated that the landslide area that is designated is to the west and noted that when they get around to doing the soil stability testing, that is when you understand the conditions and engineer for it. He stated that is why monitoring is important. Mr. O'Connor stated the rock fall zone on the site is discussed in the code and noted there is a similar condition for Solar Vail. Mr. O'Connor then summarized the presentation. There was a discussion regarding funds to increase the level of service to East Vail. Mr. Kassmel stated that the increase in service is going through the budget process currently. Mr. O'Connor referred to a hand out he distributed to the PEC titled "Booth Heights Development: Housing District Review Criteria," dated 8/12/2019. Mr. Stockmar then called for public comments: Susan Bird, Vail resident, served on the PEC in 2012, stated that the Betty Alpine Gardens Educational center which was originally proposed at the bank of the creek, however, was moved to a more appropriate location. Ms. Bird stated that she approved the Timber Housing redevelopment. She stated that she supports housing and stated that Timber Ridge apartments could also be redeveloped and there are more desirable locations. She stated dogs will chase and kill as many sheep as possible and asked the PEC to focus on the environmental impact. She stated that the town is growing at a rapid pace and stated they need to take a step back and the town needs a master plan for both portals. Carlos, employee housing resident, stated that without having the opportunity to live in employee housing, he would not be here. He stated he enjoys his job and friendships and also cleans up cigarettes from the group when he sees them. Kevin Sherwood, Vail resident, stated that he lives in Vail and works two jobs and struggles to survive off his income because of expensive housing. He stated his work staff was often reduced due to frozen road conditions. He stated that a staff of two people is difficult to maintain Vail. Suzanne O'Neal, Colorado Wild Life Federation, stated that the proposed mitigation may or may not work. Ms. O'Neal stated that she reviewed the previous reports provided. She stated the condition of approval and should include timing, particularly the $100,000. Robin Burch, 3225 Katsos Ranch Road, stated that she is developing in Katsos Ranch. Ms. Burch stated as a real estate developer she could not build a house in a red zone and had to blast six tons of rock. She stated she has big horn sheep in her back yard looking for food. Ben Gilbert, Moe's Original owner, he stated that after 18 years being in business, the last two years have been the most difficult. He stated that they're struggling being open for dinner because of the difficulty in attaining employees. He stated that they are almost out of Vail because they cannot get employees. Terry Meyers, Rocky Mountain Big Horn Society, stated that the $100,000 will be spent very quickly and the town should understand what the cost will be for these mitigation efforts. Moe's BBQ stated that they have worked hard to build a business to embody what their business is about and vice versa. He stated that they are not even open for dinner tonight because they can't be and have struggled since June because of employees. Kyle Denton, Vail resident, stated that he is in support of the proposal. He stated that the town lacks affordable housing. Louise Hoverston read a letter from Cindy and Tony Ryerson, which stated that they have lived in Vail for 34 years. She stated that they recognize that affordable housing is and that this project will impact the herd and their survivability. Lynne Gottlieb, speaking for herself and husband John, stated that they were coming down Vail pass and the new entrance captured their attention and stated this new entrance creates a refreshing and pleasing aura. She stated that they looked at the site proposed and could not imagine all the buildings jammed in and shuddered. She stated this decision is not big horn sheep versus affordable housing, that the affordable housing can go somewhere else. She stated the town should buy the land and preserve it. She suggested building on top of an existing parking structure. Jurgen Hintz, happily paying taxes, stated that the board must ask themselveswhy they do not reject the false comparison of keeping the sheep or employee housing. He stated that the town can have the employee housing and not destroy the sheep territory. He stated that the board should take on the responsibility of taking awa y greenbelt, to be sure there's no other way. Charlyn Canada, Vail resident, stated that the mudslide fell into the creek because the earth was saturated and was told by the fire department to evacuate due to flash flood concerns. She stated the Booth Creek Fault slipped which rocked their house. She looked skyward hoping to see fighter jets flying over in formation but instead saw clouds of dust from airborne boulders. Ms. Canada stated they are unsure if the berm will protect the houses. She stated the forces of nature dictate this high-risk slope and the highest and best use is for the grazing of Big Horn sheep. John Ervin, bus driver in Vail, has driven by the site 18 times a day for the last 38 years. He stated that most people don't see them when you drive by. He stated that everyone enjoys seeing the sheep. He stated there was no East Vail bus; it was a Big Horn Bus. He stated that living in employee housing, when it first opened, nobody followed the rules. He stated that the Denver weekend people will bring dogs to this proposal. He stated that his daughter's four -pound yorkie chases bears, so sheep wouldn't be an issue. He stated that Metallica lead guy likes that his daughter has sheep near her school. Elyse Howard, Vail resident, stated that she has worked for Habitat for Humanity, and stated that Vail is approximately 2,800 units short and in 2025 will be more. She stated that developing housing is difficult and expensive. Peter Seibert, Vail resident, stated that the zoning is in place and so the boards charge is to work with the developer to come up with a plan that meets the zoning for the site. He stated that if you saw this project from the beginning and told council what you'd end up with this much land to be set aside, they would've said no way. He stated that everyone has worked hard but this is time to approve this. Jeff W iles, Vail resident, stated that there is a housing issue for the employees. He stated that he is in favor of employee housing that will take the stress of the people he works with lives. Donna Mumma stated that traffic safety is a big issue, especially for pedestrians. She stated the context is the new community that will go in the underpass. She noted the walkability score of this site is not walkable. It is in a category that requires a car for all residents. She stated that she takes issue that this project will decrease driving into Vail. Ms. Mumma stated that it took her an hour to take the bus to City Market. Fred Rumford, Vail resident, stated that he has enjoyed growing up here. He stated that Triumph Development has provided a detailed analysis on providing housing in the town and stated that he feels the design criteria have been met. He urged the board to think about Vail's next generation. Blondie Vucich, Vail resident, stated that the staff memo on Friday was a shock that it recommended approval and that it failed to include the recommendation from the three Vail hired wildlife biologists to not build on the site. She stated other issues have not been resolved: the underpass, parking, enforcement, number of units and the landslide risk. She stated the only NIMBY in this situation is the Big Horn Sheep. She stated they are opposed to developing on this parcel. She stated that this entire process has been flawed from the beginning, starting with the rezoning that passed PEC and council and the sudden departure of town manager Greg Clifton. She asked the board to restore faith in the local government and take their time and hold people accountable Tom Vucich, Vail resident, stated several people have left the meeting because they cannot stay for four hours. He stated that a geological survey (6/21/2019) stated that an item in the letter states "two possibly three small avalanche paths.... they can be very destructive." Mr. Vucich read from the minutes from a previous meeting and asked where the geological studies are. Yann Benjamin, Vail resident, stated that he is in support of the project and described how the project supports the legacy of Vail. Jeff Babb, Vail resident, stated that living in the community in which he worked was a great experience. He stated that living in East Vail was cool and beautiful and he never needed his car because the bus service was so amazing. He stated that led him to feel like a member of the community. After 6 -months of looking for something to buy, they moved to Edwards, which was a difficult decision. Beth Howard, Chief Operating Officer Vail Mountain, stated that the meetings have had strong turn out and appreciate the public's voice in this community. She stated that we need to create an experience of a lifetime, having housing in a convenient location, and why the East Vail housing location is ideal. Mike Connolly, General Manager Triumph Partners Management, stated that his reasons for supporting the proposal are beyond just his pride in working for Triumph. He urged the board to approve the project. Alison Wadey, Vail Chamber, stated that she moved here right out of college, lived in a small apartment. She stated they didn't have dogs or outdoor space. She stated that a few years ago they did a few open houses with millennials, stated it wasn't just about affordability but also being close to where they work. Mark Gordon, Vail resident, stated that he looks for the positive and this project does not come up with a win-win, and hates binary negotiations and he just doesn't see how both sides can have a win. He stated he found a few positive: 1) almost everybody prefaced their comments with saying I support the town's initiative for housing, which is a huge positive, 2) the housing zoning which was tweaked, worked, the idea was to incentive the private sector to build employee housing and 3) congratulated the applicant on the mitigation plan but stated its improving other areas as well. He stated this mitigation plan needs to be worked on this mitigation plan for continued mitigation. Doug Wooldridge stated that he travels a lot in the summer months, recruiting staff. He noted that the first thing out of everybody's mouth is: do you have housing? He stated he has a staff of about 100, and about 40 of them commute from Gypsum or Eagle. He stated it's about a two-hour commute by bus. He stated that staff morale goes downhill as a result of continued commuting. He asked the board to approve the project. Anne Esson, Vail resident, stated that conditions are welcome as well as mitigation money. She stated that the biologist's recommendation to mitigate with demonstrable success before construction has gotten lost, also no dogs, not even comfort animals is not the same as dogs allowed by town home owners. She stated dogs are carnivores. She stated the town sponsored plan offers more than the Triumph proposal. Will Lewis, Vail resident, stated that he is on the board of directors for a town home complex, about the size of this proposal. He stated their on going problems are dogs and parking even though they have rules and regulations. He stated they are supposed to be given the information, but they are not. He stated they have tenants with four cars. He stated it's a constant challenged and it's disingenuous to think you're going to educate people about those aspects. He stated their parking is woefully unacceptable. He stated the dogs are the biggest things. Lindsay Reimers, Vail resident, stated that every town or city arrives at a threshold project that says its time to be more sensitive to decision making. She stated we are there and that this is a complex social issue. She stated that geology and information on what we know so far is not defensible, it's scary. She stated the wildlife and dogs are not compatible. Michael Hazard, Vail resident, stated that they held a meeting to understand how to build employee housing. He stated that the council's actions entitled this property with housing as a use by right. He stated that there is a need for good employee housing. Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership, stated that there is a need for workforce housing. He stated that the apartment parking count has been increased to 60, which is more than any of the recent housing projects that are adequately served today. He stated they do not know enough about the wildlife to say yes. He stated the Town of Vail has the playbook to help the herd and this development does more than its fair share. He encouraged the board to vote yes. Matt Jones, father and husband, stated that he wanted to live in Vail and wasn't able to find a place and tried to buy a place in Vail and could not. Kate Grattan, General Manager in Vail, she stated most people ask if there is employee housing. She stated that they often lose employees to other "world class markets" asked the board to vote yes. Joe Joyce, Vail resident, stated that he is really impressed that there are so many people present to support employee housing. He stated generally its people who are opposed have all the energy to come out to these meetings. Mr. Joyce stated that the neighborhood is a rock -fall area and all those homes are in rock -fall areas. He stated people are staying in their rock -fall neighborhoods. He stated it comes down to zoning and personal property rights. Joe Stauffer, resident longer than Pete Seibert stated that they transferred the density to five acres. He stated that there is no one in the room who disagrees with the need for employee housing. He stated town council gives the right to residents to rent. He noted over 100 permanent residents lost their jobs. He stated that if this project gets approved, the Big Horn Sheep, its goodbye for them. Grace Poganski, Vail resident, stated that its been suggested that we take the motion out of the decision and its also been suggested that we not repeat things that have been said. She said she found a fact that is emotionless and true: the U.S. Forest Service manual 2671.1 Sensitive Species Management: they must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability. She noted there must be no impact to sensitive species. She asked the commission to exercise its own best practices and accept that the best mitigation for the herd is to find another location. Heather Leonard, Vail resident, stated that as of last month she is no longer subterranean and she now has a view of 1-70. She stated that there is strict enforcement of the rules in Vail's employee housing. Pam Stenmark, Vail resident, stated that while a need for employee housing exists, their job is to dissect the merits of this development. She stated that she finds it ironic that they have not seen a drawing of a building showing the berm. She referred to the wild life biologists reports and stated the omissions in the staff memo are significant. She stated that the comparison of the properties Triumph uses in town are not far. She stated that Vail Resorts can decide where their housing goes. She stated regarding dogs on the property, she is a property owner of an HOA with strict rules which are still violated and so if anybody thinks that making regulations and having somebody sign something is not going to work. She stated Triumph has used misinformation throughout. She stated that approving this because it's always done is a pattern that needs to change and to stop degrading the wildlife. Bill Andre, stated that a comment from Triumph that everybody has their bias. He stated he has never heard a developer say I'm going to hurt the wildlife. He stated that mitigation has generally not worked and needs to come before any development. He stated that $100,000 may sound like a lot; however, one collar is $1,000. He stated the key to mitigation is it has to be enforced and flexible, if what you first start to do isn't working you have to change it. He stated the valley wide effort needs to be enforced and in place before any development happens. He stated no dogs, no trails, no recreation — who is going to enforce it? He stated there are dozens of conservation easements throughout Colorado and are not respected. He stated that the HOA can change their board and vote in their own covenants. He stated that they've had 5 biologists groups telling you that mitigation won't work. Mr. Andre stated that compromise means less wildlife. Barbie Christopher stated that her biggest concern is maintaining the treasures and not pave the paradise and put up a parking lot. She stated that they have regular encounters with wildlife. She stated there has always been a housing shortage in the town and living the mountain lifestyle is worth the various sacrifices. She stated the wildness of the mountains is what distinguishes us from the suburb and a city. Susan Bristol, Vail resident, stated that she took some notes. She stated that there are some things that concern her. Ms. Bristol stated that 11 trees are shown on the site plan — and asked if we should take the developers word for landscaping at the bus stop? She stated she did not understand why the developer is so insistent on having dogs. She stated dogs will kill the sheep. Her nine pound dog barks at things, like the deer in her yard. She stated there is supposed to be implementation of mitigation and meant to be before construction. She asked how hat works out with the developers building schedule. She stated that there haven't been considerations of removing some of the units and making it a little more low-rise. She stated by golly, she is all for workforce housing, but not here. Pete Feistman, Vail resident, stated this project is not in his backyard. He stated that if the board feels the wildlife can be mitigated. He stated that Mr. O'Connor stated even this first band of cliffs is 700' above the bowl we're developing in. Do you believe a rock -fall can be mitigated from this height? He stated that the owners would be entitled to build a long road which could have been an even bigger eyesore, but is ancient history. He stated that when the applicant took the business risk to rezone, it is not the board's issue. He stated that stretch of open space is a huge part of the first impression we make on Vail coming in from the east. Mr. Feistman stated if you say yes to this project, despite the environmental project, what project would you say no to? Larry Stewart, Vail resident, stated that the plan b mitigation plan and the wildlife biologist showed the fallacy and nonscience behind the applicant's plan. He stated plan b is even worse for the sheep than the original plan. He stated the memo does not put a plan in place to do any of the mitigation efforts. He stated that it is Triumph's responsibility to mitigate the development, not the town. He stated that while they have a right to develop, but do not have a right to this project. Mr. Stockmar stated that the residents take incredible pride in the town and thanked everyone for their input. Mr. Stockmar closed public comments and asked for closing comments from Mr. O'Connor. Ms. Perez asked if there has been an analysis on the impact of what would have been built by right. Mr. O'Connor stated it was a complicated exercise and he has not had the time to do it. Mr. Gillette stated that the conservation should specifically be a wildlife conservation easement. Mr. O'Connor stated that finding the right person to hold the easement is important. He stated that they will work in earnest and with good faith to work with the town on the easement. He stated getting the details correct is important. Mr. Gillette asked if the HOA covenants can be changed. Mr. Gillette stated it is the HOA's responsibility to enforce a covenant. Mr. Gillette stated the Town of Vail has to hold some sort of right that those covenants can be changed. Mr. Spence stated if there is a condition of approval, HOA can't go against them As an illustration, Mr. Spence stated that the town has an occupancy limit within the town code. Mr. Spence stated regulations can further restrict, but cannot exceed. There was a discussion regarding protection of the covenants. Mr. Gillette stated this needs to be followed up with the town attorney. Mr. Gillette asked who will follow-up with the Forest Service. Mr. Gennett stated staff has followed up with the Forest Service and we are waiting a response. Mr. Lockman asked about the fence. He stated there have been varying recommendations from the wildlife biologists. He stated the original plan had openings within it to allow the wildlife. Mr. O'Connor stated that no fence is a result of a collective discussion from the wildlife biologists. He noted the ability to add a fence if it is clear that people are going off the site. He stated originally there was 15 acres of land, tree cutting, enhancement across the entire area, pruning shrubs, was the original proposal and initially, was open what locations were appropriate. Mr. O'Connor stated that he has not had the opportunity to hear the board's comments on this current iteration. Mr. Kurz asked about the notes from the public comments that were made and asked what his answers to some of the questions and concerns are. Mr. O'Connor stated that the process with the wildlife mitigation plan and what we've focused on for the past four weeks has been very good progress. He stated that the original plan was good, but, refocusing the efforts and resources is fantastic. He stated mitigation plans don't work — he stated the opportunity they have is a big picture issue and putting a significant amount of effort for the herd. Mr. O'Connor stated that Vail Resorts for enforcement and the HOA is the vehicle for the town homes. Mr. O'Connor stated the payment timing needs to be addressed. Mr. O'Connor stated the underpass is an existing condition and hopes the town can work towards a remedy. Mr. O'Connor stated the criteria for development is provided on the sheet provided and stated that is what the decision should be based on. He stated they have scaled the project back in terms of unit count. Ms. Hopkins asked about the berm. She stated that when she looks at it, its 12' high and goes form 60' and becomes lower. Ms. Hopkins asked if another avalanche situation was being created because of the berm. Mr. O'Connor stated that he did not think so, and the berm sections provided. Mr. O'Connor stated the berm will need to be engineered and designed accordingly. There was a discussion regarding site section A of the berm plan. Mr O'Connor stated it will be engineered and a substantial amount of top soil, which will require temporary irrigation to get established. Ms. Hopkins stated that the snow and collection of snow is a concern because of the pitch. Mr. Stockmar closed the applicant's comments and turned to closing comments by staff. Mr. Spence stated that staff is available for any questions. Mr. Stockmar closed staff comments. Mr. Stockmar opened commissioner comments. Mr. Kjesbo reviewed the criteria he stated that at the first meeting he was concerned about the project not being more integrated into the hillside and the massing on the front end is too much and a towering building going down hill is too high. He stated that should have been put against the hillside. Second, parking, you keep trying to compare it to other properties, but it is three miles away and I think you should have two parking spaces for each unit. He stated that Vail Resorts may not always be in there managing and the property might be sold down the line and wants to make sure there's adequate parking. In the rock -fall, a question, if there was an incident in the future, does the town have a liability? Mr. O'Connor stated no. Mr. Kjesbo stated that part of the massing and size requires a new bus stop. He stated that he does not see how this project can start without first doing the mitigation in the other areas so they have somewhere to do. As Mr. Andre said, and others said, mitigation won't work we will lose the sheep and from an environmental standpoint I can't approve this. There was a discussion regarding the rules of order that have been established. Mr. Gillette agreed with Mr. Kjesbo on the parking and they are not there yet. He stated that the parking has multiple effects — the reason we're having trouble with parking on the site is probably because it's overbuilt. Parking has a curious way of affecting density and mass and if we stick with the recommendations we'll get enough parking and the right mass. He stated as far as the — if this does go to a vote to approve I think we need the conditions the money must be put up within a certain days after approval which would be what's fair? Mr. Gillette stated that the idea is we need to start mitigation prior to the first critical winter and so I'm torn on what you're responsible for and what you're not my first thought is you have to sit there and get everyone at the table and then I thought what if the Forest Service wont come to the table that's not your problem. Mr. Gillette stated that when he looks at the code in terms of the sheep, stated we need to determine that you can't save the sheep and therefore this is a done deal or we need to ameliorate the problem as best we can. He stated that it makes him wonder what Mr. Kjesbo would approve. I'm assuming Mr. Kjesbo means less density. Mr. Kjesbo agreed that a smaller project will have less effect. Mr. Gillette stated that its hard to quantify no matter what there will be access from the west side of the sit there's no other way to get on there he stated the fact he sees form the development is that the property itself is in prime range and so no matter what you build there you're going to radiate into the open space. Mr. Gillette stated that at that point we have to ameliorate and deciding what the best way to do that. Mr. Gillette stated he thinks $100k is a lot for a developer to put up and the land set aside is more than anyone else has put in the town. He stated that best way to spend it is offsite. He stated then looking at what is deficient in the mitigation plan — he can't support the bus stop on the west end of the project. PW has a one track mind. Mr. Gillette stated that the bus stop needs to go east and will withhold his vote on that until it goes. In his opinion we need to do everything feasible to mitigate for the sheep and moving the bus stop is totally feasible. Mr. Gillette stated no dogs for sure, no short term rentals we need to work on the HOA covenants to make sure they're enforceable; conservation easement needs to be wildlife specific. He stated there's a lot more ideas that came out of the round table about establishing an ongoing effort to project wild life is important and while they're not the developers responsibly, they are our responsibility. Mr. Gillette stated that there needs to be an agenda item on our ne)d agenda on the town's responsibility and start talking about ongoing mitigation efforts — independent on going maintenance of wildlife habitat. Mr. Gillette stated that he is in support, not as it is now, but you have to get there on parking and the bus stop. Mr. Kurz thanked staff and the applicant and public for the process. Mr. Kurz stated that he project has become better through the process. He stated that he agrees with a couple of comments form his colleagues in terms of the fact that mitigation needs to start early, not after the fact, he continues to think that the bus stop contrary to Mr. Gillette should be on the west side and should be a turnaround. He stated that he did not see the crossing of the road as an improvement of the situation and the difficulty of getting to the east end of the development to the bus stop is a concern. Mr. Kurz stated that in terms of the criteria, the architecture, it is obviously an imposing project, however, is located not in the middle of a neighborhood and will become its own neighborhood. Mr. Kurz stated that he lives within a mile of this building and sees it as a doable in the scale and the massing that it is. Mr. Kurz stated the drawings have improved overtime to break up the perceived mass in terms of the setbacks, roof heights and materials changes. Mr. Kurz stated that he has an issue with parking and thinks it's still under parked at this stage and would like to see some improvement there. In terms of the mitigation, Mr. Kurz think it's pretty clear that from everything they have heard the sheep will be impacted one way or the other to a great degree or to a lesser degree we don't know what. He stated that the mitigation proposed if started at the right time and followed through is maybe as much as can be done in terms of protecting the sheep and that is not to say that the sheep will remain there. Mr. Kurz stated in terms of the geologist part that should be left to those with direct knowledge. Mr. Kurz stated that the landscape plan and the bus turn around on the west side would like to see extra trees in the area and there are somethings he is pleased about: the solar wiring installed and can be used in the future. Ms. Perez stated that staff and the applicant have done an excellent job along with the town. She stated that it is not perfect and this is about balance and in listening to commissioner comments, we're giving you conflicting view points and direction which is difficult. Ms. Perez stated that the issue here is that our ordinance and code does not require a development plan. Ms. Perez stated that rezoning 18 acres to open space and 5 for development was the deal. Ms. Perez stated that "no development" was not included in the staff memo because it would be a regulatory taking and the town would need to come up with fair market value for all the acres. Ms. Perez stated that their charge as commissioners is to see if the criteria have been met or not. Ms. Perez stated that she would also like Town Council to require an environmental impact statement along with rezoning. Ms. Perez commended the applicant for the most comprehensive wildlife mitigation plan. Ms. Perez stated that in terms of the mitigation plan — it still needs work. She noted that there should not be short term rentals or dogs, unless in accordance with the law. She stated the scale and massing from by right to 74 total units is a big improvement. Ms. Perez stated that mitigation should occur early. Ms. Perez stated that she would like there not to be smoking on site and should be a part of the mitigation plan. Ms. Hopkins stated that she is interested in the site and thinks that when you have a site and learn about it before you design, you have about eight mitigations to go through, and one is a huge rock fall. She stated the rock -fall mitigation took 2.3-3 acres of the 5 acres so the site that can be built in is shrunk and shrunk even more so to have a driveway that works. Ms. Hopkins described the site constraints and asked if she applicant could work with the land more and sited debris flow and rock -fall issues. She stated to call the berm part of the landscaping — she wants to see the berm and an accurate depiction of what it looks like. She stated that she does not think this project is right for the site. Mr. Lockman thanked all the public comment and appreciated the passion and ability to be here. Mr. Lockman stated that they must make a decision on this application. He stated that he has put a lot of thought into this process. He stated he did not agree with the parking, he is ok with it as is. He stated the updated landscaping the bus stop should be on the west end of the project. He stated he didn't hear of a viable option for the east. He agreed with Mr. Gillette with the offsite mitigation and putting efforts into the best options. Mr. Lockman stated they have to vote on the application. He noted the more difficult part of the criteria is F, he stated it is a balancing act. He stated he is support of the application. Mr. Stockmar stated that they must come to a decision. He stated there is no master plan for East Vail, though there should be. He stated they have the obligation to review environmental impact reports and started they are not going beyond their purview when they market hose analysis and comment on it. Mr. Stockmar read through the PEC charter and reviewed the measures necessary to protect the county which includes — he thinks this endangers people. He stated that they also must consider other matters and to act in an advisory capacity when so requested. Mr. Stockmar stated that he has no question that the value of employees to this valley is vital and crucial to every business in town. He stated that is not the issue here. He stated that he does not think this is the right spot for a number of reasons. Mr. Stockmar stated they cannot dictate alternatives; they either approve or deny it. Mr. Stockmar stated that is it possible that this project be a violation of that law to protect and cause no harm to the Big Horn Sheep? Mr. Stockmar stated this is a question that has not been addressed. He stated that we have all reached the agreement that there is a threat to that herd. He stated he believes the sheep herd is seriously threatened. Mr. Stockmar stated it is significantly threatened by this development. Mr. Stockmar stated that comprehensive covenants need to be adopted including banning pets and stopping the incursion of people in the surrounding area and should include stiff fines. He stated the parking question is still unresolved and finds that equating this project to other projects close to town is nonsense. He stated that enough parking has not been provided. He stated the parking is adequate for the town homes; however the 42 multi family building parking is not adequate. Mr. Stockmar did not find sufficient evidence has not been provided to support a request for lower parking ratios than the standard set in the code. Mr. Stockmar stated that Big Horn Road is not a pedestrian friendly environment, while improvements are coming. Mr. Stockmar stated that he would like everything to be done and legally binding before construction starts. Mr. Stockmar stated that last that Town Council members provided anecdotal experiences from West Vail, and do not have the local knowledge experience the underpass daily. Mr. Stockmar stated in regards to the berm and rock -fall issues; a large rock fell off the cliff about 200 meters from his home, which is the same strata. Mr. Stockmar stated this development is substantially closer than the other homes further east in Vail are. The diagram provided shows that it is literally on the cliff at a very steep angle. He stated it has become clear that this project is the wrong place and contrary to their environmental stewardship and does not lend itself to safe construction and it should not be developed. Mr. Stockmar invited a motion Mr. Gillette stated they should give the applicant an opportunity to table Mr. Stockmar asked for a response. Mr. Lockman reviewed the commissioner's comments. Mr. Gillette stated that he may sway on the bus stop location staying to the east. Mr. Gillette stated the purpose of government is to solve problems. Mr. O'Connor stated he would like to discuss with the PEC. Mr. O'Connor stated that Mr. Kjesbo's point on massing asked if three stories would be sufficient. Mr. Kjesbo stated that he needs to see it, his bigger problem is the sheep and from what he is hearing from five different experts is that we don't know if the mitigation efforts and is an environmental concern that they will go away. He stated the massing would help but that remains that the big horn sheep still there. Mr. O'Connor asked if bringing the parking into town code, and clarified that it's not just related to mass. Mr. Gillette stated that parking and massing go hand in hand and a smaller project would be more agreeable with the project. Mr. O'Connor inquired as the wild life mitigation plan, the process that has been set up the timing of the work the commitment to getting that plan in a form that is approved before we start construction and start some more clarity on that — is that what you're looking for? Mr. Lockman stated that yes it needs to happen before construction and be fully funded. Mr. Gillette stated that getting the Forest Service in the room is big. Mr. O'Connor stated that he has tried and it's not gotten anywhere. Mr. O'Connor stated that is where having the town as a partner is huge. Mr. Gennett stated that the U.S. Forest Service was invited to the round table discussion and they did not attend. Mr. O'Connor stated they have some work to do in terms of the plan and requested to table. Mr. O'Connor requested to continue the hearing. Brian Gillette moved to continue to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.6. A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61- 120 min. 11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker Brian Gillette moved to continue to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0031) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the W ildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. July 22, 2019 PEC Results Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Adjournment Ludwig Kurz moved to adjourn. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 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 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1/ C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; Regarding: Planning and Environmental Commission Process. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road bridge (210111101001)/Lotl, Bighorn Subdivision 2"d Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0023) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC19-0023 Staff Memo.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Prosect Narrative with Photos.pdf Attachment C. Project Plan Set.pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Project Narrative with Photos Attachment C. Project Plan Set rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road bridge (210111101001)/Lot1, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0023) Applicant: Town of Vail, Gregg Barrie, Senior Landscape Architect Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by Senior Landscape Architect Gregg Barrie, is requesting the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road bridge (210111101001)/Lot1, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. 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, with a condition, of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road bridge which is currently being replaced. The boat launch will be used by kayakers, rafters, stand-up paddle boarders, inner -tubers and other similar users to access Gore Creek during spring runoff. The typical use window will be May -August but may extend further on either end depending on water levels. In addition, a 10 - minute drop off zone will be added to the west side of Bridge Rd to allow users of the facilities to drop off boats and gear before parking in public parking on the north side of Bighorn Rd in the existing parking area. Finally, a soft -surface trail will connect the existing paved bike path with Bridge Rd. This unpaved trail replaces the previously existing paved trail. Please see the project narrative included as Attachment B for more information. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative (Attachment B) and project plan set (Attachment C) attached to this memorandum for review. III. BACKGROUND Lot 1 of Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition was acquired by the Town of Vail in 2018. Prior to that time the parcel had been in private ownership. The parcel had been identified in the 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan as a low priority acquisition parcel for the purpose of riparian preservation. Several factors have contributed to loss of riparian habitat along Gore Creek, including landscaping practices and use patterns. (Loss of riparian habitat is identified in the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan as one of three causes of Gore Creek's impairment). This East Vail project addresses both by restoring riparian vegetation and redirecting use patterns. It eliminates informal access areas that have proliferated as social trails have formed by restoring most of those areas with native vegetation and formalizing and hardening one access point. As the Town of Vail has done with other projects including Stephen's Park, along the streamwalk, and west of Lionshead skier bridge, the Town has reduced the number of informal access points and replaced them with a smaller number of access points designed to withstand their intended use. Social trails lead to erosion, sedimentation and soil compaction: which makes it difficult for plants to grow and introduces sediment (a pollutant regulated by the state) to Gore Creek. This area in East Vail was particularly hard-hit because it is used on a daily basis by commercial rafting companies. That leads to a lot of foot traffic, compaction, erosion and sedimentation. Our hope is to create an access that can handle that kind of use, direct use to the designated area, and protect the rest. The Town of Vail is currently in discussions concerning the acquisition of 3785 Lupine Drive, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition, Lot 5, the location of an existing pond. Upon successful acquisition, the Town of Vail will initiate a Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to bring that parcel and the parcel subject to this request into Land Use Categories and Zoning District Designation more suitable that the current designations. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS CHAPTER 12-16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (in part) SECTION 12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and Town of Vail Page 2 V VI IIf limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for Conditional Use Permits shall be denied. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Not Addressed Legal Description: Lott, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition Zoning: Two -Family Primary Secondary Residential (PS) District Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Public Park and Recreation Facilities Hazards: Floodplain SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Zoning District None Two -Family Primary Secondary Natural Area Preservation None Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Community Development Department finds the proposed use to be consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. Specifically, the proposed uses address several goals, concepts and or recommended actions identified in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Gore Creek Strategic Access Plan. Vail Land Use Plan: Goal # 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan High Priority Plan Actions #9: Delineate Stream Protection Overlay/Hazard Zones Adjacent to waterbodies. Restrict land uses in bear stream zones to maintain and/or restore water quality buffer characteristics. Recommended Actions Town of Vail Page 3 Existing Land Use North: Bighorn Road South: Low Density Residential East: Riparian Corridor West: Riparian Corridor REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District None Two -Family Primary Secondary Natural Area Preservation None Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Community Development Department finds the proposed use to be consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. Specifically, the proposed uses address several goals, concepts and or recommended actions identified in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Gore Creek Strategic Access Plan. Vail Land Use Plan: Goal # 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan High Priority Plan Actions #9: Delineate Stream Protection Overlay/Hazard Zones Adjacent to waterbodies. Restrict land uses in bear stream zones to maintain and/or restore water quality buffer characteristics. Recommended Actions Town of Vail Page 3 1. Consider revegetation or other growth techniques as a form of mitigation for achieving buffer preservation requirements. Use active revegetation to ensure the preservation and propagation of streamside vegetated buffers on Town properties 2. Develop and implement a riparian management plan. Ensure that the monitoring, management, and maintenance schedule for municipally owned streamside vegetated buffers is reflected in the principles outlined in a riparian management plan or drainage criteria manual. Ensure that the plan designates the parties responsible for management of streamside vegetated areas and specifically: The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed conditional use will have a positive impact on recreation facilities by improving access to Gore Creek in a manner that increases safety, environmental quality and community aesthetics. The use will have minimal effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities or schools. The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed conditional use will have a positive effect on traffic and on pedestrian safety through the organization and proper programming of this highly used area. The construction of a two -space drop-off and loading zone area on Bridge Road will increase safety in the area while reducing congestion and improving the area aesthetics and operational characteristics for nearby property owners, residents and visitors. The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will have a positive impact on the character of surrounding area. As stated previously, this proposal will increase environmental quality, recreational opportunities, pedestrian and traffic safety and the overall aesthetic quality and operation of the area. The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title. Town of Vail Page 4 An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12. This public project has been designed to improve the quality of the environment in the town. VIII. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with a condition, the Conditional Use to allow for the installation of a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road bridge. 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 Conditional Use Permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission passes the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves this request for a Conditional Use Permit, with a condition, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road bridge (210111101001)/Lot1, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0023)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with a condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following condition: "Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this Conditional Use Permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated August 12, 2019 and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is in accordance with the purposes of the Two -Family Primary Secondary Residential (PS) District. 2. The proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit complies with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permit, Vail Town Code." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative with Photos C. Project Plan Set Town of Vail Page 5 Town of Vail Boat Launch Conditional Use Permit Parcel #210111101001ILot 1, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition subject Propeq Ire, 03- At o i I Ovi r Feet 0 25 50 100 �st Modified: August 2, 2019 TOWN OF MAIL' 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com Gore Creek Access and Stabilization — Bridge Road Project Description August 2, 2019 Public Works/Transportation Department 970.479.2158 970.479.2166 fax The area near the Bridge Rd bridge in East Vail has long served as a watercraft put -in area for kayakers, rafters, stand-up paddleboarders and inner -tubers, as well as commercial raft companies during the spring and summer months. They often used a dirt/gravel pull -off area on Bridge Road as a loading zone and accessed Gore Creek through an informal rocky area downstream of the bridge. The area was on private property, however the owner gave permission to the commercial raft company to use the put -in, and did not seem concerned about the private users. Two consistent complaints from neighbors were 1) people parking in the dirt pull -off and 2) people relieving themselves in the nearby willows. The Bridge Road bridge is currently being replaced. That work began several weeks ago and should be completed by Thanksgiving. The replacement work will permanently eliminate the existing put -in area due to the nature of the bridge design and a requirement to install a guardrail along the south/west edge of Bridge Rd. In addition, as part of the East Vail water quality and landscape project, a section of paved recreation trail between Bridge Rd and the parking lot on the north side of Bighorn Road was removed to reduce impervious paved surfaces in the area. A 50' -long section of stream bank along that stretch of Gore Creek is showing bank erosion due to lack of vegetation and heavy use as a secondary put -in area. In 2018 , the Town of Vail purchased the .86 acre private parcel to assist with the protection of Gore Creek water quality and for recreational purposes. The proposed Gore Creek Access and Stabilization project includes the following components: • Installation of a stone slab put -in area at the existing eroded bank. This is similar to successful access and stabilization projects completed at Stephens Park and behind Lion Square Lodge. Construction of a two -space drop-off and loading zone area on Bridge Road. This area was determined through consultation with private and commercial rafting operations, kayakers and standup paddle boarders. It will be signed as a "10 minute loading zone". Users will be directed to park in the existing parking lot north of Bighorn Rd. The drop- off zone is proposed to be constructed of permeable concrete paving blocks. The existing dirt/gravel pull off area will be revegetated as part of the bridge replacement project. • Construction of a gravel trail to reconnect the parking lot with Bridge Road. This will also provide a connection for the neighborhood to the Gore Valley Trail toward Katsos and Vail Village. • The loading zone, trail and put -in are designed to follow ADA guidelines for USFS recreation facilities • Installation of numerous native plants between Bighorn Road and Gore Creek as part of the Gore Creek Water Quality Strategic Plan. The new plantings help to filter runoff, provide habitat and reduce sediment entering Gore Creek. More than 6000 plants are being planted along Gore Creek during 2019. • Two portable toilet units were placed in the East Vail Parking Lot during the summer of 2019. Staff has discussed the possibility of installing permanent facilities in the area with the Vail Town Council. There are maintenance and vandalism concerns associated with permanent facilities adjacent to an 1-70 interchange, and the portable units have been installed on a trial basis. • The town is also working to purchase an additional parcel at the west end of Lupine Drive. If that transaction is completed, staff may look to rezone both parcels from Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential to a zoning district more appropriate to their use. If approved, this project will provide some important improvements to the area. First, it will repair the existing eroding streambank while providing a much needed recreational improvement to the area. Boaters will continue to use the area as a launch point to float through Katsos, the Golf Course, Vail Village and beyond whether this project is approved or not. This project will ensure they can do so without further damaging the bank and adjacent vegetation. Second, it will provide a formalized drop-off area and eliminate the existing dirt/mud/gravel area on Bridge Road. It will also provide a soft -surface trail connecting the parking lot/restrooms to the boat launch and drop-off zone. This is also recognized as a neighborhood access to the Gore Valley Trail without having to use Bighorn Road. Finally, revegetation and tree/shrub plantings will improve the riparian buffer, filter sediment from Bighorn Rd and 1-70 and improve the landscape aesthetic as one enters East Vail. Above and below: Location for proposed watercraft put -in. Note the existing erosion, which will be repaired as part of the work. • �� _ ��� .. • it �.'~,:�.-I?` �' . � - � 'r •' Above and below: Location for proposed watercraft put -in. Note the existing erosion, which will be repaired as part of the work. Above: existing dirt/gravel loading zone to be revegetated Below: photo from 2017 showing paved trail (since removed). This is the location of the proposed 10 -minute loading zone BIGHORN ROAp LI 5WIDE GRAVELTRAIL, ----B ULDE@yl!ALLS AND -- -__-_ ---PI TBJCJNSTALLEDAS --- --- __---- -- _�T4FSzQRS MEEK -- - - - ___-------------� FF _ HII'HHINdkISlt FEH VVVHK - - -- _--- __-gglµp�lgs� -- - _ 370 _ — �— - -= --- ——_ -_=-- 8365 _-- - _ EQUIPMENT STAGING AREA -GRAVEL VNTH TIMBER BORDERS U GRAVEL D - --- �\ Q c Lu Lu Q Lu SILOAM STONE WATERCRAFT /-10.MINUTE ��� 0 O LAUNCH AREA. SEE PHOTOS � ,�' .�' DROP OFF/ \ UNLOADING / \` ��� ��- \ � ZONE - "I Q O FLHI HANSFEH"LOOK IV PROM DEACCESSIBILITV \ �` ,�' CONCZ GRASS ('AVERS W F �- NOTES DROPOFF AREA TO BE SIGNED AS 10 MINUTE UNLOADING ZONE • PARKING PROVIDED IN EXISTING PARKING LOT ON THE NORTH SDE OFBIGHORN RD. -'�•• • RESTROOM NOW PROVIDED IN PARKING AREA AS PART OF PILOT PROGRAM. THIS AREA TO BE �r� ��V 836 • DR OR OFF AREA DESIGNED TO MEET ACCESSIBILTV REQUIREMENTS REVEGETATEDWITH -` OF U S. F S. CAMPGROUND PARKING AREA NATIVE PLANTINGS TRAILGRADESPLATTUSFS. DS STANDAROF PROVTRAIL IDED THE ATFORMISPROVIDSFER THE TOP WHEELCHAIR • A"EA TO AREA TO ALLOW A PERSON TO TRANSFER OUT OF A WHEELCHAIR, uovvN IHESI ENS, ANUINIOAvvAI EHUiAFI. © 7/38 9 North �� RPio11 Scale: 1"= 20' 1"= 20' c1 BIGHORN ROgG ------_------------- -----_-_-_-_-_-_-- --- -_ _ 8370 .---- _ __�_ ---- - - ---=_ --- = ------ Z Z _-- - 8365 --- ---_moi = �- D 59 59 5 o r QO 0 sBn� c G \ %� coR. 5 75 CO w BFe GB � •�a,, \ � 836 -0,11 North PP 1- 20' tale: 1"- 10' C2 IY HIGH WATER EXISTING GRADE PRoaoseD GRADE- E TYPE R SILOAM STONE _ ' SILOAM STONE STAIR TREAD SANDSTONE LANDING y011lAl a„w APPROX. LOW > FLOW WATERLINE — '— __ � -COMPACTED GRANULAR SUB—BASE SCOUR PROTECTION' CAGETZ BOULDER' OULDER TOE FILTER FABRIC, W/ DRAINAGE NET o+za 6+aa 6+so o+Te DESIGN SECTION 1 o.zo DESIGN SECTION 2 PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED E%ISTING GRADE _— naPRox. Low�w FLow WATERLI NET, ------------------ -- -- ��� LOIDINAly HIGH WATER SMALL BOULDER TOE (18" MIN.) AND RESTORE BANK WITH NATIVE VEGETATION — ,PPRox. LOW— N wATERLNE , __- G 4" COMPACTED GRANULAR SUB—BASE FILTER FABRIC, W/ DRAINAGE NET o.zo DESIGN SECTION 2 PROPOSED GRADE ORDINARY HIGH WATER D -w D -w Dew Duw EXISTING GRADE --- _— naPRox. Low�w FLow WATERLI NET, ------------------ -- -- ��� CONSTRUCT SMALL BOULDER TOE (18" MIN.) AND RESTORE BANK WITH NATIVE VEGETATION DESIGN SECTION 3 U 93;0 8360 9350 NOFEOKCON5TKU ION lElllN/lPFlE cvENT N -E orvo ooDreEss -11N I`— N-1 INP I—Ess P—SIT ..E SND SDDREss GORE CREEK BUFFER PLANTING PROJECTSIVER GDP` Creek Revege atlon Proect EAST VAIL DANK 5TABS ILIZATION AND ACCESVz1I,Co8165' CROSS SECTIONS 7ilWN( YAfl 3H042 Town o4 Vail WverP.®tondon 1T 1309 ElkFiorn Dr P.O. �' 248 June 2019 0 Vail, CO H 1657 Grbondale, CO H 1623 E Pe (970) 479-2158 www. P�verRestoratnn.ory °Ie r3 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front and side setback for a new deck, located at 4237 Columbine Way, Unit 21/Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0026) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name PEC19-0026 Staff Memo. Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Applicant Narrative.pdf Attachment C. Project Plan Set.pdf Attachment D. Casonova Letter of Opposition-8-2-2019.pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Applicant Narrative Attachment C. Project Plan Set Attachment D. Casonova Letter of Opposition -8-2-2019 TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front and side setback for a new deck, located at 4237 Columbine Way, Unit 21/Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0026) Applicant: Christopher Olsson Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Christopher Olsson, is requesting a review of a variance from Section 12- 6G-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front setback for a new deck, located at 4237 Columbine Way, Unit 21/Bighorn Terrace. The new deck is proposed with a six (6) foot front setback where ten (10) feet is required. Upon analysis, it has been determined that a side setback variance is not required. 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, with a condition, of this application, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Christopher Olsson, is requesting a review of a variance from Section 12- 6G-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front setback for a new deck to be constructed approximately 28" above grade. The site plan below illustrates the proposed deck project and the variance request: The proposed deck is located six (6) feet from the southern front property line and eleven (11) feet from the eastern side property line. The Vail Town Code allows decks within five (5) feet of grade to encroach half way into the required twenty (20) foot setback, resulting in an effective required setback of ten (10) feet. NOTE PER PLAT: PROPERTY LINE I$ INTENDED TO FOLLOW THE CENTERLINE OF EXISTING PARTY WALL DECK (ABOVE Si Deck Lout n p STORY STUCCO/V100D SIDED W/ BRICK CHIMNEY s HALF DUPLEX OQ ENT S' CO LANDI (i PLOWED \\ 1AL'I PARKING `6,:' � y1 'tP. =LOW) ) FLAGSTONE WALK GAS METER ate/ OVERHEAD \qn POWE INC SNIT 21 0.042 AC. (CALC-) GUY WIRI DECK OH BELOW) VE} BUILDING I �g �tio PARKING EASEMENT SCALED FROM PLAT NOT FULLY DIMENSIONED UNIT 20 A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicant's narrative (Attachment B), project plan set (Attachments C) and a letter of opposition from Francis and Sharon Casanova (Attachment D) are attached for review. BACKGROUND The existing residence located at 4237 Columbine Way, #21 was originally constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction in 1967 and later annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. The existing lot and structure are both non -conforming in regard to numerous provisions of the Town's zoning regulations (a zoning analysis is provided in Section V below). The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that construction of a structure prior to annexation or the adoption of the current zoning regulations may be a basis for granting a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. The Development Lot, which includes Unit #22, (other half of the duplex) received a setback variance to facilitate a residential addition in 1994. Several similar setback variance requests have previously been approved within the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision, as shown on the map below (Blue stars indicate approved variances). Town of Vail Page 2 ghor, ictas P. The Bighorn Terrace Subdivision was recorded in 1967. This subdivision plat includes an extensive parking easement that encumbers almost every lot in the subdivision, including the subject parcel. Please see the subdivision plat in the project plan set (Attachment C) The proposed deck falls partially within this easement. The Bighorn Mutual Sanitation and Recreation Company (the governing body for the subdivision) chose in 2009 to use as -built surveys and other associated documents to preserve existing paved parking areas as opposed to amending the actual easement. The associated as -built survey is included in the project plan set that demonstrates that the proposed improvements do not impact the preserved parking areas. It should be noted that the Town of Vail is not a party to the parking easement and the easement is solely for the benefit of the residents, not the general public. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 6, Article G, Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District (in part) Town of Vail Page 3 12-6G-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The medium density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The medium density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with multiple -family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 37(1980) § 6: Ord. 30(19 77) § 5: Ord. 8(19 73) § 5.100) 12-6G-2: PERMITTED USES.- The SES: The following uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district.- Employee istrict: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Multiple -family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings. (Ord. 2(2012) § 6: Ord. 1(2008) § 8) 12-6G-3: CONDITIONAL USES.- The SES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title.- Bed itle: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Dog kennels. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Town of Vail Page 4 Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Ski lifts and tows. (Ord. 2(2016) § 5: Ord. 12(2008) § 8) 12-6G-4: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district.- Home istrict: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 8(19 73) § 5.400) 12-6G-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) § 3) 12-6G-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the MDMF district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12-6G-7: HEIGHT. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty five feet (35). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty eight feet (38). (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12-6G-8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than fifty six (56) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Town of Vail Page 5 A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. B. Exemptions: All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 1978, shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. (Ord. 14(2004) § 8: Ord. 31(2001) § 5: Ord. 4(1996) § 1: Ord. 16(1991) § 3: Ord. 19(1979) § 5: Ord. 50(1978) § 18) 12-6G-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 5: Ord. 8(1973) § 5.507) 12-6G-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 5.509) 12-6G-11: PARKING: Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least one-half (1/2) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 5.510) Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. Town of Vail Page 6 B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, `Amendment, of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Town of Vail Page 7 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: 4237 Columbine Way Legal Description: Bighorn Terrace Unit #21 Zoning: Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: Residential Geological Hazards: None Development Lot: Unit #21 and #22 (Duplex) Standard Allowed / Required MDMF Existing Proposed Site Area Min. 10,000 sq. ft. 4,576 sq. ft. No Change Front — 20' Front —17'' Front — 6'(New Side — 20' Side(W) — 15' construction) Setbacks Rear — 20' Side(E) — 8.9' Side(W) — 15' Rear — 18' Side(E) — 11''(New construction) Rear — 18' Height Flat or Mansard Roof — 35' Sloping Roof — <35'' No Change Sloping Roof — 38' 18 DUs/ per acre of buildable 2 DUs No change Density site area, or 1.89 units on a .105 acre parcel. GRFA Max. 56/100 Buildable Site Unknown No Change Area or 2„562 sq. ft. * Site Coverage Max. 45% of site area or 2,059 1,312sq. ft. No Change sq. ft. Parking/Loading :52,000 GRFA=2 spaces 2 Required 2 spaces Landscaping Min. 30% of site area or 1,373 65% (2,979 sq. ft.) 60% (2,770 sq. ft.) sq. ft. Town of Vail Page 8 The proposal seeks variance relief from the required ten (10) foot front deck setback. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Residential Medium Density Multiple -family (MDMF) South: Residential Two-family Residential (R) East: Residential Medium Density Multiple -family (MDMF) West: Residential Medium Density Multiple -family (MDMF) VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This proposed ground level deck is for an existing residence originally constructed in 1967. Both the existing lot and the existing residence are non -conforming in regard to several the provisions of the Town's zoning regulations. The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that construction of a structure prior to annexation or the adoption of the current zoning regulations may be a basis for granting a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. Staff believes the applicant is proposing to upgrade an existing non -conforming site in a manner that is in keeping with the general character and architectural style of the neighborhood. Staff does not believe this proposal will have any significant negative impacts on nearby existing or potential uses and structures in comparison to the existing conditions. The proposed five foot (6') south front setback is consistent with other homes in the vicinity. Therefore, Staff finds this proposal will not negatively affect the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity in comparison to existing conditions. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes the applicant has proposed the minimum necessary amount of deviation from the setback requirements to facilitate the construction of a functional (209 square foot) ground level deck. Town of Vail Page 9 The proposed deck will improve the functionality and value of the home, an upgrade supported by Land Use Plan Goal 1.3.1 Staff believes the proposed variances are consistent with the goals of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and purposes of the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District as identified in Section IV of this memorandum. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will facilitate the construction of a ground level deck that will not alter population; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with a condition, a variance from Section 12-6G-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front setback for a new deck, located at 4237 Columbine Way, Unit 21/Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with a condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6G-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front setback for a new deck, located at 4237 Columbine Way, Unit 21/Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 1 Town of Vail. (n.d.). Land Use Plan (p. 4)."The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." Town of Vail Page 10 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with a condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following condition: 1. `Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with a condition, this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated August 12, 2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District, 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and 3. These variances are warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District.; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative C. Project Plan Set Town of Vail Page 11 D. Letter of Opposition from Francis and Sharon Casanova, August 2, 2019 Town of Vail Page 12 Olsson Residence Setback Variance 4237 Columbine Drive #21/Bighorn Terrace Subject Property q lq�w fs I rf e r Feet 0 25 50 100 �st Modified: August 2, 2019 TOWN OFIAI� UUM910:1 Narrative: The deck will be built to make use of the south facing space in front of the existing house. For entertaining and enjoying the outdoors. Virtually every other unit in Bighorn terrace has a similar deck. This will make unit 21more comparable the other units in the development. The deck will be built level with the interior floor, 28" above grade. There will be no impact on light, air, distribution of population, etc. The deck terminates 7' from a river stone retaining wall at the edge of a paved parking lot. There will be no impact on snow removal as the snow is piled on the east end of the lot. The deck will be similar is size but lower than other decks in the area and will mimic the existing structure. 51 M yE4,1-o w f f ve- Oet.of 16%440W rfitk yr MMrG6r exrlrrlMG 7� M�r� c 1plg4- �� 3 � Ca�uwt�rnlR= V94 Go 8165 ? cx ali'v* 1310,4rt CL0OZ2. jtPlu a Poe -of (4os wr a8° rl G P-4 O..-- 923 ?1 Coe-vnk4wr. A2 '4`2r �- 67}:Lc_ !L ' Oc. 6 /rn6c. f3Ox 4f kGc.fcok- Pry c. I OK4 [p5 eA. r Dn► 923 ?1 Coe-vnk4wr. A2 '4`2r �- 67}:Lc_ !L ' Oc. 6 /rn6c. f3Ox 4f kGc.fcok- Pry c. I OK4 [p5 eA. ZfZ 3 -7�- Cdc, o til t5jVrz 0,0- ec 21 $1 [�1►til G _ _ ------ It 614 Y Aln1745�) )5,bCt Af 76 fA4f-L-u 1 " 28" At Sk+ flk !�K fSfCr --• r e PT— Q�, to s<I-136 + �jaooil 42 3 7 h oc- b 061 fkl J1�12 - 916 5-7 Fm o P2p torr i4ge4- sf0--;eA5 s 5 _ xfST v - V I f Z?- 0--;e ?- 0-f , -,�C). 316 5-7 PtiC'D �►�7►rr[r ;45, 7+Vs gj�,e42 51 -ma f2t4P. Rap ' f �aeowp U)V rr ZZ- fJ' J .1 1 � �51 Z P4 O&N �- — . 1,4b t A=` �v IV'RRQVFMFNT LOCATICN. CERTIFICATE JNIIT 21 BIGHORN TERRACE TOWN OF VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLGBAiJO I BIGHORN TERRACE A SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO E DEFIlATFx FxEE AND FLee FLIT, nu NE uENs ax0 ° DATeu EN.—IRAN-I. cEs Txsry91 oar of Aueoe— iai2. I I-11 E—FITI 1-1 — III AE 11 TIE I -Ell III NESIFF— OF TIE RE IS SU8 04 rv0 IRE IN ADDinox TD TIE acccssLaTTMcANENDED I— IS 122 90 FEET AND NOT - NO FEET ID PLITTID I� DEDICATION IND FIM 01 —D. OF OT I DxDxN --D—,MOVE I__ ..... DESDn1DED aD ED« ryr7l.— FEET s�eDmsox - P 'FIND N '"car5'a'rEET Ve Lr n"e:aaFa�os i"oa'cs s av camle�ne amm: u, o. cu.vATux0 T"EUT OE cONvvnru a o°EA�uNo6 ..Y p. 0 IN sT'DLR. DDNN_II DE a0 D1NI .. lITI IF IE NTxENx„D.TDOxxEnOF NO V'NITE OF IF TD A p0 NT ON — NOxTNEasTlll TO THE po NT aF EED—. conmm�re k xE aed. EXC— IF AND px�vaTE u,�E�T1Es as iN—ITEO HENEou. ED rxesE .. .Eo. T- 1 E ry:s °sgsii:a r ano T. conpo IIIT- x.T its-Aft-"sEcxETAxr E. °°n°Eas °.T - I OF NOTARIAL T, 'FT 1aVEZ s. / E xis4`onv O iECT ev cDCOHAoo f" / my comas y EL. APPROVALNN xoTanv pueuc f{ BYpxOv[D cpE v pLArvx on TN s 4G p'oar of coVrvT cNA NmAN O k APPROVAL I �. OE CDVN cOuxTv, copOsa°D Tnisn2onv oil>. °. 1ss1 STHIS OQE CE°�sE�aIDEEE RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE ;'n't6 IXoxoeD iry eooaEoav or `s IN EAD�E couNT, d;O os�"E xecoxoeCOuuTY°cc xE N A.D EEconDEx ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE e NOTE PER PLAT: PROPERTY LINE IS INTENDED TO FOLLOW THE CENTERLINE OF EXISTING PARTY WALL DECK i. (ABOVE) < Deck Lobg6on ' c a° Er % LAN PLOWED IALT PARKING STAIRS/ t (BELOW)/r\f,.l WALK 2 STORY STUCCO/WOOD SIDED W/ BRICK CHIMNEY HALF DUPLEX OVERhiM \2° POWERINE DO Elp UNIT 21 0.0+2 AC. (CALL.) r DECK BLi) 014 �'t\ (BELOW) (ABOVE) ZFROM4 NOT FULLY DIMENSIONED UNIT 20 GUY WIRI BUILDING 1 � �u �,z noo ,a, '���� us wcHwnv rvo, e>xo-.mm,��. xorwosrns o-mxu. ToaNNa Tow�krrt,. ..�a�m Nims 1 ° uwT UNIT T 8 A LOT 19 UNIT NI NIT 1 UNIT 12 ENCEPTED I BIGHORN SUBDIVISION I� UNH 2s ttN�w a oNKrxi, mT� NUNIT o� �,m°� UN T 3 UNIT za "uT a UNIT Ls A J UNIT giros ie - �__ s�� g s N12 1 se_s UNIT LL OUNITUN UNIT i \ our IBUILDING N �o s.sD J "B" SITE BIGHORNN CONDOMINIUM to �msas> A T 2 a i wiusi. R UNIT 13 °s UNIT 19 '.S NIT n o eHORN c "n" sTE d BIGHORN CONDOMINIUM mrys.o `5s}W o'Ize v' - l UNIT IT _ o S o :M mN ssseet ung. COLUMBINE DRIVE (50' R.O.W.) po"arin(s` e S�'qI ;4)iq pec ici - 000- u �o City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to required rear and east side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0029) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC19-0029 Staff Memo.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Applicants Narrative.pdf Attachment C. Project Plan Set.pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Applicants Narrative Attachment C. Project Plan Set TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required rear and east side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0029) Applicant: Peter Smith, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, Peter Smith, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required rear and east side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9. 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, with a condition, of this application, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Peter Smith, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required rear and east side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle. The required rear and side setbacks in the Two -Family Residential (R) District are 15 feet. The project proposes to utilize the existing setbacks of 9 feet, ten inches (rear) and 14 feet, 4 inches east side from the original construction. The applicant proposes an exterior remodel, second story GRFA addition within the existing footprint, new 2 -car shared attached garage and associated site improvements. A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicant's narrative (Attachment B) and project plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The residential duplex located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle was originally constructed in 1975 under Town of Vail jurisdiction. This portion of the Town of Vail as annexed from Eagle County in 1969 via Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1969. The home was constructed towards the north or rear of the property with each side of the duplex containing 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms with approximately 2,200 square feet of living space each. At the time of construction, the required side and rear setbacks within the Two -Family Residential (R) District were ten (10) feet. Subsequent to the construction of the home, Ordinance No. 50, Series 1978, increased the required side and rear setbacks in this district to fifteen (15) feet rendering the home legal non -conforming. The site is a conforming lot of 14,338 square feet and is generally rectangular in shape. The project slopes gently to the north and contains numerous existing trees. No significant site constraints exist nor is the property impacted by any known hazards. The western half of the duplex (Unit B) received DRB approval in 2017 for new exterior windows, a project that was completed recently. No other significant improvements to the property have occurred since its original construction. A previous proposed project that included an exterior remodel, GRFA addition and two detached garages was reviewed by the DRB as a conceptual application on March 20, 2019. As one of the two proposed garages is detached, an approval from the DRB for the separation will be required. At this meeting, the DRB expressed concern with the proposal related to the architecturally integrated structure requirement. The DRB also expressed that the separation request for the detached garage was unlikely to be approved and encouraged alternative layouts where the two residences would share a garage. The current proposal, which has addressed the DRB member's concerns, was favorable reviewed in a second conceptual review on July 3, 2019. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Town of Vail Page 2 Chapter 6, Article C, Two -Family Residential (R) District (in part) 12-6C-1: PURPOSE: The two-family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single- family or two-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same zone district. The two-family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 8(1973) § 3.100) 12-6C-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. Chapter 12-2: Definitions (in part) SITE COVERAGE: The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purposes of calculating site coverage, "building area of a site" shall mean that portion of a site occupied by any building, carport, porte-cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway constructed at, below, or above grade as measured from the exterior face of the sheathing of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4) from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate Town of Vail Page 3 vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment", of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS.- A. INDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- 1. ariance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. Town of Vail Page 4 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: 895 Red Sandstone Circle #A and #B Legal Description: Vail Village Filing 9, Lot 2 Zoning: Two -Family Residential (R) District Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Two -Family Residence Geological Hazards: None Standard Allowed / Required LDMF Existing Proposed Site Area Min. 14,000 sq. ft. 14,375 sq. ft. (.329 No Change acres) Front — 20' Front — 65' Front — 20' Setbacks Side — 15' Side(W) — 18' Side(W) — 15' Rear — 15' Side(E) — 14'-4"*' Side(E) — 14'-4" Rear — 9'-10"* Rear — 9'-10" Height Flat or Mansard Roof — 30' Sloping Roof — 28' Sloping Roof — 30' Sloping Roof — 33' Not more than a total of two 2 DUs No change (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with Density only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. GRFA Max 6,262 3,490 sq. ft. 4,646 Site Coverage Max. 20% of site area or 2,875 1,982 sq. ft. 2,864 sq. ft. Town of Vail Page 5 Legal Nonconforming VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Greenbelt Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District South: Residential Two -Family Residential (R) District East: Residential Two -Family Residential (R) District West: Residential Two -Family Residential (R) District VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed GRFA addition within the existing footprint results in an architectural approach that will have little effect on the building's perceived mass and scale. The proposal will not have any negative impacts to other existing or potential uses or structures within the neighborhood. Staff finds the proposed variance does meet this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The original home was constructed within the Town of Vail in 1975 under the Two- family Residential (R) Zone District regulations. The setback regulations at that time required a 10 foot side setback that the building design and construction complied with. The home subsequently became legal nonconforming in 1978 when the side setback was increased in the Two-family Residential (R) Zone District to 15 feet. Property owners in the vicinity whose original homes were built prior to 1978, but meeting the 1978, 15 foot setback regulation, are able to pursue building additions utilizing the existing built to line. Unlike other properties in the vicinity, a variance is necessary to pursue similar building improvements on the subject property. Staff believes the proposed variance is consistent with the goals of the Town of Vail Land Town of Vail Page 6 :52,000 GRFA=2 spaces 4 Required 5 Required Parking/Loading 2,0002_4,000 GRFA=3 spaces 4 Existing 5 Proposed Landscaping Min. 60% of site area or 73% (10,532 sq. ft.) 69% (9,919 sq. ft.) 8,624sq. ft. Legal Nonconforming VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Greenbelt Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District South: Residential Two -Family Residential (R) District East: Residential Two -Family Residential (R) District West: Residential Two -Family Residential (R) District VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed GRFA addition within the existing footprint results in an architectural approach that will have little effect on the building's perceived mass and scale. The proposal will not have any negative impacts to other existing or potential uses or structures within the neighborhood. Staff finds the proposed variance does meet this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The original home was constructed within the Town of Vail in 1975 under the Two- family Residential (R) Zone District regulations. The setback regulations at that time required a 10 foot side setback that the building design and construction complied with. The home subsequently became legal nonconforming in 1978 when the side setback was increased in the Two-family Residential (R) Zone District to 15 feet. Property owners in the vicinity whose original homes were built prior to 1978, but meeting the 1978, 15 foot setback regulation, are able to pursue building additions utilizing the existing built to line. Unlike other properties in the vicinity, a variance is necessary to pursue similar building improvements on the subject property. Staff believes the proposed variance is consistent with the goals of the Town of Vail Land Town of Vail Page 6 Use Plan and purposes of the Two-family Residential District as identified in Section IV of this memorandum. The proposal will improve the functionality and value of the home, an upgrade supported by Land Use Plan Goal 1.3. Staff finds the proposed variance does meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will facilitate GRFA additions within the existing building footprint that will not alter population; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with a condition, a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required rear and east side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with a condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with a condition, the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required rear and east side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & 8/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Town of Vail Page 7 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with a condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following condition: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with a condition, this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated August 12, 2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) District, 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (R) District.; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (R) District." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative dated March 12, 2019 C. Plan Set dated March 11, 2019 Town of Vail Page 8 Smith Residence Setback Variance 895 Red Sandstone Circle/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9 Subject Property 01"s- ty IL # Oil A eel -A At PAI e r Feet 0 25 50 100 �st M ed: August 2, 2019 TOWN OF, n, Smith Residence Setback Variance C=11 Y ■ M■ zy ■ ■ yY71� .� . ■ ■ 1 ITF r ■■ AiV Red Sandstone Cir Wk �I 1 -iwwl WWI, i UR z i ID CID `S- y DOGPik AVA L' oil «� Y 6.F LLiu k] L� Property Location Location: 895 Red Sandstone Circle / Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9 Zoning: Two -Family Residential (R) Owner: Peter Smith Applicant: Pavan Krueger, Krueger Architecture and Design 11, Page 2 of 10 Background and Overview The Vail Village Filing 9 subdivision was approved by the Town of Vail and recorded with Eagle County in 1972. The residence at 895 Red Sandstone Circle was approved by the Town of Vail and constructed in 1975. At that time, the required side and rear setbacks were 10' in the Two -Family Residential (R) Zone District. The home was constructed 14' - 4 1/2" from the east property line, and 9'-10 5/16" from the north property line (as measured in a topographic survey). Subsequent to the construction of the home, Ordinance No. 50, Series 1978, increased the required side and rear setbacks in the R Zone District to 15'. This ordinance increased setback requirements in all residential zone districts existing at that time thus making this structure legal nonconforming just three years after it was constructed. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 12-6C-6: Setbacks, to allow for an addition in the rear setback and an addition in the side setback. In both cases, the additions are above existing encroachments into the setbacks Existing Home (front) The property is generally rectangular in shape and slopes moderately from back to front. The property is not located in any hazard zones. The duplex is located at the rear of the property with a large shared yard at the front. The duplex shares a gravel parking area at the southeast side of the property that accommodates 8 cars. There is not currently paved parking or a garage. To the north of the property is Vail Potato Patch Tract C, which is zoned Natural Area Preservation and owned by the Town of Vail. As a result, any impacts related to reduced setbacks to residences are mitigated by this condition. This open space property measures approximately 145' between 895 Red Sandstone Circle and the nearest residential property to the north. All properties along Red Sandstone Circle are zoned R and most of the homes were constructed in the 1970s. 7W Existing Home (side) -.. Page 3 of 10 Proposed Smith Residence The Smith duplex remains largely as it was constructed in 1975. The previous owner of Unit B recently completed an interior remodel and replaced windows, prior to selling to the owner of Unit A, Peter Smith, who currently owns both sides of the duplex. Peter Smith is proposing to renovate both halves concurrently to create a cohesive more modern residence. In order to bring the residence in line with current house sizes, he plans to increase the size of the loft level in both units. At Unit B, the area of the loft addition is partially in the setback encroachment, on the second floor of the existing home. The proposed addition is not increasing the encroachment distance, but only adding floor area above the existing footprint, increasing the height in this area from 7'-6" to 18'-0". In general, the home will remain well under allowable building height, with the highest roof elevation remaining at 25'-11 W. At the east property line, the addition will occur on the second floor above the existing 7 %" encroachment, also not increasing or expanding the encroachment. The roof height over the addition will match the existing roof height. More simply, the home is being expanded on the second level adhering to the existing footprint of the building. The proposed renovation also includes the following: • new windows for both units; • the addition of two one -car garages (no garages exist today), • connected to unit A by a new entry; • new shared asphalt driveway with reduced size curb cut; • new metal roofing in place of existing wood shake roofing; • new heated patios and partially recessed hot tubs; • new entry patios; • new exterior siding. DVA11ON NORTH I V Page 4 of 10 �e��=�veaaeeaae�� u — F11 c: o ILL �U=. - - rrnc nnawnwrnaw.r ' •`v�.. _wo-� w - - L$W1OH NORTH Proposed ' r The proposed renovation is in keeping with the Town of Vail's goal that "The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." The new garage additions are being done within the site coverage requirements. The proposed garage allows for each unit to have one enclosed parking space and adequate surface space for additional cars, eliminating the existing limited parking area. The owner had hoped to add a mud room of approximately 300 sq. ft. but this mud room addition would have put the home over on site coverage so the addition was revised to eliminate the mud room and maintain compliance with site coverage. Page 5 of 10 '' PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTJ 1p EXISTING ENCROACHMENT Property Analysis Location: 895 Red Sandstone Circle / Vail Village Filing 9, Lot 2 Zoning: Two-family Residential (R) Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential Geological Hazards: None Surrounding land use and zoning: East: Two Family Residential West: Single family home on Two Family Residential North: Natural Area Preservation District (Town -owned) Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed GRFA: 6262 sq. ft. 3490 sq. ft. 4646 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 2875 sq. ft. 1982 sq. ft. 2864 sq. ft. Building height: 33' 25'-11 %" 25'-11 %" Parking: 5 spaces 4 spaces 5 spaces Setbacks: Front: 20' 84'-6" 37'-0 %" 9 9 Rear: 15' 9'-10 5/16" No change 894 East Side: 15' 14'-4 %" No change West Side: 15' 21'-3" 18'-0 %" ronwoo 93 re e 3 ANOSI617E 890 CVA — 896 ■ n...+.n-�rs...+n r.awm 898 894 725 715„ z33 Red Sandstone Park / / ■ w ^- • -� ■ ++'i�rr+r. M'n Sandstone Tot Loi ■w 9 9 e 5andsio 894 `' ■ �... � 884 5pRUCE 874 .oa 7 664 ,,. ■ a ...�,.a ndstone 74 esMev✓ 967 y ., r ■ ,,,,�� : ' i"� ■ �.....c+, Page 7 of 10 Criteria for Review: Variance Section 12-17-1: Purpose, provides the reasons for seeking variances from the Zoning Regulations. It states: Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. Because the existing site coverage is being completely used by the addition of the garage and associated entry connector and storage, the only option to increase GRFA on this property is to expand upward on the existing footprint. The PEC has held in other similar applications that an existing nonconforming structure presents a hardship in allowing a practical ability to renovate a home, a similar condition that exists with this home. The criteria for review for a variance refers to the criteria provided in Section 12-17-6; Criteria and Necessary Findings. The following section provides an analysis of the proposed variance under these criteria: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Analysis: The Smith Residence is located within a residential neighborhood bordered on the east and west by a single-family home, a two-family home to the east, and on the north by open space. The proposed addition would occur on the upper loft level, extending the existing upper level roof without exceeding the overall building height allowance. The addition is designed to blend seamlessly into the existing structure architecturally and will have little effect on the building's perceived mass and scale. The proposal will not negatively affect other existing or proposed uses and structures within the vicinity. Page 8 of 10 . w, irk �F 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Applicant Analysis: The original home was constructed within the Town of Vail in 1975 under the R Zone District regulations which at that time required a 10 -foot side and rear setback that the building design and construction complied with. The home subsequently was made legal nonconforming in 1978 when the side and rear setbacks were increased in the Two- family Residential (R) Zone District to 15 feet. Property owners in the vicinity whose original homes were built prior to 1978, but meeting the 1978 15 -feet setback regulation, are able to pursue building additions utilizing the existing built -to line. Unlike other properties in the vicinity, a Page 9 of 10 variance is necessary to pursue similar building improvements on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to build upon the existing footprint which encroaches 7' 1/2" into the required 15' east side setback and 5'-1 11/16" into the rear setback. The proposed addition will improve the functionality, appearance and value of the home, an upgrade supported by Land Use Plan Goal 1. 3. which states: "The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." The proposed new footprint for garage and entry construction will adhere to the current 15' required side setback and 20' front setback. Because of the change in the regulations and the presence of the existing home, the variance is required to allow uniformity of treatment among sites within the vicinity. There is no grant of special privilege since the variance allows for this uniformity of treatment. Similar Variances have been granted by the Town of Vail: • 2785 Bald Mountain Road / Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 13 received a similar variance in 2014 • 874 Spruce Court / Lot 11, Vail Village Filing 9 received a similar variance in 1976 • 898 Red Sandstone Circle / Lot 7, Vail Village Filing 9 received a similar variance in 1990 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Applicant Analysis: The proposed variance will facilitate an addition in the side and rear setback area that will not alter population; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Light and air impacts are similar to other homes in the area as the home does not exceed building height requirements. Properties to the north are separated by 145' of open space, and are well uphill of the addition. From the street, the garage addition will be single story, with a height of 13', which is modest in height for a garage. The proposal conforms with this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Applicant Analysis: Any additional factors can be addressed by the applicant as they are identified. Page 10 of 10 TRACT C VAL/ POTATO PATCH R". v MWV 0 a eo ' see'se'io' ._eaoo' pC m�� o�c,ro wo W �� sor �uvuox. mew uw saa m�u as. _ � r - o ou�xsnxs ,w� ao°�o Hm e� w«<o wox Y m T�s�ewl�syw - LOT 3 run�m°a�. oosw�em ss munxs. 0 u ® .... LOT i a,« a----iw n 0 O o F �m 2 0 r W Z� `1I ' ,6 LOT 2 --- �' o�uw�a�o ss ro«o„: r �m i e��.� ww� = 0 f•• a��iaEO P.�a,.�:P..�a , roa o..�p...�......y..up. 11 # ° v 1 w ------------ 1 �i1 rv,w mee iWre��v �/Ynw. IY wM sllm� i 1 /_ nsna 21 RED SANDSTONE CIRCLE (so') SITE PLAN ® i SITE PLAN- OPTION 2 °° Al --------- - --- --- -4 yyyyyyy yyyyyyyyy ----------- ------------ ------- ------- -- ------ z IL 2 F- I WZ ll� § ,!-rin,G ROOF PLAN 17XL a -nAG LOFT EVEL PLAN 17XL 0 0 0 U) Lu 0, Wz U) mos em�� af �a ---- - ---------- ��� ------------- ❑O 47-- ER ------- - ---- ----- -- M: ------- 7- iF -- --------- ---------------- - ----- : m�� EXISTING PLANS ,!,ngG MAIN LEVEL PLAN mil EXISTING ,!-ngG BASEMENT PLAN Existing GRFA: West: Lower: 1,850 Main: 1,982 Upper: 712 ad Total: 4,544aoPr Tr .-Tr m - Total GRFA 4,544 Deducts: 57% of lower 1,054 ad Total adjusted GRFA 3,490 ji ilj� F7 ------------------ - - he 2 Z W kX&py ...... 0 C) af U Doo z F-- u) LU c) z u) Q F - w= —F - F11 Hi GRFA 2 —�—�—� —__-- — — -- - Proposed GRFA Deducts Garage: 613 0 Lower: 2864Lower 47%o f 2864 = 1346 Main: 2189 Upper: 1552 Total adj. GRFA: 4646 W m j -- Allowed: 6262 Remaining: 1616 < ... Total 6605 U L W Q = ce V W � C Y � �wo.Eo� 0 ofa H U a Z 1 O 00 LU0 —_ �Z_ ❑ C� �W5 O® o fA m > - O I � � GRFA '� 3 W m GC F U W F m Q ce ------------- LEI E�fl o o_Jw — — U u -------------- - 00 Z D z 0 � owe fA m > �oww �re .tee eLRFR�,SED WIN PLAN i PROPOSED � PLANS A4 GC 7T ------- ----- -------- F ---------- ---- 1v ii —LA c LT F- I WZ 0 0 Lu z uc), �R.?MED PLAN S W m GC m F U W m _ — - - - - - - - - v- - - - - - - -—s.".-n.�.,, - - - - - u ad A r. -- - ` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �________� r , -. . a W � 0 0 O F m mel ELEVATION WEST n ELEVATION SOUTH Z cl 1�� �a 1�� �a W z Q U) - w =c5 w a� fA m > 4 -- ---MFETI - - - -- - - - -- --- � F7171 F7171 [CIE] FUEEIR -- -- - ---- --- -mum _----- - - - - -- _ EXISTING ELEVATIONS i ELEVATION EAST i ELEVATION NORTH A6 El DI EELEMI 11 Ell .mrusx W ❑ ❑ ?4 ss ------------- Y m ._ 0C ELEVATION EAST „a ,o P: Ua ; Z F 00 Z�° Lu ¢ LL w 5 fA m > �Fu 000 ITEI - srII — ————————————— ——- �t PROPOSED ELEVATIONS �- -� - i ELEVATION NORTH A7 o;.��.Tm El o ❑ �µo o �"aaPo,M�w�Uo� z EMmmw u�v W � � in '____________ J _ ------------------- H a �z1 ELEVATION SOUTH (SECTION AT ENTRY) U 0 z0 va , a 0 F 20Lu, p' U) =c� o �wg �J 0 0 a ?S PROPOSED ELEVATIONS i ELEVATION SOUTH AV W m GC m F U W F U m Q ce ,W^ V W � C Y � Z W m 0 a a H a (Z'10- a Z 1 O 0 0 Z %m D� Ly - LL Q (n w =c5 F- w a� fA m IIE El ❑ o tea, M�. �Uo,�.�,�..o ❑❑❑ ❑ o - --- -❑--- - -��- -- - -- —--------------------------------------------- n ELEVA-nON WEST qg NEW ENCROACHMENT fjIIi Ili EXISTING ENCROACHMENT .a .00 N lit PROPOSED ! IIII 1 ENCROACHMENT p EXISTING ENCROACHMENT ,r s = m r O i I I ngp ozazozoA- *R� m n=>=n=» ngn -" 05 Anm o osx - : o - a - 4 - RP y W, 8^ P oAom - i - Ayo $i - �� - aaoo Nob d 8�N ob o• Nis 8§ it! 3 uil 2 3 - 1 3 o n§ Y § a g$ VIR S 9 I y D a oil f y Yy �b'i� 00 � mmuN A`3oa�'V • z \ ( ° e I m 6 v n la 0 z� Im y ag I� W I I ozazozoA- *R� m n=>=n=» ngn -" 05 Anm o osx - : o - a - 4 - RP y W, 8^ P oAom - i - Ayo $i - �� - aaoo Nob d 8�N ob o• Nis 8§ it! 3 uil 2 3 - 1 3 o n§ Y § a g$ VIR S oo zz a oil f y Yy �b'i� mmuN A`3oa�'V 1 c6 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an internally illuminated menu board for McDonalds located at 2171 North Frontage Road West/Lot 213, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0027) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name Description McDonalds Sign Variance Staff meme Final.pdf Staff Memo Attachment A Vicinity map.pdf Attachment A Map Attachment B Part1.pdf Attachment B 1/5 Attachment B Part2.pdf Attcahment B 2/5 Attachment B Part3.pdf Attcahment B 3/5 Attachment B Part4.pdf Attcahment B 4/5 Attachment B Part5.odf Attcahment B 5/5 0 rowN OF Vain' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6-3 Business Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two (2) 20 square foot internally illuminated menu boxes, located at 2171 North Frontage Road West/Lot 2B, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 (McDonald's), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0027) Applicant: McDonald's Restaurant, represented by Site Enhancement Services Planner: Ashley Clark I. SUMMARY The applicant McDonald's Restaurant, represented by Site Enhancement Services, is requesting a variance from Section 11-6-3 Business Signs, Vail Town Code , in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances , Vail Town Code, to allow for two (2) 20 square foot internally illuminated menu boxes, located at 2171 North Frontage Road West. 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, with conditions, of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A) and the applicant's sign packet proposal (Attachment B) are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, McDonald's Restaurant, represented by Site Enhancement Services, is requesting a sign variance to allow for two (2) 20 square foot internally illuminated menu boxes, located at 2171 North Frontage Road West. The applicant requests to replace these two (2) menu boxes to the north of the restaurant within the drive through queue. The purpose of two (2) menu boxes is to allow two (2) vehicles to order simultaneously, thereby improving efficiency, reducing overall wait times and excessive vehicle stacking. The picture below demonstrates the existing signage compared to the significantly smaller size of the proposed signage, a decrease in the variance previously granted. There are no animations associated with the signs and the brightness can be adjusted. The display specification of the Lumen output indicates that the units have built in ambient light sensors that allow the screen to dim based on the surrounding light. In addition, the screens can dim from 2500nit down to 500nit to prevent glare in low light and night time environments. III. BACKGROUND The McDonald's Restaurant underwent a significant remodel in 2016. A component of the remodel project is was a new signage package, including a sign variance to allow for the replacement of an existing internally illuminated drive-thru menu sign for McDonalds with a new internally illuminated drive-thru menu sign at a sign of (2) 41.2 square feet. The McDonalds Restaurant property is located within Sign District 2. Menu boxes are defined by the Vail Town Code (Code) as: MENU BOX: A freestanding or wall sign that is enclosed in glass or a similar clear material on at least one side for the express purpose of displaying menus, allowed at eating and drinking establishments only. In both Sign Districts 1 and 2, Menu Boxes are restricted as follows: 11-6-3: BUSINESS SIGNS: Town of Vail Page 2 C. Menu Boxes (SO 1 And SO 2): 1. Number. Each business shall be allowed up to two (2) menu boxes per business frontage, per subsection C5 of this section. 2. Area: Businesses shall be allowed up to six (6) square feet of menu box area per business frontage. No single menu box shall exceed six (6) square feet, and no business frontage shall display more than six (6) square feet of menu box area. 3. Height: The height of the highest part of the menu box shall not extend more than six feet (6) from existing grade. 4. Location: Menu boxes shall be displayed on the business frontage. 5. Special Provisions: Menu boxes are allowed only at eating and drinking establishments for the exclusive display of menus. Menu boxes for eating and drinking establishments in theaters may be electronic signs. When used as a menu box, the illumination levels of an electronic sign must be adjusted to the ambient light conditions and be no brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. When used as a menu box, electronic signs shall not emit light between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. the following day. Design Review Board The applicant will need to apply for DRB approval if the requested variances are granted for the proposed menu board signs. The Staff recommendation of approval, with conditions, has been based on the input received from the DRB coupled with the research conducted. This recommendation of approval is accompanied by the following proposed conditions: 1. No more than two (2) menu boards shall be permitted. 2. No single menu board shall exceed 32 square feet in size, including framing. 3. No additional materials or signage, including, but not limited to, promotional advertisements or riders, shall be attached to the menu boards at any time. 4. The internal illumination of the menu boxes shall not be utilized when the restaurant is closed to the public. Town of Vail Page 3 5. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 11 - Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1: Description, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) 11-1-2: PURPOSE: A. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town of Vail and to promote the coordinated and harmonious design and placement of signs in the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. B. Specific Purpose: 1. To describe and enable the fair and consistent enforcement of signs in the town of Vail. 2. To encourage the establishment of well designed, creative signs that enhances the unique character of Vail's village atmosphere. 3. To preserve a successful and high quality business environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and inform. 4. To aid in providing for the growth of an orderly, safe, beautiful, and viable community. Chapter 6: Business and Building Identification Signs (in part) 11-6-3: BUSINESS SIGNS: C. Menu Boxes (SO 1 And SO 2): 1. Number. Each business shall be allowed up to two (2) menu boxes per business frontage, per subsection C5 of this section. 2. Area: Businesses shall be allowed up to six (6) square feet of menu box area per business frontage. No single menu box shall exceed six (6) square feet, and no business frontage shall display more than six (6) square feet of menu box area. Town of Vail Page 4 a Height: The height of the highest part of the menu box shall not extend more than six feet (6) from existing grade. 4. Location: Menu boxes shall be displayed on the business frontage. 5. Special Provisions: Menu boxes are allowed only at eating and drinking establishments for the exclusive display of menus. Menu boxes for eating and drinking establishments in theaters may be electronic signs. When used as a menu box, the illumination levels of an electronic sign must be adjusted to the ambient light conditions and be no brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. When used as a menu box, electronic signs shall not emit light between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. the following day. Chapter 10 Variances and Appeals (in part) 11-10-1: VARIANCES: A. Purpose: A variance from the sign regulations constitutes relief from the strict interpretation of the standards and may be granted by the planning and environmental commission (PEG) in cases where there exists a physical/imitation that prevents the existence, placement, or operation of a sign in compliance with the standards of this title. B. Application Procedure: An application for a variance from the sign regulations may be obtained from the community development department. The variance application must include a sign permit application, the applicant's reasons for requesting a variance, and a nonrefundable fee determined by the town council as set forth by town ordinances. The staff shall set a date for a hearing before the planning and environmental commission once the complete application has been received. C. Criteria For Approval: '. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. Town of Vail Page 5 VI 11 VII 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North Commercial South 1-70 West Commercial East Commercial SITE ANALYSIS McDonalds Restaurant Zoning District Commercial Core 3 N/A Commercial Core 3 Commercial Core 3 Address: 2171 North Frontage Road West Legal Description: Vail Das Schone Filing 3, Lot 28 Zoning: Commercial Core 3 Land Use Designation: Community Commercial Mapped Geological Hazards: None Lot Area: .574 acres (25,OOOsq.ft.) REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, and are as follows: 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. In order for a sign variance to be granted, there must be a physical limitation that prevents the placement of a sign in compliance with the standards of the sign regulations. The Code limitation on the size of menu boards to six (6) square feet Town of Vail Page 6 is appropriate for a pedestrian oriented context but not suitable for a drive through restaurant. Due to the proximity of the reader from the menu board, a greater size is necessary for legibility and readability. Staffs recommendation aims to find a balance between community aesthetics and necessary signage for an efficient drive through restaurant operation. Staff finds that special circumstances exist, namely the proximity of the signage to the viewer, warranting relief from the provisions of the sign regulations governing the menu board size. As such, this criterion is met. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. The circumstances necessitating the variance request are the functionalities of a drive through restaurant, a use not explicitly contemplated by the Code. The McDonalds drive through has been in existence prior to annexation of the West Vail area in 1980. As such, this criterion is met. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. The granting of the requested variance is in general harmony with the general or specific purposes of Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. Specifically, the approval of the proposed signs would be consistent with promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town of Vail by providing signage that is appropriate and effective yet aesthetically sensitive to its context. In addition, the approval will reduce the amount of signage. As such, this criterion is met. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Section 11-6-3 Business Signs , Vail Town Code , in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two (2) internally illuminated menu boxes, located at 2171 North Frontage Road West, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: Town of Vail Page 7 "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the applicants' request for a variance from Section 11-6-3 Business Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two (2) internally illuminated menu boxes, located at 2171 North Frontage Road West, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Conditions: 1. No more than two (2) menu boards shall be permitted. 2. No single menu board shall exceed 20 square feet in size, including framing. 3. No additional materials or signage, including, but not limited to, promotional advertisements or riders, shall be attached to the menu boards at any time. 4. The internal illumination of the menu boxes shall not be utilized when the restaurant closed to the public. 5. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section VII of the August 12, 2019 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: Special circumstances or conditions exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question,- 2. uestion, 2. The applicant has not created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request, and 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. Town of Vail Page 8 IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Sign Packet Proposal Town of Vail Page 9 Existing Sigange 00 Existing Tri -Fold Menu Boards Proposed Signage 00 4'-1 5/8"x 4'-10" @ 5'-11 5/8" OAH D/F Menu Boards Aerial V Scale: NTS S�'` Page 2 of 9 C.7 Ph: 1.855.525.8281 Fax: 1.574.237.8188 wwwsesbmntling.com 2171 North Frontage Road W Vail, CO 81657 July 8, 2019 Ph: 1. 855. 525. 8281 1 Fax: 1. 574. 237. 8188 1 www.sesbran ding. com SLS Existing Sigange 00 Existing Tri -Fold Menu Boards Proposed Signage 00 4'-1 5/8"x 4'-10" @ 5'-11 5/8" OAH D/F Menu Boards Aerial V Scale: NTS S�'` Page 2 of 9 C.7 Ph: 1.855.525.8281 Fax: 1.574.237.8188 wwwsesbmntling.com Path of Travel Existing Menu Boards 2171 North Frontage Road W, Vail, CO 81657 Existing Menu Boards Al A2 mj S�'` Page 3 of 9 C.7 Ph: 1.855.525.8281 Fax: 1.574.237.8188 wwwsesbmntling.com 3 v al..arser.'uso«rs mecew ae aWon, arsaldest Fries sides 6 All ar Mor �p � nines sw.uain.s. �u m=2.=aoou.rNe�� ass"Nsor • m�Ay fill Ze r&r wrarri�.rh. m.. -,a mn MMNi' a•,o� ............... No artifidal Yreservativea, aaasra a color, 2171 North Frontage Road W, Vail, CO 81657 r �,rd..6aases awb&T—ft - ai-2ia1110NrwllY a �� two 6aay Pike . 2171 North Frontage Road W, Vail, CO 81657 :/ ;�e+n . ..�+ �'--• L.� `I �r mss." .-. H View from N Frontage Road West (East Side) S�'` Page 6 of 9 C.7 Ph: 1.855.525.8281 Fax: 1.574.237.8188 wwwsesbmntling.com 2171 North Frontage Road W, Vail, CO 81657 View from N Frontage Road West (West Side) S�'` Page 7 of 9 C.7 Ph: 1.855.525.8281 Fax: 1.574.237.8188 wwwsesbmntling.com f ar IIIl y�,, VIII I f� " S�'` Page 8 of 9 C.7 Ph: 1.855.525.8281 Fax: 1.574.237.8188 wwwsesbmntling.com TI)RN a•nm � a9 vz^ AREAOFSCREEN AREA OF SCREEN DESIGNEDBYomERSO� WITH BEZEL WITH EE2EL a'-1510' 0,92111 each S.— each [9.9R] [9.9R] 5'-11 5/8" S D FABR 9 E TEEL OLUMAT E C COLUMN E P1ATE ❑ BID. VIEW a•.9 3M' NOTES: 1. THIS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET THE Please PER FLOROA BUILDING GODE STH EO1201ll-]112' - 1IIBO 2012, Proceed EXPOSUSURE C. 2 9719' O 2. FABRICATED STEEL SUPPORT MEMBERS SIWLL MEET ASTMELINE ECT. 3'8Ya' y 6 ,. SH—DHPLL BE MAOEWRH E]OXX ELECTRODES BYFERBYS OVRRENU.Y OVPAIFIEOIN (a)A AGO.—GEEIENWITHAWS STA NDA RDS. 4. DE51GNDEPICTEDDNTHISDR—NG TTGP tt O vim PR T ELSEDIS PROTOTYPICAL, AND SHOULD NOT OE USED ATA &[fE BY A JNLEEM� DEEMEDTABI-EFO ETIUT PROFES80NAL s11 sM' TI)RN a•nm � a9 vz^ AREAOFSCREEN AREA OF SCREEN DESIGNEDBYomERSO� WITH BEZEL WITH EE2EL a'-1510' 0,92111 each S.— each [9.9R] [9.9R] 5'-11 5/8" S D FABR 9 E TEEL OLUMAT E C COLUMN E P1ATE ❑ BID. VIEW a•.9 3M' A e]S f'-BY4' B 5/g.J SUPPORT FRAME Proposed Signage Specifications 00 Thank you for your order. Please FA9fliGTEO STEEL MOUNTING BRACKET Proceed netl F Y NN• ♦� 9719' O 3'8Ya' y 6 ,. window. TED STEELco •n D+r sn•nm / ":,ray^."�••a';.an. MT A e]S f'-BY4' B 5/g.J SUPPORT FRAME Proposed Signage Specifications 00 Thank you for your order. Please Proceed netl F Y NN• ♦� to the next y 6 ,. window. •n D+r sn•nm / ":,ray^."�••a';.an. MT S�'` Page 9 of 9 C.7 Ph: 1.855.525.8281 Fax: 1.574.237.8188 wwwsesbmntling.com �''.. �� . K- ' k' .. . � �� � � � � � � � ) ���a��� S��< ���������» �+&�� � G� w�� \ »��/��� �»» �- � .�_.�__�. � � _ :4%� ~ ^� \� �� �2w .�-_ - _� � ;, \� 2�2� � � � «� � « � y�� �+� � �- . . r t ry .:Oor al PN. t7 Ae. 14AFI . •44- "IW -41 Al 'k - �fi _. -.:'; '• .'�•'�e..�.. �:.:'.: r - - 'kir _ - ��• ilii r:�-c:'�'�._, �'• - � .. � jan' � •—. +..,'Rrr ,7!TgFF7p,Kle' •.. - .: rp..ix— •�. , , MR, WL r' �•F �Ir,, � . ""� r�t6 .,� ��. �•^: , � 1 -•... � i b� .+f ,� i�� ! � � 1! i� •� Il �i . �ie S � , ��,., r��} .I .{+: �,�-, ;, • :;�,--. t �,, � .,�'�.I'�'��� `�•�f �� ; ,— .'f:�� xi ISI, 1 �llf itlll�4 fi it �, i' + � ,. }. �.,�' 1•�._!. l! �:�� �r rx, It iL pou 5 L. r 1 4T 3 .. ... .. _ - .. . �� =..y -- (WTI —`Wn r. _ _� � _ � f eft= � "��i■i. CHRISfY SPORTS •- TT qr.. r1 S IIW .441 ke r ,q L-A __ T 7t •. w.? - _ .. r ,q L-A r�� im N�16- -'� - s sem_ z OR W Account ID Tax Area Parcel Premisis Address Premises City Premises State R012376 SC103 2103-114-15-017 2211 N Frontage Rd W Vail CO R045992 SC103 2103-114-15-020 2271 N Frontage Rd W Vail CO R013917 SC103 2103-114-15-012 2161 N Frontage Rd W Vail CO R013918 SC103 2103-114-15-011 2131 N Frontage Rd W Vail CO R060789 SC103 2103-114-04-033 2199 Chamonix Ln Vail CO R012765 SC103 2103-114-04-011 2199 Chamonix Ln #11 Vail CO R013391 SC103 2103-114-04-012 2199 Chamonix Ln #12 Vail CO Premisis Zip Owner Name 1 81657 TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC 81657 First Bank of Vail 81657 GKT West Vail Alb LLC 81657 Safeway Stores 46 INC 81657 Pine Ridge Townhouse Home Owners Assoc 81657 Pine Ridge Townhouse Home Owners Assoc 81657 Mark Kruse Owner Name 2 True North Management Group LLC First Bank Holding Co TKG Management Bernadine Kruse Owner Address 1 10 Bank St PO Box 150097 211 N Stadium Blvd 1371 Oakland Blvd Po Box 2135 1588 Osceola St Po Box 1028 Owner Address 2 Floor 12 Ste 201 200 Owner City Owner State Owner Zip White Plains NY 10606 La kewood CO 80215 Columbia MO 65203 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Vao; CO 81658 Denver CO 80204 Avon CO 81620 --�Y�= m K' 2M 1 G � e5::_ � ■nom E7 R _- - -L � �. ® I - �: � �ir�• � �.�� ,ice � � i --�Y�= Triple 6realbst Stacks ti .i R Statement of Justification The McDonald's that is located at 2171 N Frontage Rd W, Vail CO 81657 is respectfully requesting relief from the code that will allow the property the ability to reflect the investment being made into the site and the community as well as improve the overall customer experience. As part of the investment into this location, McDonalds is seeking to replace its existing menu boards with new menu boards using new digital technology. The areas that require relief are as follows: • Size of Menu Boxes o Allowed by code: 6 SF per business frontage. o Requested: 2 Menu Boards at approximately 20SF, 5'-11 5/8" OAH each • Replacing 2 Existing Menu Board at approximately 45SF • Internally Illuminated Sign o Prohibited in the town of Vail o Requested: 2 signs The requested signs all serve a purpose that work together to create an overall aesthetic balance as well as help to improve the customer experience. These signs will also help to ensure that motorists can easily navigate the site, entering and exiting quickly, yet safely. The drive through signs that are requested will be located the rear of the property. The overall size and height of the requested sign is significantly smaller than the existing signs. The current menu board is approximately 45SF while the proposed sign is less than half of that size at approximately 20SF. This reduction in size and square footage will result in reduced illumination. Page 3 of the attached presentation booklet illustrates the difference in size between the existing and the proposed menu boards. The red outline shows the rough outline of the requested menu boards. They are significantly smaller than the existing menu boards. This reduction in size will reduce the amount of illumination from the signs. Another aspect of the site renovation that requires relief is that per code internally illuminated signs are prohibited in the town of Vail. While the proposed sign is internally illuminated, the current menu board is internally illuminated as well. As previously mentioned, the proposed sign is significantly smaller so the amount of illumination will be significantly decreased. Also, the new menu board can be programmed to automatically dim in low light and nighttime environments. This feature will also help to reduce any illumination from the sign. There is a significant tree line surrounding the back of the property which will shield the neighboring residential area from the illumination from the sign. Since the sign is in the back of the building, it will not be visible from the road and thus cause no impact on passing motorists or pedestrians. Additionally, the existing signage is already internally illuminated. They also use digital technology as the center panel is digital. The new signs utilize new digital technology that gives off less illumination and as previously stated, can be programmed to automatically dim in certain environments. The modifications that are requested are internal to the site and carry no offsite impact within the corridor. The modification of the existing antiquated display with the new digital technology will only impact the direct user of the product. This user has made the choice to enter onto the commercial property and expects the transaction that they are seeking to be able to be accomplished in an expedited and concise manner. In addition, this corridor is primarily commercial in nature and modifications that will allow for services offered at these types of properties should be supported and approved. The digital technology that is requested is only a minor aspect of the operation and functionality of this overall property. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to optimize development potential in ways that benefit current and future citizens. While there will be no offsite impact of this specific request, this upgrade in technology will allow for a better overall customer experience at this commercially zoned property. This increase in customer experience directly relates to the viability and use of this site. A fully functioning well run McDonald's property is a benefit to any community and this specific commercial corridor. The digital displays that are requested provide the customer with 100% up-to-date messaging in a clear and readily legible manner. The existing messaging is manually controlled which, unfortunately, often leads to inconsistent and out-of-date offerings in the display rotation. These inconsistencies lead to elongated time for the customers in the drive thru lanes and decreases to the overall experience during the transaction phase of the experience. The goal of the digital displays is to make sure that the customers have clear and concise messages so that time on site is focused, controlled, and expedited. A focused and satisfied motorist is more aware of their surrounding and less likely to cause vehicular infractions. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) 10 min. OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name Description PEC19-0019 Booth Heights CUP Staff Memo 081219.pdf PEC19-0019 Booth Heights - Conditional Use Permit - Staff Memo TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) Applicant: Triumph Development Property Owner: Vail Corporation Planner: Chris Neubecker I. SUMMARY Triumph Development has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"). The Conditional Use Permit is required by the Vail Town Code, which allows up to 30% of the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) of the proposed development to be constructed as dwelling units (not Employee Housing Units) in the Housing (H) zone district. The Development Plan proposes the construction of 73 residential units, including 42 units of rental deed - restricted employee housing (EHUs), 19 deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), and 12 unrestricted townhomes. The 12 unrestricted townhomes require a Conditional Use Permit. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of 12 unrestricted townhomes as dwelling units, within the proposed Booth Heights Neighborhood, which is currently under review by the PEC. The Development Plan for the Booth Heights Neighborhood includes a combination of 42 units of deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs), 19 deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), and 12 unrestricted townhomes. The Housing (H) zone districts allows up to 30% of the GRFA of the development to be constructed as dwelling units (not employee housing units) to help finance the development of employee housing on the property. III. BACKGROUND Please see the staff memo for the Booth Heights Development Plan, PEC19-0018, for details on the proposed development plan, background/history and relevant comprehensive plan documents. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) ARTICLE I — Housing District 12-61-1: PURPOSE: 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. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) 12-61-2: PERMITTED USES: (in part) The following uses shall be permitted in the H district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. 12-6/-3: CONDITIONAL USES: (in part) The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and 2 C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. CHAPTER 16 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. (Ord. 8(1973) § 18.100) 12-16-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION: A. Possible Range Of Action: Within thirty (30) days of the application for a public hearing on a conditional use permit, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or walls, landscaping or screening, and street dedication and improvement; regulation of vehicular access and parking, signs, illumination, and hours and methods of operation; control of potential nuisances; prescription of standards for maintenance of buildings and grounds; and prescription of development schedules. B. Variances: A conditional use permit shall not grant variances, but action on a variance may be considered concurrently with a conditional use permit application on the same site. Variances shall be granted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in chapter 17 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 16(1978) § 4(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.500) 12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. 3 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this title and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 10(1998) § 9: Ord. 22(1996) § 3: Ord. 36(1980) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.600) 12-16-8: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT. Approval of a conditional use permit, or an amendment to an existing conditional use permit, shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. Approval of a conditional use permit shall also lapse and become void if the use for which the approval has been granted is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use. (Ord. 12(2008) § 26) 12-16-9: CONFLICTING PROVISIONS: In addition to the conditions which may be prescribed pursuant to this chapter, a conditional use shall also be subject to all other procedures, permits, and requirements of this chapter and other applicable ordinances and regulations of the town. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of a conditional use permit and any other permit or requirement, the more restrictive provision shall prevail. (Ord. 10(l 998) § 10: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.900) V. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: 3700 N. Frontage Road E. Legal Description: Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Lot Area: 5.397 acres / (235,093 sq. ft.) Zoning: Housing (H) District Land Use Designation: Open Space 0 Development Standard Required Proposed Total GRFA Prescribed by PEC Up to 76,200 sq. ft. GRFA — Dwelling Units Max. 22,800 sq. ft. or 22,599 sq. ft. or 29.8% of 30% of Total GRFA Total GRFA Please see the staff memo for PEC19-0018 for full details on setbacks, height, site coverage, landscaping and parking. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VII. REVIEW CRITERIA — CONDITIONAL USE According to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, the following criteria shall be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district: 12-6I-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and The proposed dwelling units are proposed to subsidize the creation of employee housing units on the property. The applicant previously discussed with the Vail Town Council the creation of 100% employee housing units on the property through a subsidy from the Vail InDeed program. At the time, the Town Council was not willing to provide a subsidy to the project. As a result, the applicant has changed the development program and is now proposing 12 unrestricted dwelling units in the form of townhomes to help subsidize the creation of the employee housing units on the property. The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and The primary use of the property is for deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs). The entire development contains 73 residential units, including 61 employee housing units. The GRFA of the entire development is 75,705 square feet, with a maximum of 76,200 square feet; the proposed GRFA for the unrestricted dwelling units is 22,599 square feet, equal to 29.8%. 5 Land Use Zoning North: USFS None South: 1-70 None East: Open Space Natural Area Preservation West: Open Space Natural Area Preservation VII. REVIEW CRITERIA — CONDITIONAL USE According to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, the following criteria shall be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district: 12-6I-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and The proposed dwelling units are proposed to subsidize the creation of employee housing units on the property. The applicant previously discussed with the Vail Town Council the creation of 100% employee housing units on the property through a subsidy from the Vail InDeed program. At the time, the Town Council was not willing to provide a subsidy to the project. As a result, the applicant has changed the development program and is now proposing 12 unrestricted dwelling units in the form of townhomes to help subsidize the creation of the employee housing units on the property. The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and The primary use of the property is for deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs). The entire development contains 73 residential units, including 61 employee housing units. The GRFA of the entire development is 75,705 square feet, with a maximum of 76,200 square feet; the proposed GRFA for the unrestricted dwelling units is 22,599 square feet, equal to 29.8%. 5 C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and The dwelling units are proposed to be created in conjunction with employee housing units. In addition to the dwelling units, there are 61 employee housing units (EHUs) proposed, including 42 two-bedroom apartments (for rent) and 19 townhomes. D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. The design of the dwelling units is compatible with the deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), with similar massing, similar materials and colors. The buildings are not identical, but use a similar palette of materials and colors. The use as residential dwelling units is compatible with the use of the remainder of the site, which are residential. 12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed uses are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. Specifically, the proposed dwelling units will support the development of employee housing units (EHUs), which have been identified as a critical issue in the community. During the development of the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan, participants placed workforce housing as a top priority for the community and government leaders to address. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed conditional use will have minimal effects on light and air, distribution of population, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. There will likely be some minor impacts from the proposed development on transportation facilities, including impacts on local roads, the demand for parking, and transit. The additional residential development will create some impacts on local recreational facilities and trails. These impacts are similar to those that would be expected if the proposed dwelling units were constructed as deed restricted employee housing units. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. There will be some minor impacts from the proposed dwelling units on traffic facilities, congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These A impacts are similar to impacts expected if the proposed dwelling units were constructed as deed restricted employee housing units. Staff finds the proposed dwelling units to have little impact on transportation at the property, and the use itself is minor relative to the proposed EHUs on site. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The dwelling units will blend in with the proposed character of the rest of the neighborhood, including the adjacent employee housing units. The proposed buildings use a similar scale and bulk as surrounding and proposed uses, and similar architecture to the townhomes of the employee housing units within the Booth Heights Neighborhood. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title. The proposed development itself will have impacts on wildlife and bighorn sheep winter range, as identified in the Environmental Impact Report and the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. These impacts are similar to the impacts that would be expected if the townhomes were deed restricted as employee housing units. The applicant has proposed a Wildlife Mitigation Plan, which includes the improvement to wildlife habitat on site and on the adjacent public properties in partnership with the Town of Vail, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and US Forest Service, as well as and other best management practices to limit the impacts of the proposed development. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department finds that the application meets the required criteria in Section 12-16-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code, and the requirements of Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code for the construction of dwelling units in the Housing (H) zone district. We recommend the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approve this application. Motion: Development Plan (PEC19-0019) Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this application the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants' request for a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ('Booth Heights Neighborhood') (PEC19-0019) with the following findings: 7 Findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of Title 12, Vail Town Code, and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this request the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicants' request for a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ('Booth Heights Neighborhood') (PEC19-0019) with the following findings:... ". If there is a motion to deny the application, please include in the motion the development specific standards or criteria that the application does not meet. IX. ATTACHMENTS Please see the attachments in the Development Plan for this site, PEC19-0018. A City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) ATTACHMFKITC- File Name PEC19- 0018 Booth Heights Development Plan Staff Memo 081219 FINAL.pdf Attachment A Vicinity Map - Booth Heights Neighborhood.pdf Attachment B Applicant Narrative.pdf Triumph Plan Revision Memo 080619.pdf Attachment B-2 Triumph Revised WMP 080919 FINAL.pdf Architectural Plans compressed.pdf Architectural Renderings compressed.pdf Landscaping plans reduced and combined-compressed.pdf Landscaping Plans compressed 5.pdf Civil Plans compressed 1 of 2.pdf Civil Plans compressed 2 of 2.0 Booth Heights Approved Development Plan 080919 DRAFT.pdf Attachment G - Survey.pdf Attachment H Ext Parking Analysis.pdf Attachment I Ex2 Environmental Impact Report.pdf Attachment J Ex3 Wildlife Mitigation Plan.pdf J-1 Wildlife Mitigation Plan Updated 080719.pdf Attachment K Ex4 Wetland Delineation Report.pdf Attachment L Ex5a Geologic Hazards Analysis.pdf Attachment M Ex5b Geologic Hazards Memo.pdf Attachment N Ex5c Rockfall Hazard Study -co mpressed. pdf Description PEC19-0018 Booth Heights Staff Memo Attachment A - Vicinity Map Attachment B - Applicant Narrative Attachment B-1 -Applicant Narrative Update Memo Attachment B-2 Applicant Narrative Update Memo Attachment C Architectural Plans Attachment C1 - Architectural Renderings Attachment D - Landscaping Plans (1 of 2) Attachment D - Landscaping Plans (2 of 2) Attachment E - Civil Plans (1 of 2) Attachment E - Civil Plans (2 of 2) Attachment F - Draft Development Plan Attachment G - Survey Attachment H - Parking Analysis Attachment I - Environmental Impact Report Attachment J - Wildlife Mitigation Plan Attachment J-1 Wildlife Mitigation Plan Updated Attachment K - Wetland Delineation Report Attachment L - Geologic Hazards Analysis Attachment M - Geologic Hazards Memo Attachment N - Rockfall Hazard Study Attachment O Ex6 Traffic Impact Study.pdf Attachment O - Traffic Impact Study 0-1 Traffic Engineer Capacity Memo 080719.pdf Attachment 0-1 Traffic Engineer Capacity Memo Photos Combined.pdf Attachment P - Site Photos Public Comments Combined.pdf Attachment Q - Public Comments Received as of 11:00 AM August 9, 2019 2019 Workforce Survey Report Final.pdf Attachment Q-1 2019 Workforce Survey Report BRE SummarvReport v3.pdf Attachment Q-2 Business Retention and Expansion Interviews Booth Heights - Biologist Roundtable Final Recommendation Summary.pdf Attachment R - Wildlife Biologists Recommendations IfIE 1111 VAIL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) Applicant: Property Owner Planner: SUMMARY Triumph Development Vail Corporation Chris Neubecker Triumph Development has submitted an application for the development of the East Vail "Booth Heights Neighborhood", located at 3700 N. Frontage Road East, near the East Vail 1-70 Interchange (Exit 180). The Development Plan proposes the construction of 73 residential units, including 61 units of deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs), (42 EHUs in 3 multi -family apartment buildings, and 19 EHUs in townhomes), plus 12 unrestricted townhomes. A separate application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for 30% of the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) on this site to be constructed as Dwelling Units (not employee housing units) has also been submitted. (Please see the staff memo on PEC 19-0019 for more information.) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Triumph Development, proposes to develop the Booth Heights Neighborhood, located at 3700 N. Frontage Road East, near the East Vail 1-70 Interchange (Exit 180). The Development Plan proposes the construction of 73 residential units, including 61 employee housing units (EHUs): 0 42 multi -family deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs) 19 deed -restricted employee housing unit townhomes (EHUs) 12 unrestricted townhomes Wildlife Mitigation Plan Along with the proposed development, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (see Attachment 1) that identifies the effects of the project on the natural environment, and is proposing a Wildlife Mitigation Plan (see Attachment J) in an effort to offset these impacts. Key elements of the proposed Wildlife Mitigation Plan include: • Project timing to avoid the most disruptive construction outdoors during winter range period (November 15 — June 1) • Clustering development to reduce the footprint of the buildings and parking • No sizeable internal parks to minimize development footprint • Prohibition on construction of trails • Prohibition on dogs in the multi -family building, and requiring small enclosed fenced areas for townhome owners with dogs • Prohibition on operation of drones • Resident education on wildlife issues, and best management practices to reduce impacts to wildlife • Penalties for non-compliance with neighborhood covenant restrictions In order to ensure a thorough review of the Development Plan and Wildlife Mitigation Plan, the Town of Vail has consulted with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and three independent wildlife biologists: Rick Kahn, Gene Byrne and Melanie Woolever for review. The wildlife biologists and CPW staff met to discuss this proposed development on July 26, 2019 and August 5, 2019, and have developed a list of recommendations (See Attachment R). Recommendations of Wildlife Biologists A summary of the wildlife biologists' recommendations (see Attachment R) for this site is below: On Site Mitigation (5.4 Acres of Housing, and 17.9 acres of NAP) High Importance Obtain a conservation easement on 17.9 -acre NAP parcel providing for general wildlife habitat protection. Move the bus stop, including the pedestrian access route, to the east end of the property. Prohibit trails and access to the 17.9 acre NAP parcel, Town of Vail lands to the 2 west, and US Forest Service lands to the north and east, with cooperative year- round area closures. • Provide a buffer zone along the Pitkin Creek trail to protect bighorn sheep winter range, if any vegetation work is done on the NAP parcel. • Schedule dirt work and other heavy earthwork and utilities for summer -time months while also avoiding peregrine falcon conflicts from June 1 to Nov. 15. These dates could be modified if new information from Colorado Parks and Wildlife is obtained regarding bighorn sheep use. • Use rigorous enforcement and signage rather than a fence on the rock berm. A fence could be added if Colorado Parks and Wildlife indicates that the need has arisen. • Revegetate the rockfall berm area with grasses and shrubs that will provide bighorn sheep winter forage. • Open a migration corridor on the west side of the rock berm area that will allow bighorn sheep to access the rock berm. • Ban dogs, domestic sheep and domestic goats from the development area. Medium Importance • Consider reducing the number of units in the development. Lower Importance Open the forest canopy on the NAP parcel using a shelter wood cut, stacking and burning, prescribed fire or other workable solutions to benefit deer, elk and other some other wildlife species. Remove jackstraw trees on the NAP parcel to benefit deer and elk using the area. Off -Site Mitigation (Town of Vail and US Forest Service Land) High Importance • Establish a Colorado Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Special District (C.R.S. Title 32) to fund wildlife habitat projects. • Establish a mitigation fund for enhancement and protection of bighorn sheep habitat. • Immediately help fund a bighorn sheep movement study in cooperation with CPW, USFS and the proponent to determine how sheep are using the Booth Creek areas, including the use of GPS collars. • Focus treatments and habitat enhancements around prime bighorn sheep ranges, e.g. Booth Creek cliffs on the east and west sides of Booth Creek on both Town of Vail and US Forest Service habitat. • Burn or cut, stack and burn to open -up aspen woodlands. Burning will be most effective and cheapest alternative. Both options should be used to ensure 3 prescribed fire safety. • Treat burn areas with herbicide effective in preventing native vegetation from being replaced by cheat grass and other noxious weeds post -burn. • Investigate methodologies to allow for prescribed fire. Hotter fires will likely be more effective in achieving bighorn sheep habitat improvement in this area. It is expected that this will require public/private partnerships. • Prohibit bike paths and sidewalks along the frontage road in the Booth Creek area. In the event sidewalks are allowed, close them during the winter to facilitate bighorn sheep use of the area.. • Work with US Forest Service and Town of Vail to set up a winter closure in the Booth Creek area to prevent human recreation use. • Work with US Forest Service to prohibit dogs year-round in the Booth Creek area. Medium Importance Remove jackstraw timber. Burning would be most effective and cheapest, but there may be a need to cut, stack and burn some areas to establish adequate fire lines. Cut and maintain migration corridors as suggested in the 1998 US Forest Service habitat plan. Consider fertilization of habitat areas. Fertilization will be an ongoing project if the desired vegetation response is necessary in the long-term. Lower Importance Consider using salt or other supplements to keep bighorn sheep away from the frontage road and 1-70. Encourage Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to update current CPW wildlife maps to reflect the current distribution and use patterns. However, if the study is not done, CPW should update the maps to the best of their ability. Plan Revisions Since July 22. 2019 The applicant has made changes to the development plan and wildlife mitigation plan in response to concerns raised by the wildlife biologists and CPW staff. The primary changes include: • Proposal to place the 17.9 acre NAP parcel in a conservation easement, or similar protection status (such as dedication to the Town of Vail) • Remove the fence at the south side of the berm • Added a prohibition on short term rentals • Reduce habitat treatment on the 17.9 acre NAP parcel to pruning overgrown shrubs to improve winter elk foraging habitat. On the recommendation of the wildlife biologists, the applicant proposes to partner with the Town of Vail and the Il U.S. Forest Service for off-site habitat treatments that the biologists believe to have greater benefits to the bighorn sheep than the 17.9 acre NAP parcel. • Proposed contribution of $50,000 as seed money for off-site wildlife mitigation efforts Other project changes since July 22, 2019 include: • Revised the GRFA of the proposed development to ensure that the deed - restricted units equal or exceed 70% of the total GRFA of the site. • Changed the location and design of the bus stop based on feedback from the PEC and Town of Vail Public Works Department. • Modified the design of the trash dumpster enclosure. • Proposed 15 additional parking spaces for the multi -family building. • Provided additional detail on the architecture on the proposed buildings. • Revised the floor plans of the multi -family building to provide more enclosed common space and more storage. • Revised the architecture of the 42 -unit multi -family building to provide more variety to the roof and to add stucco to the base. • Changed the garage doors on the EHU townhomes to match the garage doors of the unrestricted townhomes. • Showed locations for solar panels on 42 -unit multi -family building. Buildings will be pre -wired for solar panel installations. • Revised the landscaping plan to preserve existing trees to act as buffer on south side of proposed development. • Provided updated information on the traffic report from Traffic Engineer. III. REVIEW SCHEDULE The review of the Booth Heights Neighborhood Development Plan has been presented at three (3) public hearings to date. Meeting #4 on August 12, 2019 will focus on the following topics: • Recommendations of Wildlife Biologists • Plan revisions since meeting #3 • Subdivision Plan • Phasing Plan • Implementation of Developer Commitments IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS 12-6I-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the Applicant to 5 demonstrate that the proposed Development Plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional Development Plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) CHAPTER 12 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS 12-12-1: PURPOSE.- Submission URPOSE: Submission and review of an environmental impact report on any private development proposal or public project which may affect to any significant degree the quality of the environment in the town or in surrounding areas is required to achieve the following objectives.- A. bjectives: A. Availability of Information: To ensure that complete information on the environmental effects of the proposed project is available to the town council, the planning and environmental commission, and the general public. B. Environmental Protection a Criterion: To ensure that long term protection of the environment is a guiding criterion in project planning, and that land use and development decisions, both public and private, take into account the relative merits of possible alternative actions. 31 C. Review and Evaluation Procedure: To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development. D. Avoid Geologic Hazard Areas: To ensure that buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas, by way of illustration, floodplains, avalanche paths, rockfall areas, where such hazard cannot practically be mitigated to the satisfaction of the planning and environmental commission and the town council. E. Protect Water Quality: To ensure that the quality of surface water and ground water within the town will be protected from adverse impacts and/or degradation due to construction activities. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 37(1980) § 10: Ord. 19(1976) § 14: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.100) 12-12-2: APPLICABILITY: An environmental impact report shall be submitted to the administrator for any project for which such a report is required by federal or state law, or for any project which the administrator determines may significantly change the environment, either during construction or on a continuing basis, in one or more of the following respects.- A. espects: A. Alters an ecological unit or land form, such as a ridgeline, saddle, draw, ravine, hillside, cliff, slope, creek, marsh, watercourse, or other natural landform feature. B. Directly or indirectly affects a wildlife habitat, feeding, or nesting ground. C. Alters or removes native grasses, trees, shrubs, or other vegetative cover. D. Affects the appearance or character of a significant scenic area or resource, or involves buildings or other structures that are of a size, bulk, or scale that would be in marked contrast to natural or existing urban features. E. Potentially results in avalanche, landslide, siltation, settlement, flood, or other land form change or hazard to health and safety. F. Discharges toxic or thermally abnormal substances, or involves use of herbicides or pesticides, or emits smoke, gas, steam, dust, or other particulate matter. G. Involves any process which results in odor that may be objectionable or damaging. 7 H. Requires any waste treatment, cooling, or settlement pond, or requires transportation of solid or liquid wastes to a treatment or disposal site. 1. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes. J. Has the potential to strain the capacity of existing or planned sewage disposal storm drainage, or other utility systems. K. Involves any process which generates noise that may be offensive or damaging. L. Either displaces significant numbers of people or results in a significant increase in population. M. Preempts a site with potential recreational or open space value. N. Alters local traffic patterns or causes a significant increase in traffic volume or transit service needs. O. Is a part of a larger project which, at any future stage, may involve any of the impacts listed in this section. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.200) 12-12-3: EXEMPT PROJECTS.- An ROJECTS: An environmental impact report shall not be required for the following projects.- A. rojects: A. Alteration, repair and maintenance of existing structures and site improvements. B. A phase of a project for which an environmental impact report previously was submitted and reviewed covering the entire project, provided that the project was approved and not subsequently altered. C. A project which, on the basis of a preliminary environmental assessment covering each of the factors prescribed in section 12-12-2 of this chapter is found to have an insignificant impact on the environment. The preliminary environmental assessment and the finding on environmental impact shall be made by the administrator. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.300) 12-12-4: STUDIES AND DATA REQUIRED: A. Range Of Studies: The environmental impact report shall be based on systematic studies conducted by the town staff or by professional consultants, as determined by the administrator. The environmental impact report on a public project may be prepared by the responsible public agency or by professional consultants it engages. The range of studies needed to develop the technical D data for an environmental impact report includes the following natural systems and other studies.- 1. tudies: 1. Hydrologic conditions, such as surface drainage and watershed characteristics, ground water and soil permeability characteristics, natural water features and characteristics, and any potential changes or impacts. 2. Atmospheric conditions, such as airshed characteristics, potential emissions, and any potential changes or impacts. 3. Geologic conditions, such as landforms, slope, soil characteristics, potential hazards, and any potential changes or impacts. 4. Biotic conditions, such as vegetative characteristics, wildlife habitats, and any potential changes or impacts. 5. Other environmental conditions, such as noise levels and odor characteristics, and any potential changes or impacts. 6. Visual conditions, such as views and scenic values, and any potential changes, impacts, or marked contrasts. 7. Land use conditions, such as characteristics of uses, compatibility with officially approved land use and open space policies and objectives, and potential changes or impacts. 8. Circulation and transportation conditions, such as volumes and traffic flow patterns, transit service needs, alternative transit systems, and potential changes or impacts. 9. Population characteristics, such as residential densities, neighborhood patterns, potential displacement of residents or businesses, and potential changes or impacts. B. Summarization: The environmental impact report shall summarize the findings and recommendations of the technical and other supporting studies in terms that can be assessed and evaluated by town officials and the general public. Technical data shall be submitted as supporting documentation. Technical data prepared as a part of any other procedure or requirement of this chapter, or of any other ordinance or federal, state or town regulation, also may be used to support an environmental impact report. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.401) 12-12-5: REPORT CONTENTS.- A. ONTENTS: A. Information And Analysis: The environmental impact report shall contain information and analysis, in sufficient detail and adequately supported by technical studies, to enable the town council to judge the environmental impact of the project and to judge measures proposed to reduce or negate any harmful impacts. B. General Statement; Descriptive Materials: The environmental impact report shall include a general statement, describing the proposed project and its purpose, identifying the owner and/or sponsors, and, if a public project, 9 identifying the funding source and time schedule. Descriptive materials, maps, and plans shall be submitted showing the following information: 1. Project boundaries and boundaries of the area within which environmental impact is likely to be significant. 2. Present and proposed uses of the site. 3. Present and proposed zoning of the site. 4. Quantitative information relative to the project, such as site area, numbers of residential units, proposed height and bulk of buildings, building floor area in square feet, and such other data as will contribute to a clear understanding of the scale of the project. 5. A list of regulatory or review agencies and the specific regulations to which the project will be subject. 6. Copies of subdivision maps, development plans, or other pertinent documents illustrating the proposed project. 7. Proximity to water bodies, the distance from the centerline of live creeks or streams to any proposed structural development within the project: 8. Soil types based upon the National Cooperative Soil Survey, USDA, Soil Conservation Service and interpretations of soil types, vegetation shall be described and three (3) masses shown. C. Environmental Inventory. The environmental impact report shall include an environmental inventory, providing complete information on the environmental setting existing prior to the proposed project and containing sufficient information to permit independent evaluation by reviewers of factors that could be affected by the proposed project. The environmental inventory shall include maps, photographs, or other appropriate illustrative material. D. Categorized By Impact Type: Areas categorized according to type of possible impact shall be identified. The environmental inventory shall describe both the physical and biological natural setting, and the manmade setting of the site and its surroundings. E. Analysis: The environmental impact report shall include a comprehensive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of any significant impact that the proposed project will have on the environment. The analysis shall describe temporary effects that will prevail during construction, and long term effects that will prevail after completion. The analysis shall describe both beneficial effects and detrimental effects. The analysis shall consider primary effects and secondary effects which will result from the project. The analysis portion of the environmental impact report shall fully assess the following items: 1. Adverse effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. 2. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact, including water quality, erosion control and revegetation measures. 3. Possible alternatives to the proposed action. 4. Relationships between short term and long term uses of the environment. 10 5. Irreversible environmental changes resulting from implementation of the proposal. 6. Growth inducing impacts of the project. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 37(1980) § 10: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.402) 12-12-6: REPORT; ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: The administrator may further prescribe the form and content of an environmental impact report, setting forth in greater detail the factors to be considered and the manner in which the report shall be prepared, and may require submission of information in addition to that required by section 12-12-5 of this chapter. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.403) 12-12-7: TIME SCHEDULE.- The CHEDULE: The environmental impact report required under this chapter shall be prepared within thirty (30) days of the date that plans are submitted for design review as prescribed in sections 12-12-4 through 12-12-6 of this chapter, subject to extension of the time period to a maximum of ninety (90) days by the planning and environmental commission. The time period may be extended to a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) days if seasonal conditions prevent a comprehensive analysis. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 16(1978) § 2(a): Ord. 8(1973) § 16.404) 12-12-8: FEE.- In EE: In the event that the town engages professional consultants to prepare an environmental impact report, the cost shall be paid by the sponsor of the project. The sponsor may be required to deposit a fixed sum in advance to cover the cost of the report, with the unexpended balance returnable to the sponsor. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(19 73) § 16.405) 12-12-9: SUBMISSION OF REPORT TO OFFICIALS.- The FFICIALS: The environmental impact report shall be submitted to the administrator. The administrator shall prescribe the number of copies to be submitted. The administrator shall notify the town council, the planning and environmental commission, and the design review board of receipt of an environmental impact report, and shall transmit copies of the report upon request. Environmental impact reports shall be available for public review in the offices of the town. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(19 73) § 16.501) 12-12-10: TIME LIMIT; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Time Limit: The planning and environmental commission shall review the report within thirty (30) days of submission subject to an extension of the time 11 period thirty (30) additional days in order to obtain additional information from the town staff, from the sponsor of the project, or the author of any portion of the report. B. Supplementary Data: The commission may receive additional statements or supporting materials from the sponsor of a project, from the town staff, from professional consultants, or from others. Such additional materials may be considered as supplementary or amendatory to the environmental impact report. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 16(1978) § 2(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 16.502) 12-12-11: ACTION BY COMMISSION.- A. OMMISSION: A. Criteria For Decision: Following review of the environmental impact report, the planning and environmental commission shall approve, disapprove, or request changes in the project in writing. The planning and environmental commission shall approve the project unless it finds that either the project will have significant long term adverse effects on the environment with respect to the natural systems or other factors studied as prescribed in section 12-12-4 of this chapter or the project will have short term adverse effects on the environment so detrimental that public health, safety or welfare considerations preclude approval of the project. In the case of either finding, if changes in the project are feasible which ameliorate or avoid the adverse effects on the environment sufficiently to permit approval of the project, the planning and environmental commission, in writing, shall describe those changes and request those changes be made. If the planning and environmental commission determines that the changes are not feasible, it shall disapprove the project in writing, describing the adverse effects on the environment, the significance of the effects either to the natural systems or other factors studied as prescribed in section 12-12-4 of this chapter or to the public health, safety or welfare and the planning and environmental commission's reasons for concluding that no changes in the project are feasible to ameliorate or avoid those effects. B. Design Changes Require Resubmission To Design Review Board: If the planning and environmental commission requests any changes in the project which would alter the design of the project previously approved by the design review board, and the sponsor of the project makes those changes, the revised design shall be resubmitted to the design review board for its approval unless the planning and environmental commission waives this requirement. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 16(1978) § 2(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 16.503) 12-12-12: PERMIT ISSUANCE.- A. SSUANCE: A. Conformance To Environmental Impact Report: Upon approval of the project, applicable permits may be issued and the project may proceed, subject to such additional requirements, permits, or authorizations as may be required by this title and by other applicable ordinances or regulations of the town. No permits 12 V. shall be issued and no authorizations shall be granted which would allow a project to proceed in the event that the planning and environmental commission does not grant approval of the environmental impact report after review. No permits shall be issued and no authorizations shall be granted for any project which does not conform substantially to the description of the project contained in the environmental impact report. B. Exception: This section shall not apply to a project for which an environmental impact report is not required, as prescribed in section 12-12-3 of this chapter. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 16(19 78) § 2(b): Ord. 8(19 73) § 16.504) ZONING ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Lot Area: Zoning: Land Use Designation 3700 N. Frontage Road E Lot 1, East Vail Workforce 5.397 acres / (235,093 sq. Housing District Open Space Housing Subdivision ft.) Development Required Proposed Standard Lot Size Prescribed by PEC 5.397 acres or 235,036 sq. ft. Buildable Area Prescribed by PEC 3.65 acres or 158,836 sq. ft. (67% of site) Minimum Setbacks 20' feet from perimeter of the All structures 20' from the zone district perimeter of the zone district Maximum Height Prescribed by PEC Multi -family: 60' Townhomes: 44.5' Maximum Dwelling Prescribed by PEC 73 units (20 du/buildable acre) u n its/acre GRFA Prescribed by PEC Up to 76,200 sq. ft. (Current plans = 75,705 sq. ft.) Site coverage 129,270 sq. ft. or 55% Up to 39,500 sq. ft. or 16.4% maximum (Current plans = 38,478 sq. ft.) Minimum 70,511 sq. ft. or 30% 125,694 sq. ft. or 53.5% Landscaping Snow Storage 17,38530% 21,225 sq. ft. or 36.6% Required Parking 146 spaces total 156 spaces total 84 spaces (Multi -family) 60 spaces (Multi -family) 62 spaces (Townhomes) 96 spaces (Townhomes) 13 Parking Program At the last meeting on this application, some PEC members expressed a need for more parking for the 42 -unit multi -family building. The applicant has revised the parking plan to show 15 additional parking spaces. As a result, there are now 60 spaces proposed for the multi- family building. Section 12-61-8, Vail Town Code, allows the PEC to approve a parking plan with reduced parking in the Housing (H) district when the applicant can demonstrate that fewer parking spaces will be needed. Below is the proposed parking for this development: Use Type Unit Parking Rate Count Parking Required Parking Proposed Multi -Family Solar Vail 65 500 — 2,000 sq. ft. 42 2 per unit 84 spaces 60 (1.42 / unit) Townhomes 32 1.0 500 — 2,000 sq. ft. 31 2 per unit 62 spaces 96 (3.09 / unit) TOTAL 146 156 For comparison, similar multi -family style deed -restricted employee housing units have been approved with the following parking for their residents: Use Type Unit Count Parking Proposed Parking Rate (per multi -family unit) Solar Vail 65 34 0.52 First Chair 32 32 1.0 Lions Ridge 113 153 1.35 Timber Ridge 54 46 0.82 Booth Heights MF 42 60 1.42 The Housing (H) zone district allows the PEC to modify the parking requirements during the review of a development plan. Please see the discussion on parking management in the Applicant Narrative (Attachment B) for additional detail. 12-61-8: PARKING AND LOADING: (in part) At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in chapter 10 of this title may be approved during the review of a Development Plan subject to a parking management plan. The parking management plan shall be approved by the planning and environmental commission and shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include: 14 A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) A reduction in the parking requirement for employee housing developments is specifically listed in the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan as a strategy for supporting the development of workforce housing. • Research parking requirements for employee housing and consider reducing requirements for employee housing developments. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by Western Ecological Resources, Inc. (See Attachment 1) The EIR includes an analysis of environmental aspects of the development site as required by the Vail Town Code, including: hydrology; atmospheric conditions; geology and hazards; biotic conditions; soils; vegetation resources; wildlife resources; noise; odors; visual resources; land use; circulation and transportation; and population. The primary environmental impacts identified in the EIR for this site include: wildlife resources, wetlands, geology, and removal of vegetation. The report indicates that site contains no federally listed species that are threatened, endangered or proposed for listing. The EIR indicates that the proposed development could impact the habitat of the bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer and black bear. No changes have been made to the Environmental Impact Report since the last meeting. VII. WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN A Wildlife Mitigation Plan has been prepared by Rick Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist with Western Ecosystems, Inc. and submitted by the applicant (Attachment J). The Town of Vail's wildlife consultants and Colorado Parks and Wildlife have reviewed the proposed mitigation plan, and have made recommendations on how the mitigation plan can be enhanced to improve the habitat and health of the sheep. The purpose of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan is to recommend site design features and management activities that can help to reduce the impacts to wildlife, and to minimize 15 the impacts of the proposed development through the creation of improved habitat and foraging areas. Project Design Design features of the proposed development, as recommended by the applicant's wildlife biologist to reduce potential impacts, include: • Clustering of the development • No upper level decks facing the wildlife habitat to the north and west. (Some decks are proposed on the south sides of buildings, and small patios are proposed on the townhomes) • No sidewalk proposed within the smooth brome foraging area between the development and the frontage road • Screening of the development site from sheep habitat with existing aspen forest, rockfall berm and new landscaping • No sizeable internal parks, to limit the development footprint • Creating and maintaining an east -west access across the rear of the property for wildlife Construction Mitigation Construction activity is anticipated to last at least two years. During this time, the bighorn sheep would be most affected by construction during winter, when the sheep move to lower elevations and into the winter concentration habitat. The proposed construction would remove 0.3 acres of on-site habitat. Wintering sheep off-site could also be impacted by construction activity, including construction noise and human activity. However, according to the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, "the most obtrusive disturbances from site clearing, excavation, grading and wildlife/rockfall berm construction would not occur outside buildings during the winter range period." Proposed construction methods to minimize impacts to wintering sheep include: • Scheduling construction to avoid the most obtrusive disturbance (site clearing, use of heavy equipment, installation of utilities) from November 15 — June 1. This construction schedule has been reduced by 60 days. The previous schedule prohibited heavy construction from November 15 — April 15. • Construction of a physical barrier, either the wildlife fencing and rockfall berm, or substantial impervious construction fencing, prior to bighorn winter range period • Construction only during daylight hours • Installation of fencing to screen construction activity from the sheep habitat to the north and west • Prohibiting construction personnel from bringing animals (i.e. dogs) onto the site • Prohibit construction personnel from feeding or baiting wildlife 16 Management and Enforcement After the development is completed, the ongoing management and enforcement of best management practices will be needed to reduce the potential impact on the wildlife and environment. In order to reduce the human impacts on the wildlife the applicant has proposed the following programs and restrictions for the development: • Resident and owner education about the site's sensitive location within wildlife habitat • Prohibiting construction of new trails on private property or new trails to access off the property • Prohibiting dogs within the 42 -unit multi -family building (Note: The Town's wildlife biologists recommend that all dogs should be prohibited on-site, including at the townhomes. Staff has included a condition of approval prohibiting dogs.) • Prohibiting unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) • Prohibiting outdoor food gardens • Prohibiting bird feeders • Penalties for non-compliance, including fines and possible evictions • Enforceability of commitments is proposed through private covenants enforceable by the Home Owners Association and Town of Vail. Proposed Mitigation and Habitat Enhancement In addition to the commitments and design features mentioned above, the applicant previously proposed a wildlife habitat enhancement plan to improve habitat for bighorn sheep and elk on the 17.9 acres to the east of the subject site. The extensive habitat enhancement is no longer proposed on the 17.9 acre NAP parcel, based on feedback from the Town's consulting wildlife biologists and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. These experts have indicated that the NAP parcel is already good habitat for elk, and the natural vegetation on this parcel would be difficult to change to bighorn sheep habitat. Additionally, due to the unlikely use of the NAP parcel by sheep, even with habitat enhancements, and the natural vegetation of the site which would be difficult to continually suppress, these biologists recommend focusing efforts and investments on other surrounding areas that would likely have a greater positive impact on bighorn sheep. Elements of the wildlife habitat enhancement that are still proposed by the applicant, and supported by the consulting wildlife biologists, include: Creating and maintaining an east -west access across the rear of the property for wildlife Revegetation of the rockfall berm with shrubs and grasses that are foraging sources for bighorn sheep Planting of aspen trees along the south side of the rockfall berm to help screen 17 the rockfall berm and the sheep grazing habitat Financial participation in a wildlife habitat restoration on Town of Vail and US Forest Service lands with the goal of improving existing bighorn sheep habitat. The amount of the contribution will be determined in discussions between the applicant and the Vail Town Council. VIII. LANDSCAPING The development plan has been changed to preserve clusters of existing trees along the south side of the proposed development. Existing trees south of the multi -family buildings and the townhomes (Buildings E, F, G and H) will help to soften the visual impact of the proposed development by screening these buildings. SPECIES COUNT SIZE Shade Trees Quaking Aspen 103 1.5 inch caliper Hackberry 12 2" Lanceleaf Cottonwood 13 2" clump Evergreen Trees Colorado Blue Spruce 15 6' tall Bristlecone Pine 9 6' tall Douglas Fir 9 6' tall Limber Pine 10 6; tall Ornamental Trees Shubert Chokecherry 3 2" caliper Deciduous Shrubs Variety 1011 5 gallon container Ornamental Grasses 97 1 gallon container Please see Attachment D for more details on the proposed landscaping species mix. (Note: The minimum size for aspen trees is two inches (2'). Staff has added a condition of approval to require the landscaping plan be modifier as such, prior to issuance of a building permit.) IX. CONSTRUCTION TIMING The proposed development is proposed to be constructed with only a few buildings at one time. In order to meet the requirements for at least 70% of the Gross Residential 18 Floor Area (GRFA) of the site to be deed -restricted employee housing units at any time, a construction timing plan has been provided. (See Attachment A - Sheet A.002). The plan generally calls for development starting on the west end of the site, with the 2 -unit multi -family building (Buildings 1, 2 and 3) and one of the townhome buildings (Building C) to be constructed first. The second stage of construction would be Buildings B and D. The final stage in construction is planned for Buildings A, E, F, G and H. X. SUBDIVISION PLAN No formal subdivision plan has been submitted, nor is one required, at this time. However, the applicant has indicated intent to maintain ownership of the 42 -unit multi- family buildings. The other buildings will be sold to individual owners, and will be subdivided as townhomes. To create separate Homeowners Association for the 42 -unit multi -family building from the townhomes, the site is proposed to be subdivided, with all necessary access easements. A master Homeowners Association will be created to address common area issues such as yard maintenance, berm maintenance, snow removal, enforcement of wildlife restrictions, and prohibitions on dogs. XI. REVIEW CRITERIA According to Section 12-61-13, Development Standards/Criteria for Evaluation, of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail, the following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed Development Plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed architecture uses mountain modern design, with a variety of exterior building materials, including wood siding, fiber -cement siding, metal panels, and stucco. Sloped roofs are proposed on all buildings with a shallow roof pitch (4:12) on main roofs, and steeper roofs (6:12) on the gables, with accent roof pitches of 2:12 and 3:12. Buildings are designed to reduce cut and fill slopes on the site, where possible, but some retaining walls are still required. Buildings will step up the hillside, and the building foundations will retain the natural or final grade in many cases. The location of this site, which is detached from other residential developments, allows for architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation that will have no impacts on existing residential uses or surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed development requires retaining walls on both the front and rear of the site due to the natural slope. All retaining walls have been designed to meet the allowed 19 maximum height of 3' in the front setback, and a maximum height of 6' in other locations. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional Development Plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. The proposed development plan includes three multi -family buildings at the west end of the site, which will include 42 units of deed -restricted employee housing (EHUs). Within this building, 36 units will be master -leased to Vail Resorts. On the eastern portion of the site, eight (8) townhouse buildings are proposed which will include 31 townhome units; 12 of the townhomes will be unrestricted Dwelling Units (not EHUs), and 19 of the townhomes will be deed -restricted EHUs. The residential buildings are functionally designed and the site plan is effectively laid out to optimize the use of the site. The proposed buildings, improvements, uses and activities have been designed and located on the site to be functional and responsive to the site, surrounding uses and neighborhood and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. The proposed useable open space is limited to a few areas at the rear of the townhomes, and the proposed outdoor picnic areas near the multi -family buildings. The useable outdoor open space has been limited based on the topography of the site and recommendations from the wildlife biologists. Due to the slope of the site, there is not a natural flat area that would easily accommodate useable open space. Further, human activity outdoors would have greater potential for impacting bighorn sheep and other big game that may use the area. Opportunities to access the adjacent National Forest property to the north will be discouraged through the installation of the berm. The consulting biologists have recommended against the installation of fencing near the berm, and thus fencing has been removed from the current proposal. The proposed landscaping plan has been revised to preserve more tree buffer along the south side of the development, and also to increase the buffer to the sheep habitat to the west and north. The proposed open space and landscaping are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties. 20 D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. Access and Traffic Vehicular access to the site is proposed from a new curb cut at the west end of the site. The new road is designed to follow the natural contours of the site to minimize cut and fill grades, although some cut and fill, as well as retaining walls, are proposed. Based on the completed traffic study, no acceleration/deceleration lanes or turn lanes are required, and none are proposed. An updated memo (Attachment 0-1) has been provided by the applicant's Traffic Engineer, which has also been reviewed by the Town Attorney. The memo provides information on the capacity of the frontage road, and also the potential impacts from the Vail Mountain School. Additionally, the memo comments on a fatality in 2002 one mile to the west of this site. Per the memo, neither the Town of Vail Police Department, nor Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), has any records that show a fatality at the East Vail interchange. Pedestrian Circulation Internal pedestrian circulation is proposed along a new sidewalk on the south side of the new driveway, near the multi -family building. No sidewalks are proposed near the townhome buildings. Walkways are proposed at the south side of the multi -family buildings to provide access to the garden level residential units. A sidewalk to the proposed bus stop on the west end of the site is proposed. Pedestrian access to the existing bus stop is also proposed on a new path and stair at the southeast portion of the site. Bus Stop The design and location of the proposed new bus stop have been revised based on recommendations of the Town of Vail Public Works Department and feedback from the PEC. The proposed bus stop at the west end of the site, near the proposed access driveway, will allow for a looped bus stop which will allow riders to get on and of the bus without crossing the road. The location of the proposed bus stop is not supported by the wildlife biologists or Colorado Parks and Wildlife due to potential conflicts and reduced grazing habitat with bighorn sheep. A looped bus stop near the existing Falls at Vail stop at the east end of the site is not practical, although other safety measures could be implemented at the existing bus stop to improve safety for pedestrians crossing the frontage road. The Town Engineer is aware of the concern for pedestrian safety at the Exit 180 underpass and the need to consider pedestrian improvements in this area. Town 21 Council has initially reviewed the request for a budget to add a sidewalk to the underpass. Prior to adding a budget they have requested existing pedestrian counts for the underpass and projected pedestrian counts to better understand the frequency of concern. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. An environmental impact report has been prepared by a wildlife biologist, and has been review by a panel of three consulting wildlife biologists. By developing this site, several acres of habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, black bear, and other big game species will be permanently eliminated. The applicant proposes to mitigate the impact of the proposed development through the implementation of a Wildlife Mitigation Plan, which has been modified based on recommendations of the wildlife biologists. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan recommends prohibiting dogs in the 42 -unit multi -family building. The applicant proposes to prohibit dogs only in these units thorough enforcement of HOA regulations. Since dogs have a natural hunting instinct, almost any dog could become a nuisance or threat to wildlife in the vicinity, and prohibiting all dogs is recommended by the Town's consulting wildlife biologists. The Community Development Department has added a condition of approval requiring that all dogs be prohibited on site, including for owners, tenants and visitors of the townhome units, unless otherwise protected by law (i.e. service dogs). One of the recommendations of the biologists that has not been incorporated into this plan is the location of the bus stop. (See Section D above) The wildlife biologists hired by the Town of Vail recommend using the existing bus stop at the east end of this site, due to potential human -sheep conflicts. F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. The Booth Heights Neighborhood Development Plan is in compliance with many aspects of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and advances the employee housing goals of the Town. The development of employee housing units is supported by the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan, the Town of Vail Economic Development Plan, and the Environmental Strategic Plan, and furthers the actions/strategies outlined with the Vail 20/20 Strategic Plan. The Town of Vail also values environmental sustainability and preservation of the natural ecosystem and wildlife habitat. The natural beauty of Vail and the wildlife that inhabit this valley are some of the reasons why many visitors love Vail, and why many locals choose to live here. Many of the Town's comprehensive planning documents reflect environmental stewardship values and recommend incorporating sustainability into projects, and protecting environmentally sensitive lands from development, or mitigating the impacts of development. 22 The proposed development will have permanent and irreversible impacts to 2.7 acres of existing wildlife habitat, and temporary loss to 2.3 acres of similar habitat for the construction of the rockfall mitigation berm. The applicant proposes to mitigate the loss of habitat through a wildlife mitigation plan, both on-site and off-site. The proposed private development of 61 deed restricted EHUs will help advance the Town's goals of obtaining 1,000 new employee housing deed restrictions over the next 10 years. By developing more EHUs within Town, total vehicle miles traveled from workers commuting into Vail can be reduced, helping to reduce the Town's green house gas emissions. This development will upgrade the existing employee housing base. XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recognizes that this application and report have several significant community issues to be considered. We believe the applicant has presented a thorough application, including reports on wildlife and rockfall, as well as the significant community need for employee housing. Before making a recommendation on this application, the Community Development Department would like to highlight important considerations: • The significant need and goal of providing employee housing within the community. • The previous rezoning of this property to the Housing (H) zone district to advance the Town's employee housing goals. • Development of employee housing on this site by the private sector will take a significant step forward toward the goal of providing 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027. • The site is located within several significant wildlife habitat areas, including habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, black bear, and peregrine falcon. • The proposed wildlife mitigation actions recommended by the Town of Vail's consulting wildlife biologists. • The agreement by the applicant to implement a majority of the recommendations, and financial contribution to improve wildlife habitat on adjacent Town of Vail and US Forest Service property. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Booth Heights Development Plan for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), with the Conditions of Approval (PEC19-0018). 23 Should the PEC choose to approve the proposed Development Plan, the Community Development Department recommends the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves this request for the Booth Heights Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood') (PEC19-0018) subject to the following conditions of approval.- 1. pproval: 1. Certificates of Occupancy for this project will only be issued in a manner that maintains a minimum of 70% of the total built Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as deed -restricted employee housing units. At no time shall the unrestricted units for which Certificates of Occupancy are issued exceed 30% of the total built GRFA. 2. This property is within a geologically sensitive area pursuant to Chapter 12-21 Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code. Prior to issuance of any building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgement of receiving personal notice of the fact that that said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 3. All plans submitted with the building permit application for property within geologically sensitive areas shall be stamped by the applicant "Geologically Sensitive Area" together with the applicable zone designation. 4. Applicant shall implement a slope monitoring program, during construction activities, near the ancient landslide deposits at the east end of the site, in a form and manner to be determined by the applicant's professional geologist. 5. In lieu of the previously proposed on-site wildlife habitat mitigation plan, the applicant shall perform the commitments outlined in the August 9, 2019 memo titled "Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan Incorporating TOV's Biologist Recommendations" submitted by the applicant. This includes a $100,000 financial contribution by the applicant, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, to the Town of Vail or other such agency or entity determined in consultation with the Town of Vail and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, for the purpose of ongoing wildlife habitat improvements, monitoring and study. If said funds are not in fact spent within five (5) years of the date of the contribution, the funds shall be returned to the applicant within 30 days after the expiration of the 5 -year period. 24 Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 6. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit the applicant shall install a monitoring system with video recordings for enforcement of wildlife mitigation measures and trespass in prohibited areas and take corrective action to remedy trespass, which recording and records of enforcement shall be made available to the Town of Vail upon request. This condition shall continue with the property owner and manager of the Homeowners Association responsible for the property. 7. Prior to creation of a curb cut and installation of improvements (bus stop and sidewalk) in Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) the right-of-way, applicant shall obtain written approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation. A copy of such approval or permit shall be provided to the Town of Vail prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to indicate that aspen trees will be a minimum of two-inch (2') caliper. Prior to Issuance of the First Certificate of Occupancy 9. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall develop an Environmental Education Program to educate the residents and owners of the Booth Heights Neighborhood about the environmental sensitivity of the site and the vicinity. The Education Program shall be reviewed by the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Manager and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager. The Education Program shall include, at a minimum, information on the mapped wildlife habitats, potential human impacts to bighorn sheep, elk, black bears, and peregrine falcon. The Education Program shall clearly describe the activities and uses that are prohibited on site (including dogs, outdoor food gardens, bird feeders, feeding or harassing of wildlife) regulations on trash enclosures, prohibition on construction new trails, and prohibition on accessing the area to the north of the berm/fence. A copy of the Environmental Education Program shall be an attachment to all leases and provided to all tenants prior to occupancy, and shall also be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder to inform future property owners. A copy of the Education Program and Wildlife Mitigation Plan shall be kept on file with the Homeowners Association and shall be provided to all leaseholders and shall be made available within reasonable notice to any tenant, unit owner or the Town of Vail, upon request. 10. Applicant shall provide for enforcement mechanisms, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, for prohibiting dogs, domestic sheep, 25 domestic goats and/or any other livestock, prohibiting short term rentals, prohibiting construction of trails, prohibiting creating of trails, and prohibiting access to the 17.9 acre NAP parcel to the east, and for future construction of wildlife fencing between the proposed homes and rockfall berm. The Town of Vail shall be granted the authority to enforce these regulations. Such regulations shall not be amended without written approval of the Town of Vail. 11. Applicant shall install signs along the south side of the rockfall berm clearly stating that access to the berm and properties to the north of the development site, and to the adjacent 17.9 acre NAP parcel, is prohibited. The location, number and content of signs shall be proposed by the applicant and approved by the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Manager and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager. 12. Applicant shall include a fence easement on the first subdivision plat recorded for this development, which easement shall generally be located along the south side of the rockfall berm, for the potential future installation of wildlife fencing should it be determined necessary by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 13. Applicant shall work with the Town of Vail in good faith to pursue a conservation easement to permanently restrict the use of the 17.9 acre NAP parcel by obtaining a conservation easement from a land trust. This conservation easement will prohibit the construction of structures, but will also preserve the ability for wildlife enhancements, as well as other requirements for the development of the Booth Heights neighborhood by the applicant such as geological monitoring and testing and soil stabilization activities. 14. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, a copy of the Homeowners Association documents shall be provided to the Town of Vail, and shall include an inspection and maintenance plan for the rockfall hazard mitigation berm. The plan shall include an inspection schedule. A copy of the inspection schedule and maintenance activities shall be provided to the Town of Vail upon request. 15. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the deed - restricted employee housing units, the applicant shall record with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, the Town of Vail Type IV employee housing deed -restriction covenant. Should the PEC choose to deny the proposed Development Plan, the Community Development Department recommends the following motion. If the PEC votes to deny 26 this application, we ask that the PEC identify specific elements of the application, plans or design that are not in compliance with the Vail Town Code: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies this request for the Booth Heights Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood') (PEC19-0018)for the following reasons.- A. easons: A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is not compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are not designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are not both functional and aesthetic, are not designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are not integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is not designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, but all necessary mitigating measures are not implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. The proposal is not in compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. XII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Booth Heights Neighborhood Applicant Narrative, dated May 28, 2019 a. Attachment B-1 dated August 6, 2019 b. Attachment B-2 — Applicant Narrative, August 9, 2019 C. Booth Heights Neighborhood — Architectural Plans, dated August 12, 2019 a. Attachment C- 1 Architectural Renderings D. Landscaping Plans, dated 05/21/2019 E. Civil Plans, date 08/05/2019 F. Draft Development Plan 27 G. Survey H. Parking Analysis I. Environmental Impact Report J. Wildlife Mitigation Plan a. J-1 Wildlife Mitigation Plan updated August 7, 2019 K. Wetland Delineation Report L. Geologic Hazards Analysis M. Geologic Hazards Memo N. Rockfall Hazard Study O. Traffic Impact Study a. 0-1 — Traffic Engineer Capacity Memo P. Site Photos Q. Public Comment R. Wildlife Biologists Recommendations 28 Vicinity Map - Booth Heights Neighborhood 3=� '.I Fronl age Rd e R 06/20/2019 8:47:19 AM ❑ Town Boundary ❑ Parcels 1:7,644 0 400 800 1,600 ft 0 120 240 480 m County of Eagle, Bureau of Lend Management, Est, HERE, G.rmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS, Eagle County Tex Assessor Department Web App BUllderfor ArCGIS Veil GIS, Eagle County GIS, ERWSD I Veil GIS, Eagle County GIS I Eagle C ... ty Tex Assessor Department I Arthur Meersl Schm.... -&A... dates- Nicholas L.mplhs l ArthurMeers(Colorado CGS/DNR) I Federal Emergency M ... gement Agency I Veil GIS I County of Eagle, Bureau of Lend Management, Es-, BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MAY 289 2019 Development Team Applicant Michael O'Connor Triumph Development West, LLC 12 Vail Road — Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 Project Architect Mike Foster Triumph Custom Homes, LLC 12 Vail Road — Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 Landscape Architect Sandi Gibson Outside L.A. Boulder, CO Steamboat Springs, CO Civil Engineer Matt Wadey Alpine Engineering, Inc. 34510 Highway 6 — Unit A9 Edwards, CO. 81632 Environmental Impact Review David Johnson Western Ecological Resources 711 Walnut Street Boulder, CO. 80302 Wildlife Consultant Rick Thompson Western Ecosystems, Inc. 905 West Coach Road Boulder, CO. 80302 Traffic Consultant Kari McDowell Schroeder McDowell Engineering, LLC PO Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 Rockfall & Geotechnical Consultant Bill Koechlein Cesare, Inc. 7108 South Alton Way — Building B Centennial, CO. 80112 The Development Booth Heights is an exciting new residential development aimed at creating, maintaining and sustaining community in the Town of Vail ("TOV"). The parcel is the only undeveloped Housing District parcel in TOV. With 73 new homes, the community will make the most meaningful addition to locals housing in the Town's recent history. Triumph Development is under contract to purchase the 23.3 acres East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("EVWHS") located at 3700 N. Frontage Road from Vail Resorts. This purchase contract includes all water rights required for the development. Recognizing both the need for locals housing and nearby critical wildlife habitat, Vail Resorts rezoned the parcel from 23 acres of Two Family Residential to 5.4 acres of Housing and 17.9 acres of Natural Area Preservation set aside for wildlife, thereby consolidating development onto less than 25% of the overall parcel. This application proposes to develop the 5.4 -acre "Lot 1" of the EVWHS in conjunction with wildlife enhancements and conservation on the 17.9 -acre "Tract A". The latter will be one of the most significant wildlife enhancement projects in the history of the Town on private property. Booth Heights, in keeping with the purpose of the underlying Housing District, will be a mixture of rental and for -sale homes with more than 70% of the square footage built as Employee Housing Units ("EHUs") and 30% of the GRFA built as market -rate homes that will generate the financial subsidy needed to develop the neighborhood. To that end, Booth Heights proposes 73 total residences comprised of 42 EHU apartments, 19 EHU townhomes, and 12 market -rate townhomes spread across a total of 11 buildings. The apartments are all 830 square foot two- bedroom homes with surface parking. The townhomes will be a mix of two and three-bedroom homes ranging in size from 1300 square feet to just under 2200 square feet with one car garages, driveways with two outdoor parking spaces in most cases, and private outdoor space at the rear of most units. Each new home will include ample storage, durable long-lasting and fire-resistant building materials such as cementitious siding and stucco, 30 -year asphalt shingle roofs, oversized low -e glazing windows, R40+ insulation, energy star appliances, and long -cycle interior finishes. The apartments will have separate ground floor storage for bikes and outdoor equipment that are so prevalent among Vail residents. There will also be an outdoor community picnic and barbeque area and low maintenance and low water landscaping. This development application includes all all civil drawings, architectural drawings, landscape plan, and consultant's reports required for approval by the TOV Town Code. The proposed development plan requires no variances from the development standards prescribed by the Housing Zone District. Building height and density (including GRFA) are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Housing Zone District allows parking to vary from the typical parking requirements with a parking management plan. Existin! Conditions The Housing parcel is triangular in shape beginning at a point at the west and grows increasingly deeper to the east. The site is more than 1200 feet wide and 380 feet deep at the east side of the property. The site generally slopes from back to front with the natural grade lower and closer to grade of the N. Frontage Road to the west, gaining elevation above the N. Frontage Road as the site moves to the east. The natural grade of the site is less steep and better accommodates development along its southern boundary. The site is the last significant undeveloped Housing parcel in the TOV. There is a relatively young aspen forest across most of the site, and while this private property is included in Colorado Parks and Wildlife's bighorn sheep and elk winter range area, the aspen forest and proximity to N. Frontage Road severely limits the use of the site by either species according to the consultants' reports included with this application. All required utilities are nearby in the adjacent right-of-way and the applicant has confirmed that each utility has adequate capacity to serve the development. The development will be required to bring water rights to ERWSD and the applicant has these water rights under contract from Vail Resorts. Surrounded by TOV property to the west, USFS property to the north, CDOT right-of-way to the south and the applicant's NAP property to the west, there are no contiguous neighbors that will be negatively impacted by the development. The right of way in the front of the property includes a substantial cut slope and setback of between 46 to 90 feet from the property line to the N. Frontage Road pavement. Detailed Zoning Analysis The Housing District is intended to provide housing development opportunities in the Town of Vail. Due the nature and varying characteristics of employee housing, a housing -oriented zone district was specifically developed and adopted in the TOV Zoning Regulations. The stated intent of the Housing District is to ensure that employee housing is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of Vail residents, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air and open spaces. The district has a limited number of prescribed requirements that are discussed below. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds all of these prescribed requirements. It should be noted that the analysis is based upon the 5.4 -acre housing parcel and does not include the 17 -acre open space parcel. Permitted, Conditional & Accessory Uses The proposed development program for Booth Heights is outlined in the below table. Total Units # Units Livable SF Garage SF Livable SF EHU - Downhill TH A - 2BR 8 1,300 286 10,400 EHU - Downhill TH B - 3BR 7 1,600 286 11,200 EHU - Uphill TH A - 2BR 2 _ 1,300 275 2,600 EHU - Uphill TH B - 3BR 2 _ 2,000 275 4,000 DU - TH B - 3BR 6 1,975 365 11,850 DU - TH A - 3BR 6 2,170 390 1 13,020 Total For -Sale Townhomes 31 53,070 EHU - Multifamily - 2BR 42 830 - 34,860 Total Development Program 73 87,930 % Livable Square Footage as EHU 71.7% With more than 70% of the proposed livable square footage and GRFA at Booth Heights intended as EHUs, the primary use proposed for the neighborhood is the Permitted Use intended in the Housing District. For the market rate Dwelling Units proposed in the neighborhood, the applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning and Environmental Commission as discussed in the Housing District criteria. These Dwelling Units provide the only meaningful financial return in the development of the neighborhood. They will comprise less than 30% of the total GRFA of the neighborhood and will be built concurrent with the construction of EHUs in the proportion allowed by Code. With similar scale buildings, unit sizes and architecture, the Dwelling Units have been designed to be compatible with the mixed -residential neighborhood that will serve a variety of residents. The community amenities such as outdoor and indoor public gathering spaces, laundry and storage are Accessory Uses that are "customarily incidental and accessory" to the permitted EHUs as discussed in the Housing District criteria. Setbacks The required setback in the Housing District is twenty feet (20') from the perimeter of the zone district. All buildings and structures proposed in the plan meet or exceed this setback requirement in all areas. Site Coverage The Housing District allows for a maximum site coverage of 55% of the total site area. The proposed site coverage for Booth Heights is only 38,478 square feet or just 16.4% of the 5.4 -acre Housing parcel as shown on the "Site Coverage Plan" sheet of the application. Landscaping and Site Development The Housing District requires at least 30% of the total site area to be landscaped. The proposed plan for Booth Heights includes landscape areas totaling 136,583 square feet or 58.1% of the 5.4 - acre Housing parcel. Snow Storage The Parking Standards of the Town Code require a minimum functional area for snow storage equaling at least 30% of the total paved area of the site for unheated drives. The total hardscape area of the proposed development plan equals 57,950 square feet and the plan includes more than 22,550 square feet of usable snow storage, or more than 39% of the total paved area, as shown on the "Snow Storage Diagram" of the application Other Development Standards The development standards of the Housing District for lot area, site dimensions, building height, and density control shall be as proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission based on the Criteria for Evaluation that are discussed below. - Lot Area and Site Dimensions — The applicant proposed to develop the 5.4 -acre Housing Parcel as demonstrated on the site development plans. After the Development Application is approved, the applicant intends to subdivide the parcel to create one parcel for the multifamily buildings, and one parcel for the townhome community which will be governed by a Home Owner Association and further subdivided into individual parcels for each townhouse (as generally shown on drawing C3.1). These subdivisions will be completed pursuant to the requirements of the Town Code. - Building Height — The proposed townhome buildings are two -and -a -half stories and the proposed multifamily buildings are three -and -a -half stories, with the half -stories of each building built into the grade of the site. The buildings range in height from 35.5 feet to 51.66 feet. See the "Building Height" sheet of the Application for the calculation of building height for each building. - Density Control — The proposed density for Booth Heights neighborhood is 73 total units with 42 multifamily homes in three buildings, and 31 townhomes in eight buildings. The total GRFA for the neighborhood is 77,327 square feet as shown on the "Site Plan" sheet in the architectural package. If one considers the EHUs as counting towards density/units per acre (in most zone districts they do not) the overall density of the site is 13.5 units per acre. It would be more in keeping with the Zoning Regulations to exclude the EHUs and therefore the resulting density is 2.22 units per acre. Employee Housing Credits The applicant will utilize Sections 12-23-7 and 12-24-7 of the Vail Town Code "Mitigation Bank" for deed -restricted EHUs constructed on the property. As proposed, the application will generate 63,360 square feet of transferable EHU housing credits in a total of 61 EHU units as shown on the application. The project will not create any Employee Housing Credits on the proposed market rate units. Parking Counts, Loading and Parking Management Plan The Housing District, in recognition of the unique nature and characteristics of the employee housing, allows for a reduction in the parking requirements outlined in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations, at the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Section 12-6I-8. This reduction is based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Regulations and is subject to a Parking Management Plan. According to the requirements of the Housing District, two of the demonstrated needs for a reduction in parking may include 1) proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including public transit and 2) limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. The applicant understands that the development of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision must be a fully functional project and that the parking provided must be appropriate for its target residents. Given the project's in -town location and proximity to public transit and walkable access to amenities such as outdoor recreation and Sims Market, the design of the project includes a parking count that the applicant believes will adequately meet the needs of residents, while at the same time minimizing the needs for overly generous parking lots that negatively impact the overall site plan and opportunities for open space utilized by wildlife. The wildlife design recommendations also recommend reducing the footprint of parking to reduce impacts to wildlife (see review criteria below). The parking standards of the Zoning Regulations are a generalist set of standards that prescribe parking by the location and size of development. Parking at locations outside of the Town's Vail and Lionshead Villages fall under a requirement known as Parking Schedule B, which calls for 2 spaces per unit for multifamily units between 500 and 2,000 GRFA feet and 2.5 spaces per unit for multifamily units greater than 2,000 GRFA feet. This standard is applied across the board, regardless of the number of bedrooms, and irrespective of location, proximity to transit or walkability to community services. These parking requirements also do not consider the rapidly changing nature of transit and movement towards public and shared transportation, nor do they recognize TOV's recent efforts to encouraging the use of public transit and minimize the number of parking spaces that need to be constructed in the Town core. The proposed development plan would generate a parking need as outlined by Parking Schedule B as outlined in the table below. This table also includes the parking totals as proposed by the applicant as represented on the "Parking Diagram" sheet included in the application: TOV Code TOV Code Parking Units Units GRFA Pkg / Unit Parking Proposed EHU - Downhill TH A - 2BR 7 1,300 2.0 14.0 EHU - Downhill TH B - 3BR 8 1,600 2.0 16.0 EHU - Uphill TH A - 2BR 2 1,300 2.0 4.0 EHU - Uphill TH B - 3BR _� 2 2,000 2.0 4.0 DU - TH B - 3BR 6 1,975 2.0 12.0 DU-THA-3BR 6 2,170 2.5 15.0 Townhouse Total 31 65.0 94 EHU - Multifamily - 2BR 42 835 2.0 84.0 Apartment Total 4 42 84.0 45 Total 73 149.0 139 Overall the parking provided onsite equates to 1.9 parking spaces per unit or a reduction of 10 parking spaces from code. Further detail on the parking reduction is provided below. In preparing this proposed development plan, the applicant has considered each of the proposed housing types separately. While the for -sale homes have been designed to accommodate the parking needs of permanent residents with adequate resident and guest parking on each home's private property, the parking need for the rental apartment units has been based on the needs of the target residents who will live and work in the Town of Vail with jobs that are accessible by public transportation. Most for -sale townhomes have three parking spaces on private property owned by the residents with one garage space and two outdoor parking spaces per unit. There are also three additional guest parking spaces at the east end of the development. There is a total of 94 parking spots compared to the TOV code need for 65 parking spaces for the townhome portion of the development. The parking plan for the rental multifamily units includes 45 parking spaces for the 42 units. This equates to 1.1 parking space per home and allows every household to have a car. It also will ensure that residents are a self-selecting group whose lifestyle meets the Town's goals for using public transit. Also, because the multiple family units will be rental units, the management of the facility has the ability to restrict parking by leases just as TOV currently does in its leases for other Town -owned workforce housing. Management can price parking to help regulate demand versus a condominium where there is less control over parking for individual units. This parking count is supported by the "East Vail Residential Parking Analysis" letter from transportation consultant McDowell Engineering, LLC which includes information on typical parking demands from apartment communities throughout the country, as well as actual parking counts from the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge community (See Exhibit 1). This analysis indicates that a parking demand for rental multiple family units in Vail is consistent with what is proposed at 1.1 units per unit. One of the great benefits to building housing at the EVWHS is its proximity to the regular public transit on the North Frontage Road. Not only does the project have immediate adjacency to the existing Falls at Vail bus stop, but also proposes to build a new bus stop. In addition, the apartment buildings will include adequate indoor and outdoor storage for bikes. To accommodate and control this parking count, the applicant will implement a Parking Management Plan for the multifamily portion of the development that includes the following specific requirements. - All parking spaces will be numbered and assigned as a dedicated parking space as part of the lease for each unit; - Management will structure leases such that residents will know who is allowed to have a car onsite. Residents allowed to have a car will be required to register their vehicles and parking permits will be required to be prominently displayed in each vehicle; Leases will include prohibitions on parking in both assigned parking spaces and guest parking, and will include penalties and towing for violations; and The property manager will oversee enforcement and facilitate these parking controls. The applicant also recognizes that this parking management solution may limit the pool of potential renters to households with only one car whose lives are conducive to Vail public transit, and in -turn the amount of rent that can be charged. Said simply, the applicant believes and has documented that the proposed parking count strikes a careful balance between the practical needs of its intended residents, especially in light of the changing and decreasing needs for parking that are fast taking hold. Booth Heights is an example of a project that - by virtue of its location, its target demographic, and high quality TOV transit system - can fully function with a reduced parking count. Compliance with the Development Plan Standards and Approval Criteria Because of the nature and characteristics of deed -restricted housing that make development difficult under prescribed development standards, the Housing District was created by TOV to provide adequate sites for deed -restricted residential development. To ensure harmonious development that is in keeping with the Town's development objectives, an applicant may propose development standards, as depicted on a Development Plan, for approval by the Town's Planning & Environmental Commission. According to Section 12-6I-13 of the Zoning Regulations, it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with the six Design Criteria discussed below. Given the environmental focus of the development, we have presented these criteria in a customized order to emphasize the role that the Environmental Criteria have played in guiding the proposed plan. Design Criteria E - Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. Applicants Response: Recognizing the importance of the environmental concerns about the EVWHS, the applicant has commissioned one of the most substantial Environmental Impact Reports ever submitted for a development in TOV. Western Ecological Resource's ("WER") report is included as an attachment to this application (See Exhibit 2). The mitigation plans presented in this application identify all the environmental impacts of the project and the substantial efforts the applicant will undertake to ensure that the development not only protects surrounding wildlife habitat, but also provides one of the most substantial wildlife enhancement projects ever proposed on private property in TOV to create a net increase in quality winter range for wildlife. Design Criteria: Prior to Triumph's involvement in the property, Rick Thompson, a biologist with West Ecosystems, Inc. ("WES") was engaged by Vail Resorts to understand the use of the parcel and surrounding properties by wildlife. As part of this engagement, WES prepared a list of design recommendations that would minimize the impact of development on wildlife. These design recommendations have been fundamental in the creation of the proposed plan. A description of these criteria is included in Section 6.0 of the WES's Wildlife Mitigation Plan (See Exhibit 3) and include the following recommendations: 1. Consolidate the development's impacted area at the front of the parcel and maximize the remaining open space. This includes minimizing parking lots and community open spaces. a. Parking lots, building footprints, and community open spaces have been minimized. 2. Place vehicular access at the west of the site. a. The access to the site is located on the west end of the site. 3. Utilize existing vegetation to the rear, west and front of the parcel as a visual buffer between the development and surrounding wildlife. a. The proposed developed areas of the site are all screened by moderately dense aspen forest on USFS property at the rear of the site. 4. Create a physical barrier between human occupied space and the surrounding wildlife. a. The proposed rock fall protection barrier and wildlife fencing at the rear of the site will create this separation. 5. Maintain east -west access across the rear of the property for wildlife. a. The uphill portion of the rock fall berm, including a clear relatively flat area in front of the berm, will provide this path. 6. Maintain grazing access to the right-of-way in front of the parcel that is occasionally used by bighorn sheep. a. The applicant is not proposing to place any substantial retaining walls or building structures on this western end of the property to allow wildlife continued access through the right-of-way. 7. Minimize outdoor recreation spaces visible from the surrounding open space/winter range. a. The proposed central picnic and barbeque area has been kept to the center of the development to minimize external impacts. Units will not have any private outdoor space facing north and west above the ground level that will be visible to wildlife. Ground level open space will be screened from the surrounding property by a berm and surrounding aspen forests. 8. Create a series of restrictions on residents to minimize their offsite impacts. a. These restrictions are proposed and are discussed in detail in Section 8 of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan and outlined below. The proposed development plan has taken each of these design guidelines into account and the applicant is committed to making these requirements a component of the approvals for the ongoing protection of the surrounding wildlife. In addition to these design criteria, the applicant is also proposing one of the most substantial wildlife enhancements on private property ever undertaken in TOV as outlined in Section 8.1 of the WES's Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Before explaining the details of this enhancement plan, please note that although the 23 -acre EVWHS is part of the bighorn sheep 1800 -acre winter range, the entire parcel is not high-quality winter range for grazing due to a young, encroaching aspen forest that includes living and fallen "jackstrawed" trees that big horn sheep avoid by their nature. As part of this development application, the applicant will clear and enhance 14.6 acres of the NAP parcel to create quality winter range. In addition to this clearing, the applicant will fertilize and cut back the over -mature shrubs that have grown out of the browse range of bighorn sheep to improve the quality and quantity of winter forage. The applicant will also clear and reseed approximately 0.3 acres at the rear of the Housing Parcel for additional forage. In total, 18.2 acres or 78% of the entire EVWHS is being set aside for open space and wildlife, and 14.6 acres of quality winter range will be created on private property that is currently inaccessible and underutilized today. This new land set aside and enhanced for wildlife exceeds the five acres of impacted development area by nearly a 3:1 ratio. The development will commit to keeping this privately -owned property clear of aspens for quality winter range today and into the future. Ongoing Wildlife Protection Criteria: The last component of our plan to protect wildlife is the Wildlife Mitigation Plan that includes various measures that will be put in place 1) during construction (Section 8.2 of the WES's Wildlife Mitigation Plan), and 2) as permanent restrictions placed on the residents of the community (Section 8.3 of the WES's Wildlife Mitigation Plan). The applicant proposes to make these commitments a formalized component of the project's entitlements. Ongoing Wildlife Protection Criteria - Construction During construction, commitments include 1) only performing all significant clearing and mass excavation of the site from April 15' through November 30'; 2) the construction of a physical barrier — either the permanent wildlife and rock fall barrier, or a substantial impervious construction fence — prior to the bighorn winter range period; and 3) clearing and enhancement to the NAP parcel complete before the first winter of construction to create more, quality winter range prior to the first winter that wildlife will be impacted by development activity. Ongoing Wildlife Protection Criteria — Permanent Residents The permanent restrictions on residents include no community gardens, restrictions on pets, significant restrictions on dogs in the community, combined with educational programs to inform residents of surrounding wildlife habitats and the prohibition of access to these areas. These restrictions are bolstered by a series of fines, reprimands for employees, and even eviction from the community for violations. The property's manager and Home Owners Association will be tasked with enforcing these fines for violations, as well as work directly with the TOV to police trespassing onto TOV property to the west and the privately -owned NAP parcel to the East. These specific terms are discussed in Section 8 of Rick Thompson's Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the EVWHS. Wetlands: The final environmental item of note are two small identified wetlands on the development parcel — one an intermittent stream during spring runoff on the western edge of the site, and the other a small collecting area on the eastern edge of the site. Both are small enough in size that there likely will be no remediation required by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Applicant will confirm with the Army Corps that the impacted area is below the threshold for separate mitigation, and if any mitigation is required, it will be done elsewhere on the EVWHS or within a mitigation bank, as required by the Army Corps. The Wetlands Delineation Report by Birch Ecology, LLC is included as an attachment to this report (see Exhibit 4), and is further discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. This applicant's commitment to wildlife protection is a fundamental driver for many elements of the proposed plan. Each of these wildlife commitments will be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Development Plan. Design Criteria B - Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. Applicant's Response: The applicant has prepared a functional development plan for Booth Heights that balances the physical characteristics of the site, the surrounding open space of wildlife winter range, and TOV's substantial need for housing. The details of sensitivity to wildlife are discussed above, but from a development plan standpoint, the applicant will enhance and set aside 17.9 acres of NAP for permanent wildlife protection and open space. All development has been condensed or consolidated onto less then 3.5 acres below the wildlife and rockfall berm to create 0.3 acres of additional open space at the rear of Housing parcel. This development area is the portion of the site with the least amount of natural grade. Pedestrian and vehicular access onto the site will be from the west to work with natural grade and as recommended by WES's design guidelines. The proposed parking configuration, access to buildings, site amenities, and public transportation will meet ADA requirements, as well as emergency access and staging. The applicant has met with the Vail Fire Department on four occasions and modified the site plan to account for the Fire Department's requirements. The functional site plan includes adequate parking for the apartment units at slightly more than a 1:1 ratio, as well as one garage space and two driveway parking spaces at most townhome units. Retaining walls have been kept to a minimum and almost all will be built with boulders that will be gathered onsite. In a few select locations above the parking lot at the trash dumpster for the apartment buildings, an MSE wall that resembles natural stone (similar to those built at Solar Vail and the new West Vail Truck Chain -up) will be built. Each retaining wall is 6 feet in height or less. A substantial earthen berm has been located at the rear of the development to provide a visual and physical separation between the new development and the surrounding wildlife habitat as well as provide for rockfall mitigation. At the west end of the berm, this barrier will transition to a landscape buffer. This berm and landscaping will be augmented by a wildlife fence that includes jump ramps to allow wildlife to exit the site, and prevent residents from accessing the USFS property at the rear of the parcel. This system, along with signage, is designed to keep residents off the nearby critical wildlife habitat. As the EVWHS is located in a rockfall hazard risk area as mapped by TOV, this berm will be designed to match the berm that is located above Katsos Ranch Road and Booth Falls Court. The rockfall hazard condition for the Booth Heights development is much less severe than the conditions immediately to the west. According to the Cesare, Inc.'s rockfall studies commissioned by the applicant, the design criteria for the 12 -foot berm protecting the neighborhood to the west used a 7 -foot rock that would produces 6,800 kilojoules of energy as the basis for design. Due to less severe slopes and further distance from the cliffs above, the studied condition at Booth Heights would only produce a 3,160 kilojoules of energy from a larger 10 -foot boulder. Nevertheless, the applicant is proposing to match the 12 -foot berm above the entire length of the property where buildings are located. See the details of this study in the Geological Hazard Analysis Report prepared by Cesare, Inc (see Exhibit 5). All buildings have an efficient and functional layout. The three small apartment buildings, each with 14 two-bedroom units, are sited to work with natural grade and include a garden level apartment with storage, laundry and indoor community space on the basement level. These slightly taller buildings have been located on the lower, western end of the site so that the rooflines are in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. A community outdoor space and barbeque area has been located next to these apartments to give the residents an outdoor place to gather and share a meal. The townhomes have been located on the eastern end of the site where natural grade lifts the site as much as 50 feet above the frontage road and I-70. The 31 townhomes in eight buildings flank both sides of a cul-de-sac street. No building has more than four units to keep the massing of the buildings at a human scale. All townhomes have adequate parking for the residents and guests with three total parking spaces at the vast majority of units — one in a garage and two in the driveway — as well as adequate room for landscaping islands that are somewhat rare in Vail's townhome communities. These generous building setbacks and front yards with adequate parking will help create an attractive street with a neighborhood's sense of community. Each of the townhomes will have private outdoor space at grade at the rear of the home. Each townhome will have a private deck on the downhill side of each home (facing away from the surrounding wildlife habitat), embracing the 180 degree up- and down -valley views. The proposed development plan is a functional development plan that looks to create a meaningful housing neighborhood that will serve a variety of residents — both renters and homeowners. There are no negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, not only because there are no contiguous neighbors, but also because the applicant is setting aside more than 78% of the site for open space and use by wildlife. No views of other properties will be blocked, and the views of the Booth Creek cliffs and ridges will not be impacted from public roads. With substantial open space dedications and wildlife enhancement, a development layout that is responsive to the site and minimizes its impacted area, and a development program that includes a meaningful number of new units, the applicant believes and has documented that Booth Heights is a model for responsible development on private property. Design Criteria A - Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood. Applicants Response: Due to the unique nature and challenges of building housing in TOV, the Housing District does not include traditional development limitations and offers the applicant the flexibility to develop the proposed combination of housing types. The building layouts are responsive to the site and surrounding topography. The site is not challenged with needing to relate to any immediate neighbors. This said, Booth Heights will be a mix of housing types that are prevalent through East Vail including both walkup multifamily buildings and townhomes. The conscientious decision to concentrate the density into a small footprint and leave substantial open space leads has driven the proposed density of 13.5 units per acre on the Housing parcel and 3.1 units per acre considering the entire EVWHS. It should be noted that in most zone districts EHUs are not counted towards density and in that case the density of the Housing parcel would be 2.22 units per acre or 0.52 units per acre considering the entire EVWHS parcels. Buildings have been spread throughout the site with generous setbacks and open space to provide a human scale that matches or even improves upon the experience of similar townhome neighborhoods throughout East Vail. Set in the context of the surrounding 600 -foot tall Booth Creek cliffs located above the site, the proposed three and four-story buildings are in context with the geography. Buildings are responsive to natural grade and are built into the hillside with a garden level that daylights onto grade, and the second -floor walking out onto grade at the rear. Consistent with the wildlife design recommendations, the units only have private outdoor space on the ground level and on decks above the ground level that face south. The architecture is mountain modern including traditional forms characteristic of Vail, combined with clean lines and architecture. This architecture and material pallet honors but improves upon the vast majority of multifamily residential inventory throughout East Vail and is similar to the Chamonix Vail locals housing project recently built in the Town. The primary fagades are proposed with a mix of stucco, cementitious siding that resembles natural wood, and wood trim to incorporate the new fire-resistant design recommendations of the fire department, as well as long-term durability. These materials are mixed horizontally and vertically to break up the massing of the buildings, and this variation is complimented with adjustments to the size of windows. Roofs are pitched with asphalt shingles and match other residential development in East Vail. The rooflines of each building step to avoid one continuous roofline. The multifamily units have been broken up into three different 14 -unit buildings to match the scale of the neighboring townhomes. The buildings include varying roof lines and walk-up breezeways that further break the massing of the buildings. The townhomes are a combination of two- and three-bedroom units to provide a variety of housing with several different price points that were so popular at Chamonix. This mix of units provides opportunities for a variation in the roof lines and in most buildings, especially the front from of buildings that will be most prominently viewed from the N. Frontage Road and I-70. The scale of all buildings matches or even improves upon the design and architecture of many of the existing development throughout east vail with no more than 4 units per townhome building, and multifamily buildings of a similar scale. No building exceeds the four stories of occupied space established at other residential projects such as the Pitkin Creek Townhomes to the east. With no contiguous neighbors, the Booth Heights development plan is an opportunity for a rare, locals housing project on the last remaining Housing parcel in TOV. Because of its unique location this meaningful housing project can be built without negatively affecting neighbors. The applicant believes that this type of multifamily housing was contemplated when the development potential of the EVWHS was concentrated onto less than 25% of the overall original parcel at the rezoning. With mountain modern architecture that borrows from Vail's architectural traditions and the material pallet seen throughout East Vail, massing that is spread between eleven buildings, substantial setbacks from the street, as well as an appropriate relationship to the surrounding topography — the Booth Heights plans meets the Housing District requirements for architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation that is compatible with the site and neighborhood. Design Criteria C - Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. Applicants Response: The Proposed site plan has been prepared to preserve and enhancing substantial open space and with mitigation efforts to return it to suitable winter range for wildlife. In total, 18.2 acres or more than 78% of the EVWHS is set aside for open space and wildlife. While development impacts have been concentrated into a small footprint, the landscape plan for the developed portion of Booth Heights is both functional and aesthetic. The intent of the landscape design is to have more manicured planting beds adjacent to the buildings, in parking landscape islands, and at the central public gathering and picnic area. Away from these areas the landscaping will be more native in nature. All landscaping will include regionally appropriate species selected to minimize the need for watering. This design approach not only integrates well with the surrounding natural areas, but also reduces the use of natural resources such as water. Trees have been located away from structures as recommended by the Fire Department. Most retaining walls are proposed to be built with native boulders, which will be harvested onsite. In a few select areas, the grading plan requires an MSE wall. Both of these types of walls will be stepped to create opportunities for both formal and informal planting at each level. An earthen berm has been located along the rear of the site to create a physical and visual buffer between the human space and wildlife. A clear corridor on the north side of this berm will allow for wildlife movement east to west across the site. This physical barrier separating human occupied space from open space will be complimented at the west entry with landscaping and trees, and on the east side of the site with the steep natural grade. The plan includes planting this berm with native grasses and aspen seedlings on the downhill portion of the berm. The central feature of the landscape plan is an outdoor gathering space for the entire community including barbeques, picnic areas, fire pit, and pergola. The location of this functional, centralized outdoor space was derived from the WES's design guidelines. We are also proposing to find creative ways to utilize the fire department staging and turnaround areas for resident recreation — with a community patio next to the picnic area at one location and a basketball hoop at the other. All site amenities will be fixed to the ground to prevent them from being moved into these fire department staging areas. The landscaping at each of the townhome units will including planting beds at the front of the townhome buildings between driveways. The rear of each home will include private open space that includes a small patio and plantings. The applicant is also proposing a fence that would be approved as part of the Design Review process that could be building by residents who own a dog to create privately owned outdoor space that would be one of the only areas of the development for the animal to go outside — further protecting the surrounding wildlife habitat. By design, the project does not propose to connect to the informal trails immediately adjacent to the site to minimize impacts to the surrounding wildlife habitat. Likewise, while the site plan is open and inviting to the residents and public, it is not designed to help the residents and public recreate off-site due to the surrounding wildlife areas. The combination of significant natural landscaping, limited but attractive manicured landscaped areas, community focused outdoor gathering and recreating areas, and substantial enhanced open space make the Booth Heights landscape plan both aesthetic and functional. Substantial buffering to the rear, east and west of the site will discourage unwanted interaction with the open space and wildlife. Design Criteria D - A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. Applicant Response: A safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation system that integrates and improves the East Vail public transportation system has been designed for the Booth Heights community. With direct access off the N. Frontage Road and immediate proximity to I-70, Booth Heights will cause minimal impact to East Vail's neighborhood streets. The accompanying Transportation Impact Study by McDowell Engineering, LLC shows the relatively light traffic on the Frontage Road (see Exhibit 6). The development will only generate 290 total trips (145 outgoing and 145 incoming), with only 17 additional peak -hour morning trips and 24 peak -hour evening trips, daily. There is no need for any lane improvements or widening. The vehicular and main pedestrian site access is from the west so as to work with the natural grade. This location allows a gradually sloping driveway that meets the Town's design standards and provides ADA access to the bus stop. It also is the only spot that natural grade would accommodate a 90 -degree driveway entrance at the N. Frontage Road as required by CDOT. The driveway and parking lot is designed to fully comply with the TOV design standards (i.e. width drainage, site disturbance, turning movements, etc.) including emergency access. Due to the substantial length of the driveway, the drive aisle has been oversized to 26 feet to ensure adequate circulation in the event an emergency vehicle is parked in this drive aisle. There are also three fire truck turnaround and staging areas at the request of the Fire Department. Proximity to the East Vail Bus Route is one of the most advantageous aspects of the location of EVWHS for locals housing. With direct access to TOV's public transit system, Booth Heights will cater to residents whose lives are Vail -centric. Recognizing this fact, the applicant is proposing to construct anew bus stop at the west end of the site directly adjacent to the proposed driveway. The proposed design of this new bus stop is a compromise that balances the need for new transit with the desire to maintain wildlife access to the grazing area in front of the site as suggested in the wildlife design recommendation #6 above. TOV Public Works has suggested a desire for new full -movement bus stop that would permit buses to make a 360 -degree movement at the stop that would need to be approximately 50 feet deep. This turnaround would allow a dedicated express bus to service the site if TOV determined that this level of service is preferred. While the applicant understands the operational considerations of Public Works, the wildlife design criteria direct us to preserve wildlife access to and through the right of way in front of the site. Rather than a substantial bus stop, the applicant is proposing to construct a new bus pull off on both sides of the street at the bus stop that will allow the bus to pull out of the main travel lanes. The bus stop will include a standard TOV bus shelter to serve for those waiting to commute into town, as well as a crosswalk that will allow westbound passengers to safely cross the N. Frontage Road. This stop is similar to almost all the bus stops on the East Vail bus route. Public Works also recommended a new pedestrian trail through this right-of-way at the front of the site. As there is not a trail or sidewalk to the west for almost a half mile, this trail would only provide connectivity to the Falls at Vail bus stop. While we are not proposing to build this trail for the same wildlife reasons discussed above, instead we are proposing to build landscape steps for resident leaving the site both to the west and to the east. With the above access and parking configuration, as well as the proposed public transportation improvements, the development plan provides a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. Design Criteria F - Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans The Applicant believes that the proposal is consistent with the following provisions of the Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan, Vail Land Use Plan, 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan, Vail Housing 2027 Plan, and 2018 Open Lands Plan Update: Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan: The Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan is a visioning document that begins with a set of values that outline what is truly important to the community. The plan then details land use and development, parks and recreation, environment, housing, transportation, economy, community and public safety topics, including specific vision statements, long-term goals, and actions and strategies over the next 5 years to achieve those goals. 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 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. Vail Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. The following goals and objectives support this proposal: Chapter H - Land Use Plan Goals /Policies (in part) 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1. 2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Vail Housing 2027 — A Strategic Plan for Maintaining and Sustaining Community through the Creation and Support of Resident Housing in Vail Ten Year Goal: "The Town of Vail will acquire 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027. " Vision: We envision Vail as a diverse, resilient, inclusive, vibrant and sustainable mountain resort community where year-round residents are afforded the opportunity to live and thrive. We take a holistic approach to maintaining community, with continuous improvement to our social, environmental, and economic well being. We create housing solutions by recognizing and capitalizing on our unique position as North America's premier international mountain resort community in order to provide the highest quality of service to our guests, attract citizens of excellence and foster their ability to live, work, and play in Vail throughout their lives. Our strategic solutions and actions result in the retention of existing homes, creation of new and diverse housing infrastructure, and collaboration with community partners. For Vail, no problem is insurmountable. With a consistent, community -driven purpose and an entrepreneurial spirit, Vail will lead the industry in innovative housing solutions for the 21st century. The Town is well positioned financially to undertake this significant challenge. Mission: Maintaining and Sustaining Community "We create, provide, and retain high quality, affordable, and diverse housing opportunities for Vail residents to support a sustainable year round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community. We do this through acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that our residents have a place to live in Vail. " Policy Statement - Resident Housing as Infrastructure "We acknowledge that the acquisition of deed restrictions on homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining community. Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability of homes for residents and recognize housing as infrastructure in the Town of Vail; a community support system not unlike roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and other services of the municipal government. " 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan The purpose of this plan is to define a strategy that consists of measurable goals, objectives, and actions that will help the Town coordinate efforts to achieve the environmental vision of the community. Goal #2 — Energy Efficiency: Reduce the Town of Vail municipal and community energy use by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, in order to effectively reduce the Town's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and impact on global climate change. Goal #3 — Ecosystem Health: Ensure that the natural environment, specifically air and water quality, water quantity, land use and habitat are maintained to current or improved levels of biological health. Goal #6 — Transportation — Reduce the environmental impact of transportation by supporting efforts within the Eagle Valley to decrease total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by commuters and guests by 20% by 2020. 2018 Open Lands Plan Update The entire 23 -acre parcel is listed in the Action Plan of the document as parcel #23 and states thefollowing: Purpose — Protect environmentally sensitive land from development and or mitigate development impacts on environmentally sensitive land. Action —Acquire parcel if not developed by the land owner. If a development application is submitted and approved, work with the land owner to establish a conservation easement on the approximate 17 acres of Natural Area Preservation property, and further mitigate for wildlife and other environmentally sensitive issues on the approximate 5 acres of developable property. Other Information — If the land owner were to decide not to develop this land at their sole discretion, the Town should take steps to acquire the property or work with the land owner to protect the land from development. This approximately 23 acre parcel is within bighorn sheep range and should be evaluated for habitat and rockfall hazards. The parcel had been incorrectly identified as unplatted open space in the 1994 Open Lands Plan. During the process of updating this plan, the land owner was confirmed, and applied for and received approval for subdivision and rezoning of the parcel to approximately 17 acres Natural Area Preservation and approximately S acres Housing. Conditional Use Permit Dwelling units that are not deed restricted are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the Housing Zone District. In addition to the Conditional Use Criteria, there are four use specific criteria that must be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Applicant Response: As detailed in the response to Design Criteria F above, the development of workforce housing is one of the top priorities and objectives of the Town. Allowing the 12 dwelling units without deed restrictions provides a subsidy to allow the development of the remaining 61 units of deed restricted workforce housing. While the number of unrestricted units is just 16% of the total number of dwelling units, the GRFA is 30% of the total GRFA. The proposal, as demonstrated in the sections above, clearly implements the Town's goals and objectives by balancing the need for workforce housing with the mitigation of impacts to the environment. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Applicant Response: As detailed in the responses above to the design criteria, the proposed 12 unrestricted dwelling units will have little additional impact to the issues listed in this criterion. The units are being developed at a density that allows ample separation of buildings to allow adequate light and air. The proposed location of the 12 dwelling units is within the eastern half of the Town and allows for adequate distribution of the population in the Town. The development will bring more ridership on buses allowing the Town's bus system to run more efficiently. The goal of the Town is to have more bus ridership and less cars requiring parking and otherwise impacting the environment. Utilities, schools, and park and recreation facilities within the Town and servicing the site have capacity to accommodate these 12 units. The proposal is consistent with this criterion and has limited impacts on the issues listed. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. Applicant Response: As detailed in the responses above to the design criteria, the proposed 12 unrestricted dwelling units will have little additional impact to the issues listed in this criterion. While the additional 12 dwelling units will generate minimal additional traffic, the North Frontage Road and I-70 have sufficient capacity to accommodate not only these 12 dwelling units but the entire project as evidenced in the Transportation Impact Study provided with this application. The site plan has been developed to allow for code compliant access and allows for adequate traffic flow and maneuverability. Code compliant snow storage areas have been provided onsite so that snow storage is not impacting the street. Pedestrians paths and circulation have been provided throughout the property allowing for multiple routes for access to the street and transportation facilities. The proposal complies with this criterion. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Applicant Response: As detailed in the responses above to the design criteria, the proposed 12 unrestricted dwelling units will have little additional impact to the issues listed in this criterion. The property is zoned Housing Zone District thus anticipating the development of housing on the property. The overall density of the proposal, including the 12 unrestricted units, is 13.5 units per acre if you count EHUs as part of the density calculation. The density, which relates to bulk and scale is consistent with other multiple family developments in the East Vail area. The character of these 12 dwelling units, is consistent with the character of East Vail and compatible with the immediate topography. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Applicant Response: The other factors and criteria that the commission must address are the specific criteria found in the Housing Zone District when considering the addition of unrestricted dwelling units as listed below: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and Applicant Response: These 12 dwelling units are critical to the project and provide a subsidy that allows the project to be constructed. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and Applicant Response: These 12 dwelling units are not the primary use of the property and represent 16% to the total unit count and do not exceed 30% of the total GRFA on the property. C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and Applicant Response: These 12 dwelling units are being developed in conjunction and in proportion to the employee housing. D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Applicant Response: As evidenced from the proposed site plan and architectural drawings and as further described herein, these 12 dwelling units are compatible with the other buildings being proposed and with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Applicant Request of the Planning & Environmental Commission As the last undeveloped, sizeable Housing parcel in TOV, the EVWHS is the most meaningful local's housing opportunity within the Town of Vail today. With 73 new homes, the proposed Booth Heights community will accomplish more than 7% of TOV's 10 -year housing goal as identified in the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan. The project has been designed with sensitivity to wildlife as the fundamental driver in the plan and will include commitments to open space, wildlife enhancement, and ongoing protections for wildlife. Taken in conjunction with TOV's own ongoing wildlife enhancement in East Vail, the development serves as a model project to create much needed housing in an environmentally sensitive manner. In closing, the applicant believes that it has successfully demonstrated compliance with the Development Standards and Criteria for Evaluation for development in the Housing district as illustrated on the proposed plans and through our response to the six design criteria above. Therefore, the applicant requests that the TOV Planning & Environmental Commission approve the development plan for the Booth Heights community. Triumph Devetopment www.triumphdev.cam August 6, 2019 Mr. Chris Neubecker Town of Vail Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Booth Heights PEC and Staff Development Plan Revision Summary Dear Chris, Outlined below please find a description of the plan modifications to the Booth Heights Development Plan Application that we have made based on Staff and PEC review of the plan. A.000 Revised Sheet Index A.002 Program Summary: Revised Program Summary with new square footage and GRFA totals with more than 70% of the total proposed GRFA as Employee Housing Units. Please note that we are proposing the bus stop requested by public works for pedestrian and vehicular safety. See proposed sequence of construction from west to east which will be required to maintain at least a 70% EHU 30% Dwelling Unit split as buildings receive certificate of occupancy throughout construction. A.004 Landscape Coverage: See new landscape coverage tabulations which total 57% of the Housing District Parcel. A.005 Snow Storage Diagram: See new snow storage coverage tabulations including removal of areas above retaining walls. Snow storage areas total 37% as shown with additional potential storage at the southwest corner of the apartment park lot and the far east end of the townhomes. A.006 Parking Diagram: See new parking diagram with parking for apartments increased from 45 to 60 spaces and total spaces increased from 139 to 156 spaces. The ratio for parking at the apartments is 1.43 spaces per unit which is higher than the two most recently developed locals' apartments at Lions Ridge (1.35:1) and First Chair (1:1), and higher than the observed parking usage at several Vail locals' housing complexes as noted in Triumph's 7.22.19 PEC Presentation. At the project level, the development also meets the Town's required parking ratios. These totals are also in excess of what Vail Resorts experiences from its other employees. With this precedent, the applicant believes this parking ratio is more than adequate for a rental project that can be controlled through leases and with a parking management plan. See table below. P. 970.688.5057 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657 Units Units GRFA TOV Code Pkg/ Unit TOV Code Parking Parking Proposed Ratio EHU - Downhill TH A - 21311 8 1,300 2.0 16.0 EHU - Downhill TH B - 31313 7 1,600 2.0 14.0 EHU - Uphill THA-2BR 2 1,315 2.0 4.0 EHU - Uphill THB-3BR 2 1,780 2.0 4.0 DU-TH B-3BR 6 1,950 2.0 12.0 DU-THA-3BR 6 2,110 2.5 15.0 Townhouse Total 31 EHU - Multifamily - 2BR 42 Apartment Total 42 Total 73 65.0 96 3.10 835 2.0 84.0 84.0 60 1.43 149.0 156 2.14 A.007 Lighting Plan: Added light at the new bus stop and included pole height detail. A.009 Building Height Diagram: See revised building height diagram. A.100 through A.102 Multifamily GRFA Plan: See revised garden level basement design that was revised to take into account existing grades and excavation efficiencies. See revised GRFA table with new square footages. A.110 through A.112 Multifamily Elevations: See revised elevations that include steps between Buildings 1, 2 and 3 to account for proposed grade. Elevations include future solar locations on southern exposure. A.200 through A.210 Market Rate GRFA Plan and Elevations: See revised drawings and elevations for revised market rate unit buildings A through C. The size of the market rate units was decreased to make the 70% EHU / 30% Market Rate GRFA splits correct. Added separate GRFA total sheets for Building A, B and C and adjusted square footage totals for the above. Future solar locations on the south facing roofs have been added. A.300 and A.310 Deed -restricted Townhome (Uphill) GRFA Plan and Elevations: See revised drawings and elevations for Building D. The size of the end units were adjusted slightly. The roof color was adjusted to match the other building and the garage door color was changed at the recommendation of staff. Future solar locations on the south facing roofs have been added. A.400 through A.415 Deed -restricted Townhome (Downhill) GRFA Plans and Elevations: See revised drawings and elevations for Buildings E through H. Added separate GRFA total sheets for Building E, F www.triumphdev.com G and H. Garage door color was adjusted at the request of staff. Added a new elevation for unit H which is only three units which was not detailed in the initial submission. Future solar locations on the south facing roofs have been added. A.490 Typical Window Trim Details: Added sheet at the request of staff. A.500 through A.512: Added project level elevations and renderings at PEC's request. A.600 through A.603: Added site sections at PEC's request. A.951 through A.960: Added sheets with dumpsters and bus stop design details. Added a note clarifying all trash for townhomes must be kept the units' garage. C2.0 Site Layout: See revised site layout which includes the relocated bus stop to the option that is preferred by public works at the west end of the site and new parking lot configuration increasing the parking count as discussed above. Applicant has not proposed a path along the frontage road due to wildlife recommendations and lack of paths or sidewalks to the east and the west. C3.0 Grading and Drainage Plan West: Adjusted entrance and added bus stop at the west of the site. Adjusted location of access to the Katsos Ranch Rd. rockfall berm. Added and modified retaining walls at the northeast parking to create perpendicular parking spaces. Adjusted access to the garden level apartments to adjust retaining walls away from the property line and create opportunities to preserve trees. C3.1 Grading and Drainage Plan West: Shifted uphill TH units to the west slightly away from steep grade. Added details on retaining wall grading in the front setback at the landscape stairs to the current bus stop to the east and confirmed that all are less than 3' allowed in the front setback. C4.0 Prelim Storm Sewer West: Adjusted storm drainage routing and plan at the location of the old bus stop. Adjusted storm drainage above the proposed rockfall retention berm. C4.1 Prelim Storm Sewer East: Adjusted storm drainage routing from the TH road. Adjusted storm drainage above the proposed rockfall retention berm. C5.0 through C7.0 Misc. Civil Drawings: Minor adjustments to utilities and construction stormwater plan due to revised building locations. 1-0.0 Existing Tree Removal Plan — Adjusted tree removal plan so that trees outside property lines will not be removed, as well as trees in front of the adjusted retaining walls at Building 2 and 3. www.triumphdev.com L1.0 through 1.2 Landscape Drawings: Adjusted landscaping for revised site plan and bus stop. Added landscape buffering at the northwest corner of the site. Added Landscape buffering at the proposed bus stop. Removal of the wildlife fence at the recommendation of TOV's wildlife biologists. Added note to include native shrubs only in the landscaping of the new rockfall berm. L1.3 Park Enlargement Plan: Replaced gas with charcoal grill. Replaced gas fire pit with casual seating area. L1.4. Adjusted plant types including trees and grass seeding types based on staff recommendations. www.triumphdev.com Triumph Development www.triumphdev.com To: Town of Vail PEC From: Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development West RE: Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan with TOV Biologist Recommendations Date: August 9, 2019 This memo serves to outline the process and outcomes that resulted from the Town of Vail's review of the Booth Heights Wildlife Mitigation Plan. This review was conducted by Town Staff, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and the three wildlife biologists engaged by the Town of Vail, as well as the applicant and its biologist, Rick Thompson. This discussion was conducted via three meetings of the group on July 19, July 26 and August 5 — with the final results of the review provided to the applicant on August 7. The discussion of the group was comprehensive in nature — focusing first on potential challenges encountered by the big horn herd on its entire winter range and enhancements that can be pursued on public lands, as well as specific design recommendations for the Booth Heights plan and options that would allow the applicant to improve upon its proposed offsite mitigation plan to increase the benefits to the bighorn winter range in partnership with the Town of Vail. In the paragraphs below, Triumph has summarized its support for the recommendations of this roundtable on the steps that can help address the long-term health of wildlife in the Booth Creek vicinity, as well as the components of the applicant's proposed revisions to the mitigation plan based on these conversations (items that are changes to the original proposed triumph mitigation plan are highlighted in green italics). Booth Heights Design Criteria Reducing Potential Impacts: • Development Clustering — Concentrate development onto the front of the Housing Parcel. • Parcel Access — Vehicular access from the west to work with natural grade. • Rockfall Berm — Utilize the rockfall berm as a buffer and physical barrier between wildlife and the new development. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail's biologists, this berm will be screened from townhomes with a row of aspens and replanted with native grasses and forbs that could provide additional sheep winter foraging habitat. This berm will be built in the first phase of construction with final landscaping completed prior to the first buildings' Certificate of Occupancy. • Development Buffer— In addition to the berm, uuu ,anascape screening ar me wesr and north of the driveway to provide additional screening. • Aspen Screening - Utilize the existing aspen forest to the north and west of the site to buffer the development improvements. Setback from the Right of Way — Setback 20' from the property line. The applicant has also adjusted the landscape plan to identify areas that trees can be saved in this front setback and ROW. P. 970.688.5057 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657 • Minimize Internal Parks and Parking -To keep the footprint of development small. • Tree Clearing - along and above the berm to allow east -west wildlife passage. • Do Not Inhibit East West Wildlife Movement at the Right of Way—Applicant is proposing no major cut slope, structures or paths across the front of the site. • Fencing —At the recommendation of the Town's biologists, the proposed fencing has been removed from the initial site plan. CPW has asked to maintain the ability to add a fence at a later date. The applicant proposes that this can be accomplished by granting an easement to the Town of Vail for the installation and maintenance of a wildlife fence at CPW-'s election. • New Bus Stop Location — Wildlife biologists favor using the existing East Vail bus stop and not building a new bus stop as proposed in the application. The Town's Public Works department requests that a full movement bus stop be installed at the site for pedestrian and vehicular safety. The only location where natural grade in the ROW will allow this stop is at location on the west end of the site. Due to the public safety concerns of Public Works, the applicant is proposing this new west bus stop location with landscaping at the rear to buffer the bus stop from the surrounding open space. Wildlife Mitigation Plan Winter Range Enhancement • Conservation Easement on the NAP Parcel —At the recommendation of the Town's biologists, Triumph will commit to placing a Conservation Easement on the NAP parcel prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit. This Conservation Easement will need to retain the right to make certain work on the NAP parcel that facilitates the development of the Housing Parcel, such as ongoing wildlife enhancements, geotechnical monitoring, and possible soil stabilization. • Enhancement on the NAP Parcel — While the CPW and the Town of Vail's wildlife biologists all agree that the NAP parcel is valuable wildlife habitat — particularly for elk, deer, bears, and birds — they concluded that resources should be focused on other higher -quality winter range for bighorn sheep. At the recommendation of the Town's wildlife biologists, Triumph will limit the enhancement of the NAP to pruning of overgrown shrubs to improve winter elk foraging habitat. • Equivalent Wildlife Enhancement on Higher Quality Bighorn Winter Range — The biologist roundtable recommended that treatments and habitat enhancements be focused around prime bighorn sheep ranges that are not on the Booth Heights development site (e.g. Booth Creek cliffs on the east and west sides of Booth Creek TOV and USFS habitat). Triumph will work with the Town of Vail Staff and CPW to identify alternate areas of enhancement that can be pursued by the Town of Vail with funds provided by Triumph as outlined below. This work could be extended onto Forest Service property with USFS permission through a Categorical Exclusion that the Applicant and the Town of Vail will continue to pursue together. As an example, the team identified these areas between the upper and lower band of booth cliffs that have been overgrown with Aspen as shown on the below photo: www.triumphdev.com Construction -Related Minimization Measures • Heavy site construction including clearing, excavation, grading, retaining wall construction, and berm construction will only be performed from June 1 through November 14. The June 1 start date will be reviewed and modified with CPW based on the severity off the winter and availability of other forage and lambing areas. • Prohibit construction personnel from bringing animals onto the site as allowed by law, feeding wildlife, and certified bear -proof trash receptacles for food refuse. • No rock blasting will be performed until July 31 or until peregrine fledging of nearby nests. Wildlife Requirements for Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel to Minimize Human Habitation Relative Impacts Short-term rentals will be prohibited. • No planting of garden fruit/nut bearing trees and bird feeders will not be allowed. • No additional roads or trails will be built on the undeveloped portion of the entire East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision. Social trails will be deconstructed and the neighboring landowner (e.g. Town of Vail) will be notified of the trespassing. • Signage around the property notifying residents and guests of the Important Surrounding Wildlife Area and the prohibition of access to these properties from the site. • Education program for the residents of Booth Heights about the Important Surrounding Wildlife Areas and Wildlife protections incorporated into all leases and HOA Documents. • No outside overnight storage of garbage or trash at the residences. • Implement a weed management program to discourage the growth of noxious weeds. • Prohibition of flying drones on or around the property. www.triumphdev.com • All pets will be prohibited at rental properties, except as required by law. • Pets of guests, families and contractors will be prohibited, except as required by law. • No resident -occupied townhome will have more than one dog, except as required by law. • All livestock, including domestic sheep and goats, are prohibited. • Animals must be under direct control of its owner at all times on a leash of no more than 12 feet (unless the duties of the service animal require it to be unleashed). • The walking of animals within the property shall be confined to the developed areas below the berm. All residents will pick up after their animal. Pets shall not be fed outside. No pets shall be permitted to chase animals. • No animal will be permitted to be a public nuisance, such as excessive barking, as determined by the HOA at its discretion. • Policies and procedures for enforcement and fines as well as education of the residents will be as outlined in detail in the applicant's Wildlife Mitigation Plan and will be documented in the HOA documents and/or residential leases. The applicant also will grant the Town of Vail the ability to enforce these fines on its behalf of the owner and HOA at the Town of Vail's election. Wildlife Enhancement Recommendations to TOV, CPW, and USFS on the 1880 -acre Winter Range • Establish a Colorado Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Special District • Establish a mitigation fund for enhancement and protection of bighorn sheep habitat. Triumph will contribute $100,000 in seed money upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the establishment of this fund and these funds could be used on items outlined below. • Fund a bighorn sheep movement study in cooperation with CPW, USFS, and the proponent to determine how sheep are using the Booth Creek areas. [Possible use of Triumph seed money] • Consider fertilization. It might be wise to do a treatment/control study to determine efficacy of treatments. [Possible use of Triumph seed money] • Treat burn areas with herbicide effective in preventing native vegetation from being replaced by cheatgrass and other noxious weeds post -burn. [Possible use of Triumph seed money] • Encourage CPW to update current CPW sheep mapping to reflect the current distribution and use patterns. • Burn or cut, stack, and burn to open -up aspen woodlands to create and maintain important surrounding wildlife areas. Burning will be most effective and cheapest alternative. Investigate methodologies to allow for prescribed fire. [Possible use of Triumph seed money as discussed above] • Prohibit bike paths and sidewalks along the frontage road in the Booth Creek area. • Work with USFS and TOV to set up a winter closure on the Booth Creek area to prevent human recreation use. • Work with USFS to prohibit dogs year-round on the Booth Creek area. • Cut/maintain winter sheep movement corridors suggested in the 1998 USFS habitat plan. www.triumphdev.com • Consider using salt or other supplements to keep bighorn sheep away from the frontage road and 1-70. During construction of the development and in the event of a severe winter, Triumph will share the cost of feeding the bighorn herd in the immediate vicinity of the Booth Cliffs at the election and direction of CPW. Town of Vail to use its authority as a municipality and property owner to enact and enforce protective restrictions on nearby important surrounding wildlife habitat at appropriate times during the year, including, but not limited to, closing Town property that includes bighorn winter range to access (e.g. the Town property to the west) and assisting property owners with policing trespassing (e.g. the NAP Parcel). www.triumphdev.com PEC Sheet Index A.000 Sheet Index A.001 Guidelines and Map A.002 Program Summary A.003 Site Coverage A.004 Landscape Coverage A.005 Snow Storage Diagram A.006 Parking Diagram A.007 Lighting Site Plan A.008 Lighting Cut Sheets A.009 Building Height Diagram A.100 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.101 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.102 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.110 Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.111 Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.112 Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.200 GRFA Plan- Market Rate TH - Bldg A A.201 GRFA Plan- Market Rate TH - Bldg B A.202 GRFA Plan- Market Rate TH - Bldg C A.210 Building Elevations - Market Rate TH A.300 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (UH) - Bldg D A.310 Elevations - Deed Restricted TH (UH) - Bldg D A.400 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg E A.401 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg F A.402 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg G A.405 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg H A.410 Elevations - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg E/F/G A.411 Elevations - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg H A.490 Window Trim Detail A.500 Site Elevations A.510 Rendering from Internal Street A.511 Rendering from the West A.512 Rendering from the East A.600 Site Section Locations A.601 Site Section A A.602 Site Section B A.603 Site Section C A.900 Unit Plans A.901 Unit Plans A.950 Bus Stop Plans A.951 Bus Stop Elevation & Details A.960 Trash Enclosure BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT C1.0 Civil Notes C2.0 Site Layout C3.0 Grading and Drainage Plan C3.1 Grading and Drainage Plan C3.2 Grading and Drainage Plan C4.0 Prelim. Storm Sewer C4.1 Prelim. Storm Sewer C5.0 Water & Sewer Plan C5.1 Water & Sewer Profiles C6.0 Shallow Utility C7.0 Erosion Control Plan L0.0 Existing Tree Removal Plan L1.0 Landscape Master Plan L1.1 Detailed Landscape Plan - West L1.2 Detailed Landscape Plan - East L1.3 Park Enlargement Plan L1.4 Landscape Enlargement Plan THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 PROJECT GUIDELINES AND GOALS • Optimize the 23 -acre parcel to balance the community's need for housing with sensitive land enhancements to the surrounding wildlife habitat • Build responsibly given the existing site configuration, topography and environment • Create a vibrant and diverse neighborhood that includes both a mix of rental and for -sale housing as well as a variety of desirable and marketable homes for a wide range of residents • Develoo an architecturally attractive community that combines modern design aesthetic and the Town of Vail's design standards in a manner that is attractive and affordable to locals Sc.WV=1,100'-0" U A.001 BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019 C -- m- - - -- 2 Sequence oCorf�tra�tiQrr 2 L 2 L 3 1 s G DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY 6ulldmg ­11 U-1. SF GRFA SF 3 eui1d,12 & 3 - Multihmily EHU uni 6udmEHUu G =""E33 \ \ eeuuiilldtlingg TwhmEHU evi-Tm H' G-TowEHU nh— EHU \ H% 81% ] D% \ euolding Atll U EU4% ] Townhomes Buil ding a -Town homes euiltling C-T—h— welling Units PRODUCTTYPE UNIT QUANTITY M MARKET RATE TH 72 M DEED RESTRICTED TH 19 M DEED RESTRICTED MULTI -FAMILY 42 73 TOTAL UNITS BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO PEC S.b.M III \\ 12 AHOHs12019 SITE PLAN O A.002 Program Summary SITE MAX. OVER BUILDING COVERAGE: TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12 -2 -2 -SITE COVERAGE Site Coverage: The ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building, carport, porte-cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face of perimeter walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or desk shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, decker walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eve, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4) from the Water face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. J SITE COVERAGE PLAN O Scale: V A.003 ® SOObHHEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Site Coverage Plan LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 57 MIN. REQUIRED: 30 OVERALL SITE: 235,036 SF LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 134,464 SF BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 LANDSCAPE COVERAGE PLAN O Scale:l" = 40'-0" A.004 Landscape Coverage Plan IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND SNOW STORAGE REQUIRED SURFACE: 30% OF IMPERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 58,978 SF SNOW STORAGE AREA: .075 SF SNOW STORAGE PROVIDED: 37 SNOW STORAGE DIAGRAM O sale: a=aoa A.005 ® SOOTHHEIGHTSNEIGHBORHOODATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO PEC Submittal 2019 Snow Storage Diagram J PARKINGDIAGRAM O s�aie: a� =aoa� A.006 ® BOOTHHEIGHTSNEIIGHBORHOODATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO PEC Submittal August 2019 Parking Diagram ADJUSTABLE CUTOFF LIGHT POLE KIM LIGFRING -SIDE MOUNTED POLE LIGHT BLACK 20' HIGH DEGREE CUTOFF BOLLARD KIM LIGHTING -BOLLARD LIGHT ®90 BLACK SCONCE KI CHLER- 11250 OUTDOORWALL SCONCE ®GU METALG AY GUN METAL GRAY LIGHTING TYPE QUANTITY • LIGHT POLE 1 • 90 DEGREE 7 CUTOFF BOLLARD W FULL CUTOFF 42 SCONCES AT UNIT AND BUILDING ENTRIES • • • • POLE MOUNTED LIGHT • : • : • : • : 90 DEGREE CUT OFF BOLLARD VVARP9- Ath PisoPsism® REVISED POLE MOUNTED FIXTURE TO BE SI M I JAR TO THE Vandal Rasistand Ballastls REVISED BOLIARD FIXTURE TO BE SI M I JAR TO THE TON ADJACENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLE MOUNTED FIXTURES BUT STANDARD BOLIARD FIXTURE WITH FLAT TOP AND 90 DEGREE - WITH LED TAMPING AND ADJUSTABLE CUTOFF OPTIONS. e.�:e me"�.izm,.gmn,mi ,,,, ,,,, ,: CUTTOFF FINNS. COLOR TEMERATURE TO BE 3000K AND �oxmenonm n ..e, n.. . u COLOR TEMPERATURE TO BE 3000K AND BUCK FINISH. "^ BIACK FINISH. sy.ew^m�e wr..,ree I �„ Zz— all �,,,,,�,•„ PROPOSED POLE FIXTURE (IN BLACK) PROPOSED BOLLARD FIXTURE (IN BLACK) KICHl sga m cK y. BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 PROPOSED WALL SCONCE (IN GUN METAL GRAN •� A V 08 Lighting Cutsheets - -D 10-_ D7 D9 D5 ° 1.5 D3"°'�=_�\ -1.6 1.7 1.8 � � 2.4 D8 C7 2.5 2.6 �D6 1.4 D4 G 1 3.4 -D11, B 3.5 ,__D1� D z 3.6 C6 C5 1.3 ! C4L LC1 1.2 3 1.1� 2.1 H6 2.2 2.3 H7 H4 3.2 Hl � 3.1 3.3 • ,r B _ 0 =G1( G6.1 G7 ;7 B3 SAV' .l B AV �r G4 A6 A5 G1 F8 A4 i2 F 9 Al F6 F4 /,F1 E8 L E9 � E6� F1O E4 F6.1 F5 E/ F7 F3 F2 E1O E2 E6.1 E5 E E3 SITE PLAN O Sc.I. 1" =20'L" A.009 ® BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal August 2019 Building Height Diagram Buildings 1, 2, 3 TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; aflics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as setforth herein shall then be deducted from the calculator of GRFA. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage: (A) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks U nil GRFA(intiexteri of the GRFcontributing pl L wni toGrface to GRFA y�' ��-' Garden - 8,765 sq ft (includes common space) Level 1 - 9,936 sq ft LEVEL 1 a sale: .3" Level 2 - 9,936 sq ft Level 3 - 9,936 sq ft Total = 38.573 so ft GRFA Common Spaces Geduclion GRFA - per TGV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-1 Common Spaces Garden - 3,782 sq ft Total = 3.782 so ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 38,573 sq ft Excluded Common GRFA 3,782 sq ft Excluded Basement GRFA 4,383 sq ft - TOTAL GRFA = 30,408 sq ft GARDEN LEN Scale:118" =V-0" BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_ VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Buildings 1, 2, 3 TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; aflics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as setforth herein shall then be deducted from the calculator of GRFA. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage: (A) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks Unit GRFA (inc. exterior face of the wall) contributing to GRFA Garden - 8,765 sq ft (includes common space) Level 1 - 9,936 sq ft Level 2 - 9,936 sq ft Level 3 - 9,936 sq ft Total = 38.573 so ft GRFA Common spaces Deduction GRFA - per TGV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-1 Common Spaces Garden - 3,782 sq ft Total = 3.782 so ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 38,573 sq ft u ^,�„,„ ^,�„,„ u I I I °,°,m„,v,„° Excluded Common GRFA 3,782 sq ft oo vo LE eg v, Excluded Basement GRFA 4,383 sq ft r r TOTAL GRFA = 30,408 sq ft LEVEL 2 Scale:lR” =11-0” ® PEC Sub 12A August 2019 HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO GRFA Plan — Deed Restricted icted p nulti—1 a I ily Buildings 1, 2, 3 TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation wasx hoop rui ii s. souse 6eoml a.eim snse Garden - 2,819 sq ft (incl. common space) GRFA Calculations .s. xs,sss arns.nnm Mnan.•= 4... atm ..... Level 2 - GRFA Calculations by Building Level 3 - Unit GRFA (inc. exteriortace Nthe Com mon Spaces Getluclion GHFA-Per four Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-1 Buidin 9 1 wall) contributing to GRFA Garden - 4,290 sq ft (incl. common space) Garden - 8,765 sq ft (includes common space) Common Spaces Garden - 3,782 sq ft Level 1 Level 2 - 9,936 sq ft - 9,936 sq ft Total = 3.782 so ft GRFA Level 1 Level 2 - 3,312 sq ft - 3,312 sq ft Level 3 - 9,936 sq ft Level 3 - 3,312 sq ft Total Building GRFA 38,573 sq ft Total = 38.573 sa ft GRFA Excluded Common GRFA 3,782 sq ft Total = 14.226 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 4,383 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 30,408 sq ft Building 2 Garden Garden - 2,819 sq ft (incl. common space) Level 1 - 3,312 sq ft Level 2 - 3,312 sq ft Level 3 - 3,312 sq ft Total = 12.755 so ft GRFA Building 3 Garden - 1,656 sq ft Level 1 - 3,312 sq ft Level 2 - 3,312 sq ft Level 3 - 3,312 sq ft Total = 11.592 sa ft GRFA A.102 ® B00bst2019HHEIGHT5N91H00DATTHEEASTVAILW0RKF0RCEH0U51NG5UBDIVI51ON_VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Buildings 1, 2, 3 BRIDGERSTEEL SHIPLAP PANEL; BURNISHED SLATE STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURI WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" LP SMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTED NORTHWEST FACTO FINISHES"TAHOE" _ '.ST000OWITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISI "STAMPED CONCRE' PORTFOLIO ELUCOI DARK SKY EXTERI01 LIGHT %FS130125-30 BUILDING 03 NORTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" = V-0" BUILDING 01 ® BOOPEC bst2019HHEIGHT5Nmittal 111 \\ 12 91HOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Buildings 1, 2, 3 BRIDGERSTEEL SHIPLAP PANEL; BURNISHED SLATE STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" ELPSMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY FINISHES"TAHOE" _ '.ST000OWITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; "STAMPED CONCRETE" PORTFOLIO ELLICOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 BUILDING 03 EAST ELEVATION Sc.I. 1 R" =V-0" BUILDING 01 WEST ELEVATION S�.Ie:118" =YL" A.111 ® BOObst2019HHEIGHT5N91HOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Buildings 1, 2, 3 BRIDGERSTEEL SHIPLAP PANEL; BURNISHED SLATE STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" ELPSMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY FINISHES"TAHOE" _ '.ST000OWITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; "STAMPED CONCRETE" PORTFOLIO ELLICOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 M BUILDING 02 WEST ELEVATION Scale: 118" =1'-0" BUILDING 01 EAST Scale: 118" =V-0" BUILDING 02 EAST ELEVATION BUILDING 03 WEST ELEVATION Scale: 118" =V-0" A.112 ® BOObst2019HHEIGHT5N91HOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Building A TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathingof the exterior walls i.e. not including exterior wall finishes).Floor area shall include ( 9 but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vau0ed or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a struclare as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis' and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parlang space. Each vehicular parlang space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation sarn..nn.e .....na,=;ia atse� eb. a.eim apse GRFA Calculations i� Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 Unit GRFA (Inc. exterior face of the wall) contributing to GRFA Level 1 - 2,729 sq ft (includes garage) Level 2 - 3,733 sq ft Level 3 - 3,613 sq ft Total = 10.075 sq ft GRFA Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 Scale: tra- = rn- Scale: tra- = — A.200 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome s� IM s u ice= Scale: tra- = rn- Scale: tra- = — A.200 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome Building B TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathingof the exterior walls i.e. not including exterior wall finishes).Floor area shall include ( 9 but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vau0ed or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a struclare as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis' and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parlang space. Each vehicular parlang space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation sarn..nn.e .....na,=;ia atse� eb. a.eim apse GRFA Calculations i� Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 Unit GRFA (Inc. exterior face of the wall) contributing to GRFA Level 1 - 2,729 sq ft (includes garage) Level 2 - 3,733 sq ft Level 3 - 3,613 sq ft Total = 10.075 sq ft GRFA Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 Scale: tra- = rn- Scale: tra- = — A.201 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome s� IM s u ice= Scale: tra- = rn- Scale: tra- = — A.201 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome Building C TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathingof the exterior walls i.e. not including exterior wall finishes).Floor area shall include ( 9 but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vau0ed or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a struclare as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis' and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parlang space. Each vehicular parlang space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation sarn..nn.e .....na,=;ia atse� eb. a.eim apse GRFA Calculations i� Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 Unit GRFA (Inc. exterior face of the wall) contributing to GRFA Level 1 - 2,729 sq ft (includes garage) Level 2 - 3,733 sq ft Level 3 - 3,613 sq ft Total = 10.075 sq ft GRFA Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 Scale: tra- = rn- Scale: tra- = — A.202 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome s� IM s u ice= Scale: tra- = rn- Scale: tra- = — A.202 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome Buildings A, B, C HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING; HEMLOCK FINISH IN DARK STAIN HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING; HEMLOCK FINISH IN CLEAR STAIN; NICKEL GAP EL BURNISHED SL SHIPLAP PANEL; BURNISHED SLATE STUCCO WITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; "STAMPED CONCRETE" MANT EL L—RY DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %P1926658 NORTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1'L" SOUTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1'L" WEST ELEVATION Scale:1R" =Y-0" EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1181, =1'-0" A.210 ® BOOPEC bHHEIGHT0 5une2G9BORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOU51NG5UBDIVI510N_VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Market Rate Townhome ■ Building D TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation .a-- a, cuss worn was•aarn mom �rmun s. .s.xxFw<•N./.....e....... t,ia ats �.em. GRFA Calculations aseim snse UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 2,686 sq ft (includes garage) Level 2 - 3,300 sq ft Level 3 -1,400 sq ft Total Building GRFA 7,386 sq ft Excluded Garage GRFA 1,196 sq ft Total = 7.386 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 1,343 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 4,847 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage -1,196 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.196 sq ft GRFA BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_ VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 LEVEL 3 Scale:118" = V-0" Sc.Ie:118" = V-0" GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Uphill) Building D STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; +� WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" LP SMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY FINISHES "KHAKI" STUCCO WITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; "ELLIE GREY" PORTFOLIO ELLICOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 NORTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1,a" SOUTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1'L" WEST ELEVATION Scale: 118" =Y-0" EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1181, =1'-0" A.310 ® BOObHHEIGHTS uneZ0NEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome (Uphill) ■ Building E TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation aoemmocp *a, s. o.wnz ens•u.oen zwso.wnz 0� ,.s•a..n , soom groan GRFA Calculations UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 2,201 sq ft Level 2 - 3,243 sq ft (includes garage) Level 3 - 1,589 sq ft Total Building GRFA 7,033 sq ft Excluded Garage GRFA 1,100 sq ft Total = 7.033 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 1,100 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 4,833 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage -1,100 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.100 sq ft GRFA sc.l.: 118 =1'-0" Y LEVEL 1 Sc.1.:118" = V -o" A.400 ® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) LEVEL 1 Sc.1.:118" = V -o" A.400 ® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) ■ Building F TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation aoemmocp *a, s. o.wnz ens•u.oen zwso.wnz 0� ,.s•a..n , soom groan GRFA Calculations UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 2,201 sq ft Level 2 - 3,243 sq ft (includes garage) Level 3 - 1,589 sq ft Total Building GRFA 7,033 sq ft Excluded Garage GRFA 1,100 sq ft Total = 7.033 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 1,100 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 4,833 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage -1,100 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.100 sq ft GRFA sc.l.: 118 =1'-0" Y LEVEL 1 Sc.1.:118" = V -o" A.401 ® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) LEVEL 1 Sc.1.:118" = V -o" A.401 ® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) ■ Building G TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation aoemmocp *a, s. o.wnz ens•u.oen zwso.wnz 0� ,.s•a..n , soom groan GRFA Calculations UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 2,201 sq ft Level 2 - 3,243 sq ft (includes garage) Level 3 - 1,589 sq ft Total Building GRFA 7,033 sq ft Excluded Garage GRFA 1,100 sq ft Total = 7.033 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 1,100 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 4,833 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage -1,100 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.100 sq ft GRFA sc.l.: 118 =1'-0" Y LEVEL 1 Sc.1.:118" = V-0" A.402 ® BOOPEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) LEVEL 1 Sc.1.:118" = V-0" A.402 ® BOOPEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) ■ Building H TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation LEVEL 3 aoem mono eu.• �noxn nes• aeon soon aewn LEVEL 2 Scale:118" = V -o" GRFA Calculations UnitGHFA nine. exterior face of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 1,766 sq ft Level 2 - 2,542 sq ft (includes garage) Level 3 - 752 sq ft Total Building GRFA 5,060 sq ft Fxcluded Garage GRFA 825 sq ft Total = 5.060 sa ft GRFA Fxcluded Basement GRFA 883 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 3,352 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage - 825 sq ft GRFA LEVEL 1 Total = 625 sq ft GRFA scale:118"=V-o" A.405 ® PEC Sub HEIGHTS 12August2019 H00DATTHEEASTVAILW0RKF0RCEH0U51NG5UBDIVI51ON_VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Iownhome (Downhill) Buildings E, F, G STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" Z LP SMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY ry. FINISHES "KHAKI" _ STUCCOWITH EXPANSIONS; " MEDIUM SAND FINISH; -_ "ELLIEGREY" PORTFOLIO ELUCOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 NORTH ELEVATION Scale: 118" = Y-0" SOUTH ELEVATION Scale: 118" = Y-0" WEST ELEVATION Scale: ve" =YL" EAST ELEVATION Scale: ve" =YL" A.410 ® BOOPEC bst2019HHEIGHT5Nmittal 111 \\ 12 91HOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome Building H STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" t LP SMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY ry. FINISHES "KHAKI" _ STUCCOWITH EXPANSIONS; " MEDIUM SAND FINISH; -_ "ELLIEGREY" PORTFOLIO ELUCOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 NORTH ELEVATION ScxIe:1R" = Y-0" SOUTH ELEVATION ScxIe: 118" = Y-0" WEST ELEVATION ScxIe: 118" =YL" EAST ELEVATION ScxIe: 118" =YL" A.411 ® BOObHHEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) Grey Stucco wl Reveals Horizontal Lap Siding - Weathered Wood Appearance No Trim Around Windows No Trim At Outside Corners 2" Trim Around Windows 4" Trim At Outside Corners Bridgersteel Shiplap Panel - Vertical Board & Batten Steel Grey Rawhide Siding No Trim Around Windows No Trim At Outside Corners 2" Trim Around Windows 6" Trim At Outside Corners A.490 ® BOOTHHEIGHTSNEIIGHBORHOODATTHE EAST VAILWORKFOiHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO PEC Submittal August 2019 Typical Window Trim Details A.600 SITE SECTION 0 15' 40' A.601 SITE SECTION B 7/3/2019 � 4 0 15' 40' A.602 5U1LD1NG "I' SITE SECTION C 1/3/2019 0 15' 40' A.603 ®® IIIII�jIIjIIiTI1I�I lI1I��lII1V��I1I�IjjIjIII�II�I1I liIII�j!IjII��I1I�I lII1I��ljI1I1�1I1I�I j1IjII�jI�I1l1III�j1IjII�1I1I�I 11I1I��lhI1III�I1I�IlpIjIII lII �1!�C�I�l1 �1Iiy.I,a ji!Il�11l4I�jIj1li1111i "l�l6I�l�1jiij1!lIj11I�Ii1'l�l11iIj111 i111I61111I�11VIiji�1IiEiI�ia�1�11�j.�VI1II1IVIIIII1IIi1I1III1IjI I,1I1i1II�1i1ji� VAIL RESORT MULTI -FAMILY - UNIT PLAN - 830 GSF Scale: veli =kali -� � 111jj��11111jIlj�lill � ;; - ® I��IIIIi�Ij114li1j1111i11�1111111j11111j11111j1111 i11i1111i11i1111i1�1�1111i111i�lill�i�lill�i�lill�i�li � IdliljllGllllli111h!�;i111�11�1pi�lj�. ®�Ij;i�l�l�llil��l�ll�il4�ull�ll�llll�ll�il �� � �®I ■��■ � I 'lll'1'lll'1'I�h1i;;11'�'I Illlllllillllllllll I _ ®® — ® III�IjII�IIIIIIII�Ij�IplVl�lll� 1111111111111111 ■ _r_ ��- ___ ®_! e2 ■ _ _��� �_-� ---1 -- -- --_ —_— __ —__ �_ -- -� � � ' ■..1 11111�I11�11111111111111111111I 1�11�411�11�411�11j1111�11�1111�11�1111�11�111 — 11111, 111111111111111,11 � 1!I14J111111111�4�IIII�111111111j11111111111 1111111111111 �VII�IIII�I�II�I� �III111111111111 I— 111111 �11i11 .. I�Ij�I �Ip4911P111111 11111111 �i11.1i�L,�i11.1i�L1�i — � ��■ � �__h -® _— — �= -=�-. - __- = _- --� � -- 111111111111114 � �11!111!11j1111!11� 1 i�1111111411111141 II�IIII�IIi11111�11�1111�11�1111�11�1111�11�1111�11�11 - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi1111111111 �114�1��11!1�I��Ii11�1��1j11�1��1�11�1��1�11�1�111�11 � �I161�Id61�1164�111h!1!111!111111 — — I�li�lll�4�lll�l�lll. MARKET RATE - UNIT A PLANS - 2,170 GSF SCx10: 118" =1' MARKET RATE - UNIT B PLANS - 1,975 GSF SCx10: 118" =1' A.900 ® BOOTbHHEIGHTS uNEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Unit Plans �IIIIIIIIII ��i�1IIIII�ili4dii!I!I'II'Ii �� � ��� a . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■ —� � — f.. VIII IIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIII!I ■.. _ . .. LEVEL02 LEVEL09 LEVEL03 LEVEL02 DEED RESTRICTED -UPHILL -UNIT A PLANS - 1,300 GSF DEED RESTRICTED - UPHILL - UNIT B PLANS - 2,000 GSF Scale: ve= =1' Sc.I. 118" =1' LEVEL09 DEED RESTRICTED - DOWNHILL - UNIT A PLANS - 1 300 GSF DEED RESTRICTED - DOWNHILL - UNIT B PLANS - 1,600 GSF Scale: ve= =1' Sc.I. 118" =1' A.901 ® BOOTbHHEIGHTS uNEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Unit Plans 1 X 6 RS CEDAR SIDING 2 s L TYPICAL 9' CES 3 2 —8X12 COLUMN 8 X 12 COLUMN w BENCH SUPPORT BOLTED aTO BOTTOM BEAM, 4 X 10 TOP BEAM z TYPICAL OF 3 Z 4 X 12 BENCH SEAT 4 X 6 VERTICAL p'a 4 X 10 BENCH BACK, LAG TO 3" m'19p 12' LL� 13'24X61NNERBEAM '9001 VERTICALS, MITER ENDS TO FIT- d z COLUMNS —4X 10 BENCH BACK LAG SCREW TO VERTICAL DIUS w. Ll CAL 4 X 6 VERTICAL, TYPICAL OF 6 SEE DETAIL FOR LEXAN INSTALL 3T' 4X12 BENCH SEAT TAG O SCREW TO SUPPORTS 21" SUPPORT BRACKETS MILL FROM 5000 RS CEDAR, IS TO BEAM Elw BENCH DETAIL PLAN -SECTION A-A PLAN -SECTION B-B J (n N (n Z) (n [D � W lL SEE DETAIL 2 X 10 RS CEDAF2 ROOF DECK 7 HIGH DEFASPHALT O Z SHINGLES O J � a 0 /.Q SEE DETAIL - BITUTHANEICE ANDWEATHER Z SHIELD Q ELECTRICAL OUTLET WI F- T' EMT CONDUIT (n 2 X 10 RS CEDAF2 ROOF DECK 4X 10 TOP BEAM MIN MITER JOINTS 4X6RAFTER FIXTURE MOUNT LED DGHT MIN (2) i" X 10" LAG FlXTURE SCREWS EACH JOINT RAFTER PLAN ROOF PLAN REFLECTED CEILING PLAN g' = 1'-0" g' _ i,-o,, g' _ 10,S/17 VARIES A am HIGH DEFASPHALT SHINGLES 12 12�U ICEAND WEATHER SHIELD ;u 2 X12 RS CEDAR ROOF DECK LJ' "'X8"LAG, IYRCAL THROUGHOUT k�.I B 4 X10 TOP BEAM 8 X 12 COLUMN 8 X 12 COLUMN 2 X 4 RS CEDAR TRIM 4 X 6 VERTICAL DADO FOR LEXlW 4 X 6 VERTICAL 2X RS CEDAR GLAZING STOP WRROUNDIF 0• A AT 17 0C W133" SSS SCREWS 1 X 6 RS CEDAR SIDING CHANNEL LOCK 'g" CLEAR LEXAN PANEL, l YRCAL 'g" LEXAN SEE BENCH DETAIL 3 OPENINGS EACH SIDE 4 X 10 BOTTOM BEAM 16' axsvERncAL . .... }"X12"ANCHOR ,.. -.. BOLT }5CH 00 PJC .® }" X 12 IAB BOLT 4 THICKENED EDGE JUNCTION BOX COUNTERSUNKY LEXAN GLAZING DETAIL w 2' 6" H CONCRETES LAB 1" - 1' o" J y 4'a 6 ROAD BASE J ELEVATION -FRONT ELEVATION -SIDE 4 wN �� a N w o WP ELECTRICAL OUTLET LIGHT RXTURE c d'EMT 4X6RAFTER Q 0 Z 4 X6 RAFTER w Q 1/2"X 12' LAG SCREW u COU NTERSINKRAFTER O to 4X6 RAFTERS '• X 12" IAG SCREW ONE EACH RAFTER O O COU NTERSINKRAFTER r ONE EACH COLUMN Q 4X10BEAM 7 V6 B Q w 8X12COWMN RAFTER- BEAM CONNECTIONS Z w b _ lro" < N 4X 10 BEAM 0X12COLUMN 8 X 12 COLUMN X LAG SCREW 2 2 EACWITH H BEAM 3"ANGLE„ 2 PER COLUMN OFFSET FOR CLEARANCE PAINT DICK 2 "' X 4" LAG PER ANGLE 4 X 10 BEAM ELEVATION - INTERIORi'XG'J-BOLT COLUMN- BEAM CONNECTIONS 2 PER ANGLE 1" _ 1' o" 105/17 4 COLUMN -RAFTER/SLAB CONNECTIONS 1.. _ .v,m•e 4 - -� VARIES A arli I I I I I I I I S" SPLIT -FACE CMU WALL WITH •4 AT 32' O.G. VERTICAL AND "4 EVERY OTHER COURSE, A-20 COFFEE. SOLID GROUT. I CONIC FOOTING BELOW I 9 1 � I - I I I I I I OVER HEAD GARAGE DOORS BOLLARDS AS SHOWN S" REINFORCED GONG. APRON SLAB COMP SHINGLE ROOFING CLASS "A" ASPHALT SHINGLES ON W.P. MEMBRANE OVER 3/4" SHEATHING OVER I X 12 FASCIA 2X12 ROOF FRAMING - SHINGLE ROOFING S" SPLIT -FACE CMU CLASS "A" WALL WITH •4 AT 32' O.G. TAMKO BLACK WALNUT VERTICAL AND •4 EVERY OTHER COURSE, A-20 COFFEE. SOLID GROUT. S" SPLIT -FACE CMU WALL WITH I AT 32O.C. VERTICAL AND V EVERY OTHER COURSE, A-20 COFFEE. SOLID GROUT. L____- 29'-3 5/8" 51 MIN. SLOPE 10' AWAY FROM STRUCTURE S" x 1'-4" GONG FTG WITH ( •4 CONTINUOUS 1 •4 4'-0" 2" OG. _- -------------------------------------------------- T T rF ________-- �_F________ L- :4__, 16 YARD DUMPSTE4 1 11 RECYCLE j 11 6' WX6'D X45'} 11,, 1, 6 YARD Dl1MPSTEIc I6 YARD Dl1MPSTEgc 6'W X 6'D X 4.5' I6'W X 6'D X 4.5'1 L J L_ L L J I I I I I O O O 17 4 'IPSTER X 4.5' IT Note: Trash enclosurfor the use of apartment buildings only. All TH units will be r uired to store trash in the home's garage. BOOTH HElrxHTS - TRASH ENCLOSURE E300TH HEIGHTS Revision: aan o: Sheet No: Drawn By: MEF /� TRIUMPH, LLC nate: a/05lIm15 ",960 12 Vail Aoad 9Wte 700 V.I. Colorado 81857 Tel: 303-475-4413 Scale: Scale: 3164" =1'-0" Scale: 3164" =1'-0" A.500 ® BOOTHHEIGHTSNE�O IIGHBORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOUSINGSUBDIVISION_VAIL,CO PEC ust Submittal Site Elevations A.510 BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 A.511 BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019 LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN CALE. t' -.a -V REMOVE ASPEN GROVE FOR REMOVE EXISTING TREES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT /DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS /1� ICIi i - �! MA �4 '� REMOVE ASPEN - GROVE FOR WILDLIFE 5 HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS t MPROVEMENTS EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN _ IVB ■ SHEET L0.0 Will 2=8Y 60 F-7 01) LLI LU J� R _ T � '. • �IFACiA SRT w'���TR��T�GpR� �, 354a LANDSCE MASTER PLAN IscAL� r-AP.a-a �<\ SHEET TOV I -,/ a • • • i CJs i i L Z 3 wwww N. LLj • t f, �o. W 410 �.p > U) W vwwsov.+xn� NT-9G�,R .� • -.""� `� I w o r--� ��y RD1f9DCWM6i1H 1195 1`s\ ^-y��L� �7 - I 5.. DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN - WEST suLE r-sa-a LOT 1 MW tilt 7;. A 4 - ------------- DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN - EA SCALE J'-20 0 ,�Jjd SHEET L1.2 IFGErvG / J 51F3 n SIXOK! TRACT A n.A ,�Jjd SHEET L1.2 Wou z zw�o �W�rw �Ow' Q PERMEABLE PAVERS/FIRE ��'�_ DO 2 TRUCK PARKING 2 U w STEEL FRAME W/ WOOD - i w -- ,SLATS TRELLISY BEAR -PROOF TRASH k BIKE RACKS Q RECEPTABLE . I. GRILLS � � MOVABLE PICNIC ',.:. TABLES r EXISTING TREES�'.,r 'TO REMAIN - a� INFORMAL'SEATING. �i<X.iC;iLXX. ' PERMEABLE PAVERS P sN�s ENLARGED PARK PLAN SHEET L1.3 mm mnm PLANE NOTES, 1. Allplacema—1 (AW) h. �rmbe orepde All eae ,J 6e6allel ad 6rdappel o, �rhale,e. AI plain m1-1k=hall k— all ma<_,, _o h, bdap, mord ham wok aid �o< ball oFd,e plain shoud bema.6 o,a-d plamel.rld,'��deh« cele>(aea p e:�adnre aid .oadr,ay) lllbel baweei35' aid 9' P. T... shall �o< be pla�rd eio.� 10 F� m a�y:e.re o...me I'i�e T� plaml�e doll be �ood'i�a<el .rid, alld 'I"ie. Loanlo�:oFall �dl'de:dall berefel'��heFeld p�o,mpla���e. Treeplamel .rid,'��:'eh<ba�ele:.Rll be��mmel m �o ba�deaa belor.9. 3. Gade a6. f,-.ffi-allow. h, p. 6,.,,, �aeear ay Fom n.an�as Gade shall ma �m�..mood, p�of'ile aid baf« of :�rfa,e deb: b�mp� aid d,—: ¢. D—I., > Ball --k—k. -o4—d.ri,k d,e play: do,e 6, .,k., —.16- m d,a<d,e p.opo..d e.d'"" nam dorsa, o, oche eo—anl— doe:.. -41,1'o, p—Id. iesallnio� ad lad:ape elemen— lh'i. p16. 5.Allah,a6 belt Ball beed,e adIk,.Il ap Ry ., --1-1 —1 6. All ah,a6 bel —, Ball be -16d .ri1k ..d bah -16 bane 66- a de,nh of 4". Pee,", and e�wdeo.e ate: doll be -16d .ri1ka3"layeof ah�eldel bah -16e N. -d banie'in paeinial/annud ams. ]. Pnor m'�naallMion of plant mnelal>, aa—k, have 6. ,ompanel or d'—d,el by conarunion anM'ry =hall 6e1ho.,shly .,—roll —.des: shall 6e'—op,o,nel —k.—of Fra (sd> pe 1000 .ware fes of lmd.zape a— , All land.zape(plain ma<—k and 1,—) 11 6e'�el,,.rid, T—, of Voll D., S, -f- Td ed —d ll ha.e d,a6:.ri11 have s dp,o�e aid p —lldd--(p of the ddp ll harem 1 pay 'k— A C'-1., k—AC'-1., shall reify all.1-1l -,11 ... ......... nJ,— A—I beofpl-,.6ol>=611 ,— pddry ore the "m", dde a�el. - Allpla�d�e~"u �mpy.md,d,eTw...�ofvall, e�em��e Sm�dha aid ,pe;F�m�a 11. O ,.4,p �6II 2 y—, of.r.e ad —6, ma�aaen�. Wou z zw�o �W�rw ROOD N/dFA 5185 ...... Id�OFR WALLS SHEET L1.4 Di9UA8N 1AFE%AMING.STAMIG �, CO D 00 = U �¢ Q> ROOD N/dFA 5185 ...... Id�OFR WALLS SHEET L1.4 TO%')N OF ,SAIL -GENERAL NOTES . .... ........ .. ... .......... . . . , .. ..... . 1214711 T' . ..... ... GENERAL NOTES ......... . ... ... . . ..... Z �2 SEINERANDIA—EN-TES n. J, ... . . .. .. 1111, IRI NENTU RNLI N K STRUCTURAL SPECI Fl—IONS . ......... CIVIL SHEET INDEX lITE LA111T 1, 111VE AIIIIALL 111FILE1 — E� IjA­ I -EN 1— .1 1� INLEI 11.13.1 11 ILL11 ITLINI ILM — -1 PROJECT CONTACTS —TE.T T111.11 I-EL1111-T 111- IEL 1 11 L1111111E Al TELT O ­IDE L.A.— 8AIII 111S, 11 -1 ,NIT -INEE1 l 11INE ­11NEE-1. 111 1-1 TIAIFII EIIIIEEI I ID IIET E—EE111.1— KAII 1111 -ELL sIHI IEIEI -111 111- -- 11 111L — T111 IIIIET HOLY CIRCISS ENERGY ONS STRUCTIDN SPECIMATIONG ... . ........ ­. SHEET cl.0 PRELIMINA— NOT FO'R-C NIMRV.M.N nye LEC,END L 1. ...... ...... 1_1 IIIL IIIL ILL co ILI, r — — — - — — — — — — — — — — -_------------ — 0 17r T-1 I ZT, are m J J J SHEET C2.0 --------------------- - ------ --------- - ------------ --- ------- -------- ---------------- ---------- -- - --- --------- ---------- ------------- - ------ - - ------ ------- ------ ----- --- -- ----- - --- ---------------- --- ------------- ------ I- --- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION V, LUM6�Z ZOS ,� z T W0 < 0 Wu z< IL< f-> M 0 ( ) 0 z 0 m < 0� C) SHEET C3.0 �"x, w ;tom �'7 W�zF IT I Ld I -TI W° Q 0 1� -,, b------' \ iVpR IL„oe LeceNo`�� ,., mnowc. sono ______ __ HEE aaoaoso Ma owa a RHa� w.I� /��"� FRS unnio adv ,- � SC3 1T /iyayT FOR CONSTAVCTION\ IVI---C-E—NTERLIIJE 20' HDRZDNTL 1-20 . ..... ------ ----- ----- 7DRPRFILE: z --------- -- PROFILE: DRIVE CENTERLINE (CONT'D) ----- — -------- — -------- ------------- ---------------- 0 FJ 0 _j PROFILE: EARTH kQCKFALL MITIGAT ON BERM VERTIC 1" 20' > Q HORIZON AL 1-20' J o EARTH BERM PROFILE: EARTH ROCKFALL MITIGATION BERM _N RY FRELIMI NOT FOR�ONS�UCTION J I J J NOTE THAT THIS IS THE NEW FILE C3.2 I HAD TO RENAME THE FILE AS PROJECTDOX sHEEr WOULD NOT LET ME UPLOAD - --- _------ ---- __ l �� A_ ---- L.� ••�� xvoawm aa�o�a �,a.�.� wa. f •UNN �X r SHEET C4.0 fl L.� ••�� xvoawm aa�o�a �,a.�.� wa. f •UNN �X r SHEET C4.0 e ,n do i r 1 i uµ .reuuon u�u«o« °s < `�%unP Sru XM`�9 �� ` z l i rcarma • / 0 z �« e ..�• r.°Posy°.a�°<°.�a.�.. w�� "� o .......«wur°�, COw a 0 w , � .. . SHEET C4.1 .4— J J J 1 ->o SHEET C5.0 >0 7 17 E— E- E E- E_EZ_ '77 9 0 W c) w FRELIMIN RY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION z 0 TRACT A w 0 M .4— J J J 1 ->o SHEET C5.0 >0 PROFILE) SEWER SOUTH PROFILE: SEWER NORTH PROFILE: SEWER BACKLOT MP PROFILE: WATER MAIN SCALE: VERTICAL 1"=36 HORIZONTAL 1"=30' PROFILE: SEWER WEST '2EV PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROFILE: WATER WEST WE` U) w I VJ L 0 RIO W 3: IJ W UI I> Q z 0 < M0 0 ly W SHEET C5.1 LEGEND El z ��.C,g_--_`,;__ CONSTRUG'1lON m r A R TRACT ry 77, h / T x '"��` �<• "GTS � - ; _-_,-,�� 4 z J J I SHEET �rUJT6 Rc NG I4 O CS.O W�"o Z 9 T -- [12= �\- 4 \wi 2 i T v0 Z Son AT an _ m ...... x, INSr L / �rv«...r..r...r r.rv..w.r.ro m Irv«, � ware i 1 Err - ,-v 11812 as �,..M. w,o ...... as L.5 IT .ne. SHEET o s„ _ �.,� ..�r��". `a�as�o aa`; �a; k; c7.0 rmm, P.m--...— H.--.,.P.....a DRAFT Booth Heights Neighborhood At the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Approved Development Plan Adopted by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission August 12, 2019 Table of Contents I. Statement of Intent II. Approved Development Plan III. General Information IV. Definitions V. Development Standards A. Permitted Uses B. Conditional Uses C. Accessory Uses D. Setbacks E. Site Coverage F. Landscaping and Site Development G. Parking and Loading H. Additional Development Standards I. Employee Housing Units VI. Open Space/Recreation VII. Development Timing VIII. Amendment Procedures IX. Exhibits 1 Statement of Intent The purpose of the Booth Heights Approved Development Plan is to facilitate the development of the Lot 1 of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision located at 3700 N. Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. Booth Heights, in keeping with the purpose of the underlying Housing District at the Booth Heights Parcel, will be a mixture of rental and for -sale homes with more than 70% of the residential square footage built as Employee Housing Units ("EHU" or "EHUs") and 30% of the residential square footage built as market -rate homes that will generate the financial subsidy needed to develop the neighborhood. To that end, Booth Heights proposes 73 total residences comprised of 42 EHU apartments, 19 EHU townhomes, and 12 market -rate townhomes spread across a total of 11 buildings. The apartments are all two-bedroom homes with surface parking. The townhomes will be a mix of two and three-bedroom homes with one car garages, driveways with outdoor parking spaces, and private outdoor space at the rear of most units. The apartments will have separate ground floor storage for bikes and outdoor equipment. There will also be an outdoor community picnic and barbeque area and low maintenance and low water landscaping. In conjunction with the development of the Booth Heights Parcel, the adjacent Natural Area Preservation will be enhanced for wildlife and set aside for open space through a conservation easement as discussed in the Development Application. The proposed development plan requires no variances from the development standards prescribed by the Housing Zone District. Building height, density and GRFA are approved herein by Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC"). The Housing Zone District allows parking to vary from the typical parking requirements with a parking management plan and parking management plan has been approved as described herein. Development of Booth Heights and the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision is intended to achieve and advance the following goals: o Develop 61 new Employee Housing Units along with 12 Dwelling Units to subsidize the development. o Create a vibrant and diverse neighborhood that includes both a mix of rental and for -sale housing as well as a variety of desirable and marketable homes for a wide range of residents. o Enhance and permanently set aside 17.9 acres of Natural Area Preservation for Wildlife o Build responsibly given the existing site configuration, topography and environment o Develop an architecturally attractive community that combines modern design aesthetic and the Town of Vail's design standards in a manner that is attractive and affordable to locals o Balance the need for resident parking with the Town of Vail's goals for encouraging the use of public transit. 2 Approved Development Plan This Approved Development Plan has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. The Booth Heights Development Plan shall include this document and the attached Development Plan Set as identified in the Exhibits section of this memo (PEC19-0018). III. General Information Booth Heights is to be developed to meet the growing demand for rental and for -sale, deed restricted employee housing in Vail. To that end, a mix of housing product types that are desirable in the eyes of both tenants and home -owners and financially feasible for the developer is the intended outcome of the Booth Heights development. The approved development plan, along with the applicable land use regulations contained in the Town's Zoning Regulations, become the principal governing documents for land use and dimensional requirements and limitations on the property. The development plan shall remain in effect for the life of the development, and may be amended from time to time, as deemed appropriate, as part of an established development review process. The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, in effect at the time of adoption, shall prevail in the event that the Approved Development Plan is silent on a particular requirement. In the event that the Approved Development Plan is in conflict with Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the Approved Development Plan shall prevail. IV. Definitions Approved Development Plan: The set of development plans approved by the Town of Vail PEC on August 12, 2019 entitling development on the Booth Heights Parcel. Booth Heights Parcel: The parcel of land legally described as Lot 1 of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado. Natural Area Preservation Parcel: The parcel of land legally described as Tract A of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado. East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision: The Booth Heights Parcel and Natural Area Preservation Parcels together. Applicant: Triumph Development West, LLC, and its representatives, heirs, successors and assigns. V. Development Standards According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the Booth Heights Parcel is zoned Housing (H) District. The Natural Area Preservation Parcel is zoned as Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District. Development on the Booth Heights Parcel shall be governed by the following development standards: 3 A. PERMITTED USES: Permitted uses for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be those uses identified in the Approved Development Plan as outlined in Section 12-61-2: Permitted Uses, Vail Town Code, including Employee Housing units, open space, and recreation. B. CONDITIONAL USES: Conditional uses for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be those uses identified in the Approved Development Plan as outlined Section 12-61-3: Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, including Dwelling Units. C. ACCESSORY USES: Accessory uses for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be those uses identified in the Approved Development Plan as outlined Section 12-61-4: Accessory Uses, Vail Town Code including parking, recreational amenities, and rockfall mitigation facilities. D. SETBACKS: Setbacks for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be as shown on the Approved Development Plan. E. SITE COVERAGE: Site Coverage for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be a maximum of 39,500 square feet of the total site area. F. LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: Minimum landscaping for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be a minimum of 130,000 square feet of the total site area. G. PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be 156 parking spaces as generally shown on the Approved Development Plan. The Booth Heights Development Plan provides fewer parking spaces than required by the Vail Town Code. As part of this Approved Development Plan, a modification to the number of required spaces is approved, based on the management plan described in the "Parking Counts, Loading and Parking Management" section of the Booth Heights Development Application writeup dated May 28, 2019, and the Parking Diagram with an updated parking count identified on Sheet A.006 in the Booth Heights Neighborhood Development Plan dated August 12, 2019. Parking may be reduced by up to 5% from what is indicated on the Development Plan administratively. H. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 0 In the Housing (H) District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant as prescribed by the PEC, and as adopted on the Approved Development Plan: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. The minimum lot area for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be 5.4 acres. The lot area for the all development and open space enhancements shall be the entire 23.3 -acre East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision. 2. Building height. The maximum allowable building height for the development on the Booth Heights Parcel shall be as demonstrated on the Approved Development Plan. In no case shall the maximum height of any building in Booth Heights exceed sixty feet (60'). Building height calculations shall be determined based upon the stamped topographic survey from Peak Land Consultants dated February 13, 2019 (and stamped by Brent Biggs on February 13, 2019). 3. Density Control Dwelling Units per Acre - A total maximum density of 73 units or 13.6 dwelling units per acre. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) - A maximum of 76,200 square feet of GRFA. EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS The approved Employee Housing Units will be classified as Type IV as identified in Section 12-13-4: Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type, Vail Town Code. The units meet the size and building requirements for EHUs as identified in Section 12-23-3 and 12-24-3 of the Vail Town Code and will utilize Sections 12-23-7 and 12-24-7 Mitigation Bank to generate up to 53,340 square feet and 61 units of EHU credits. VII. Development Timing Development of the Booth Heights Parcel is intended to commence construction in the Spring of 2020 with some potential limited site clearing and grading that would occur before November 15, 2019. VIII. Amendment Procedures Upon adoption, it is recognized that the Approved Development Plan may need to be amended from time to time. As such, amendment procedures are hereby adopted as an element of the Approved Development Plan. Amendments to the Approved Development Plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-61- 11(E) of the Vail Town Code. 5 IX. Exhibits Booth Heights Neighborhood at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Development Application dated May 28, 2019 Booth Heights Neighborhood at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Architectural Drawings dated August 12, 2019 Booth Heights Civil Drawings dated August 5, 2019 Booth Heights Landscape Drawings dated August 7, 2019 East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Environmental Impact Report dated May 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision date May 2019 Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan Memo dated August 9, 2019 East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Wetlands Delineation Report dated February 2019 Geologic Hazards Analysis Report - East Vail Workforce Housing dated February 13, 2019 East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis — Review of Updated Site Plan dated May 24, 2019 Rockfall Hazard Study — East Vail Parcel dated June 19, 2017 Transportation Impact Study for the East Vail Residential dated May 21, 2019 A ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY LOT 1, EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE BO WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.^n^ TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO ���e�.oxxxmrx�e� man ­.o_Tar, _ ` va� roRoa, xoR��o - v ` j \ \M V A' \ 9_-_ m °°n m�xxne •� m ems® R �, _ \ "� moumwm.�x„= w ,Tnu .orm or vui auwsurx..o vui .orm mve .nig .z. ao-a�m z.. w.o-reo a..ee o cei� o rea °x... m w,eonoso u^xex :a ar„ .. oo-n ar aio-.xaa um.x� n -m ---- --- smouei��m ox omo c�'4 .. ,x�E ux� �vm raou coou< <ra.x wra o-axaosuo-n oxer. e 0eppo R[ �r n�aanax xa. xa�.azzs�, xm o-ee� .a aio. o,�rpt B ewumo-m uaa� mo -x nx °eras raau me oo-rz a o-m�uirenw sxoxx xwmx zo�.�a.ae. o -s sxawx xEv�a, omnw, weeonoeo os.eeew �e.:m. ^. wea°non no. orrse�. w xo LNN�. uo-r ren unax ao-so wox wr oeren ix axis sower ae � � .s. wv.u, um. rt� are o-ssswmn a: vuttx a wausox or aesc� vrcwwv w me rra� '+` � xir<x wo-.m rxo srxno-nox oinxim. o -s �xowem w ixnxuumn xrcowm sn�uem +a �'"”' ' x aurc wo svwwAL e.^,ns wv_ xo�e o-. rzaanax xa. rzo�e�se.^. Moi o-ei� .o vion �wi'i�No`'°� SITE ` j \ \M V A' \ 9_-_ m °°n m�xxne •� m ems® R �, _ \ "� moumwm.�x„= w ,Tnu .orm or vui auwsurx..o vui .orm mve .nig .z. ao-a�m z.. w.o-reo a..ee o cei� o rea °x... m w,eonoso u^xex :a ar„ .. oo-n ar aio-.xaa um.x� n -m ---- --- smouei��m ox omo c�'4 .. ,x�E ux� �vm raou coou< <ra.x wra o-axaosuo-n oxer. e 0eppo R[ �r n�aanax xa. xa�.azzs�, xm o-ee� .a aio. o,�rpt B ewumo-m uaa� mo -x nx °eras raau me oo-rz a o-m�uirenw sxoxx xwmx zo�.�a.ae. o -s sxawx xEv�a, omnw, weeonoeo os.eeew �e.:m. ^. wea°non no. orrse�. w xo LNN�. uo-r ren unax ao-so wox wr oeren ix axis sower ae � � .s. wv.u, um. rt� are o-ssswmn a: vuttx a wausox or aesc� vrcwwv w me rra� '+` � xir<x wo-.m rxo srxno-nox oinxim. o -s �xowem w ixnxuumn xrcowm sn�uem +a �'"”' ' x aurc wo svwwAL e.^,ns wv_ xo�e o-. rzaanax xa. rzo�e�se.^. Moi o-ei� .o vion �wi'i�No`'°� EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 1 Town of Vail Attn: Tom Kassmel 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 May 21, 2019 Re: East Vail Residential Parking Analysis — Affordable Housing Apartments Vail, Colorado Purpose: This memorandum was developed to give a recommendation forthe affordable housing apartments being proposed as part of Triumph's East Vail Residential development project. The recommendation is based upon two methodologies. Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) parking demand data Local parking rates at comparable apartment complexes National Parking Rate: The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation Manual' states that the average peak period parking demand for a mid -rise apartment (Land Use #221) is 1.31 vehicles per dwelling unit. The statistic is given based upon the 9516 Percent Confidence Interval for a nationwide study of 73 apartment complexes. The 951h Percent Confidence Interval indicates that there is a 95% likelihood that the parking demand will fall within 1.26 to 1.36 parking spaces per unit. These rates were taken in general urban/suburban multifamily complexes throughout the United States. These complexes do not necessarily have the same access to transit, employee workforce, and restricted workplace parking that the East Vail Residential residents will likely experience. The Parking Generation Manual does not specify the number of bedrooms for the multifamily units, but given the broad range of studies, it is anticipated that the individual studies contained a mix of 1, 2, and 3 -bedroom units. The statistical analysis on this data set is considered good with a low coefficient of variation of 17%. Observed Local Parking Rate: As stated in the Parking Generation Manual, "The quality and quantity of parking demand data vary significantly by land use code. The Parking Generation Manual should be considered only the beginning point of information to be used in estimating parking demand. Local conditions and area type can influence parking demand. The wide array of data in the manual blends many site conditions and may not best reflect a particular local condition. Therefore, a survey of a site in a comparable local condition should always be considered as one potential means to estimate parking demand." Therefore, local data provides a more accurate representation of parking for Vail's local workforce housing. The Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments in Vail have similar characteristics to the proposed residential apartments. They primarily serve work force housing, have similar amenities, and have direct access to Vail's transit system. The site is located within walking and bus proximity to recreation and 1 Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edi ion, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2019 CDOWELL TENGINEERING«C RANSPORTATION ENSINEERINO CONSULTANTS EAGLE 9 BROOMFIELD * GRAND Juxc7 ION 970.623.0788 • MCDOWELLENG.COM amenities. Residents of both properties typically have restricted workplace parking. The East Vail Residential development is proposing to have managed parking, like the Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments. The design team performed observations at the comparable Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments on Thursday, February 28 and Friday, March 1, 2019. The data collection included the total number of parking spaces and number of parked cars. It snowed overnight on February 28, therefore there was evidence of vehicles that had been parked onsite overnight but had been moved before 7:15am. These vehicles are included in the overnight count data. 'Data was collected onsite February 28 and March 1, 2019. zit snowed overnight. Therefore, several spaces had evidence of cars parked overnight that had left before the 7:15am data collection. The observed parking rate was 0.73 vehicles per unit in the evening and 1.06 vehicles per unit overnight. Overall, it was observed that the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartments have excess parking, as not all the available spaces were utilized overnight. Proposed Parking Rate: The parking rate for this facility is best determined by using local parking data. Triumph Development is proposing to provide 44 parking spaces for 42 affordable housing apartments. This equates to a parking rate of 1.05 per unit. This rate has an insignificant difference to the observed Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge parking demand of 1.06. Therefore, with proper parking management, it is anticipated that a parking rate of 1.05 spaces per unit will be adequate for the proposed workforce housing facility. Please call if you would like any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, McDowell Engineering, LLC Kari. McDowell S hroeder, PE, PTOE Traffic Engineer CDOWELL ENGINEERINGuC ■ TgAMCPOOTATION ENOINCCOINO CONSULTANT■ EAGLE . BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 • MCDOWELLENGCOM Observed Parking' Name Units (du) Parking Spaces Evening Overnight 3/1/2019 @ 2/28/19 @ 6:15pm 7:15am7 Cars Parked 153 189 Evidence of Overnight Parking N/A 33 Open Spaces 94 25 Timber Ridge and Lions Total Parking Spaces 247 247 Ridge Apartments 210 Vail, CO Total Parking Spaces Per Unit 1.18 Observed Parking Rate per Unit 0.73 1.06 'Data was collected onsite February 28 and March 1, 2019. zit snowed overnight. Therefore, several spaces had evidence of cars parked overnight that had left before the 7:15am data collection. The observed parking rate was 0.73 vehicles per unit in the evening and 1.06 vehicles per unit overnight. Overall, it was observed that the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartments have excess parking, as not all the available spaces were utilized overnight. Proposed Parking Rate: The parking rate for this facility is best determined by using local parking data. Triumph Development is proposing to provide 44 parking spaces for 42 affordable housing apartments. This equates to a parking rate of 1.05 per unit. This rate has an insignificant difference to the observed Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge parking demand of 1.06. Therefore, with proper parking management, it is anticipated that a parking rate of 1.05 spaces per unit will be adequate for the proposed workforce housing facility. Please call if you would like any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, McDowell Engineering, LLC Kari. McDowell S hroeder, PE, PTOE Traffic Engineer CDOWELL ENGINEERINGuC ■ TgAMCPOOTATION ENOINCCOINO CONSULTANT■ EAGLE . BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 • MCDOWELLENGCOM EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 2 East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Eagle County® Colorado prepared for: Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657 preparedby. Western Ecological Resource® Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Environmental Impact Report East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Eagle County, Colorado Signature Page prepared for. - Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657 prepared hy.. Gv� David Johnson, kre ident Western Ecological Resource, Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80302 May 2019 Table of Contents Section / Title Page .0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Existing Environment.....................................................................................................................1 2.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................1 2.1.1 Surface Water.....................................................................................................................1 2.1.2 Groundwater.......................................................................................................................1 2.2 Atmospheric Condition..............................................................................................................1 2.3 Geology & Hazards................................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 Geology..............................................................................................................................2 18 2.3.2 Geologic Hazards...............................................................................................................3 2.4 Soils...........................................................................................................................................3 2.5 Vegetation Resources.................................................................................................................4 18 2.5.1 Vegetation Types................................................................................................................4 19 2.5.2 Federally Listed & Species of Concern................................................................................4 2.6 Wildlife Resources.....................................................................................................................5 2.6.1 Habitats Present and Project Setting.................................................................................... 5 2.6.2 Focal Wildlife Species of Concern......................................................................................6 2.6.3 Other Wildlife Groups......................................................................................................12 2.7 Noise....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.8 Odors...................................................................................................................................... 17 2.9 Visual Resources......................................................................................................................17 2.10 Land Use...............................................................................................................................17 25 2.11 Access & Transportation........................................................................................................17 2.12 Population.............................................................................................................................17 25 3.0 Proposed Project.........................................................................................................................17 3.1 Buildings & Parking.................................................................................................................17 3.2 Natural Area Preservation........................................................................................................17 3.3 Access & Traffic.......................................................................................................................1 7 3.4 Utilities....................................................................................................................................18 3.5 Bus Station...............................................................................................................................18 3.6 Drainage Plan..........................................................................................................................18 4.0 Impacts & Mitigation...................................................................................................................18 4.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 18 4. 1.1 Surface Water................................................................................................................... 18 4.1.2 Groundwater..................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Atmospheric Condition............................................................................................................18 4.3 Geology & Hazards.................................................................................................................18 4.3.1 Rockfall & Debris Flow..................................................................................................... 18 4.3.2 Existing Landslide............................................................................................................. 19 4.4 Soils.........................................................................................................................................19 4.5 Vegetation Resources...............................................................................................................20 4.5.1 Vegetation Types.............................................................................................................. 20 4.5.2 Wetlands...........................................................................................................................20 4.6 Wildlife Resources...................................................................................................................20 4.6.1 Focal Wildlife Species of Concern....................................................................................22 4.6.2 Other Wildlife Species and Groups...................................................................................24 4.7 Noise.......................................................................................................................................25 4.8 Odors...................................................................................................................................... 25 4.9 Visual Resources......................................................................................................................25 4.10 Land Use............................................................................................................................... 25 4.11 Access & Transportation........................................................................................................ 25 Table of Contents (continued) Section / Title Page 4.12 Population.............................................................................................................................26 5.0 Cumulative & Long-term Effects and Irreversible Environmental Changes...................................27 5.1 Hydrology...............................................................................................................................27 5. 1.1 Surface Water...................................................................................................................27 5.1.2 Groundwater.....................................................................................................................27 5.2 Atmospheric Condition............................................................................................................27 5.3 Geology & Hazards.................................................................................................................27 5.4 Soils.........................................................................................................................................27 5.5 Vegetation Resources...............................................................................................................27 5.5.1 Vegetation Types..............................................................................................................27 5.5.2 Wetlands...........................................................................................................................27 5.6 Wildlife Resources...................................................................................................................27 5.7 Noise.......................................................................................................................................28 5.8 Odors...................................................................................................................................... 28 5.9 Visual Resources......................................................................................................................28 5.10 Land Use............................................................................................................................... 28 5.11 Access & Transportation........................................................................................................ 28 5.12 Population.............................................................................................................................28 6.0 Figures.........................................................................................................................................29 7.0 References...................................................................................................................................46 Appendix A. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Correspondence — Background Estimates for Air Pollution in Project Site.............................................................................. Al -A2 Appendix B. IPaC Resource List................................................................................................. 131-1310 List of Figures Number / Title Page Figure1. Project Location Map..........................................................................................................30 Figure 2. Aerial View of Project Site..................................................................................................31 Figure3. Wetland Map......................................................................................................................32 Figure4. Geology Map......................................................................................................................33 Figure 5. Official Rockfall Hazard Map.............................................................................................35 Figure 6. Potential Debris Flow Channels..........................................................................................36 Figure7. Landslide Map....................................................................................................................37 Figure 8. Important bighorn sheep seasonal ranges in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel..................38 Figure 9. Active peregrine falcon nesting cliff complex and surrounding 0.5 -mile buffer...................39 Figure 10. Elk winter range in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel.......................................................40 Figure 11. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area) .............................41 Figure 12. Proposed Development Plan............................................................................................42 Figure 13. Typical Sections — RockfalI Barrier....................................................................................43 Figure 14. Wildlife habitats affected on and adjacent to the 5.4 -acre East Vail parcel ........................ 44 Figure 15. Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Enhancement......................................................................45 List of Tables Number/Title Page Table 1. Ambient Air Concentration Estimates.....................................................................................2 Table 2. Federally listed and proposed animal species that may be affected by the East Vail Workforce Housingproject......................................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. USFS sensitive animal species that occur on the WRNF and the rationale for potential project effects related to the East Vail Workforce Housing project.........................................................13 Table 4. Proposed East Vail Residential Trip Generation Analysis.....................................................26 Table 5. Population Projection..........................................................................................................26 Technical Reports and Supporting Documents Used to Prepare the EIR TR -1. Preliminary Subsurface Exploration, East Vail Housing Rock Mitigation and Geotechnical Study Prepared by William H. Koechlein, P.E., Senior Consultant, Cesare, Inc., 7108 South Alton Way, Building B, Centennial, CO 80112, November 14, 2018. TR -2. RockfalI Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel Prepared by Julia M. Frazier, P.G., Senior Geologist, Cesare, Inc., 7108 South Alton Way, Building B, Centennial, CO 80112, June 19, 2017. TR -3. East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis — Review of Updated Site Plan Prepared by Julia M. Frazier, P.G., Owner, Skyline Geoscience, Golden, CO, May 24, 2019. TR -4. Wetland Delineation Report, East Vail Workforce Subdivision Prepared by Heather Houston, Owner, Birch Ecology, LLC, 429 Main Street, Lyons, CO 80540, February 2019. TR -5. Wildlife Monitoring Report for the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel Prepared by Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, CO 80302, August 2018. TR -6. East Vail Peregrines — 2018 Nesting Attempt to Date Prepared by Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, CO 80302, June 18, 2018. TR -7. Booth Heights Neighborhood at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision — Architectural Plans Prepared by Triumph Development, 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657, June 10, 2019. TR -8. East Vail Housing —Civil Plans Prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc., 34510 Hwy 6, Unit A9, PO Box 97, Edwards, CO 81632, February 21, 2019. Revised May 22, 2019. TR -9. Transportation Impact Study for Triumph Development's East Vail Residential Prepared by Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE, McDowell Engineering, LLC, PO Box 4259, Eagle, CO 81631, February 14, 2019. Revised May 21, 2019. TR -1 0. Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the East Vail Workforce Housing Project Prepared by Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, CO 80302, May 2019. 1.0 Introduction Triumph Development has plans to develop a subdivision on a triangular-shaped undeveloped 23.3 - acre land parcel located immediately north of the East Vail Interstate 70 (1-70) Interchange in the town of Vail, Colorado. The project purpose is to build a new multi -family community and preserve and enhance wildlife winter range. The East Vail Workforce Subdivision would be developed on 5.4 acres on the west end of the parcel, which is zoned H for Housing. The 17.9 acres to the east, which is zoned NAP (Natural Area Preservation), would be preserved and enhanced for wildlife. The triangular-shaped project site is bordered by the White River National Forest (WRNF) to the north and east. Fall Line Drive and North Frontage Road form the southern boundary. A retaining wall with wooden beams extends along a portion of the southern project boundary. The Pitkin Creek Townhomes are located near the southeast corner of the project site. Specifically, the project is located in the southeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 4 South, Range 80 West of the 61" P.M. See Figures 1 and 2. The 23.3 -acre undeveloped project site is located on a south -facing slope that ranges in elevation from a low of 8374 feet on the west end to a high of 8940 on the northeast end of the site. The site has slopes that range from 7 to over 45 degrees. However, the slope of the proposed development area is less than 30 degrees. The elevations of the proposed development area on the west end of the project site range from a low of 8374 feet to a high of 8532 feet. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as per Town of Vail's Chapter 12 Environmental Impact Report Guidelines, describes the existing environment of the project site, presents details of the proposed development plan, evaluates potential impacts and mitigation, and assesses cumulative, long-term and irreversible environmental change associated with the proposed development. Numerous technical reports prepared for the proposed development were used to prepare the various sections of this EIR. These reports are referenced in the text and are available as separate attachments to this document. 2.0 Existing Environment 2.1 Hydrology 2.1.1 Surface Water The west end of the project site is bisected by a 2 -foot wide and 68 -foot long ephemeral stream which conveys snowmelt and stormwater runoff to a 24 -inch culvert located south of the project boundary. This culvert conveys the water south toward Gore Creek. See Figure 3. The perennial Pitkin Creek is located in an incised drainage east of the project site and the perennial Booth Creek is located in a drainage west of the project site. See Figure 1. The area upslope of the development parcel contains a network of erosional drainage channels that convey water from snowmelt and precipitation events toward the project site. See Figure 6. 2.1.2 Groundwater Cesare, Inc. (2018) excavated nine exploratory pits up to 10 feet deep throughout the development area of the project site. None of the pits encountered groundwater. See Technical Report 1 (TR -1). However, soil saturation is present near the surface in a small wetland seep located along the east boundary of the development parcel. See Figure 3. 2.2 Atmospheric Condition The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) provided data on the estimated ambient air concentrations of six air pollutants for the East Vail Workforce Subdivision project site (Chick, 2018). See Table 1. Please note, local air monitoring data do not exist for Vail, Colorado; therefore, Ms. Chick developed best estimates for the general geographic area using available CDPHE data. The analysis concludes that the estimated levels of carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead are below state and federal standards for these pollutants for the area of the project site. The undeveloped project site does not generate any gaseous or particulate pollutants. See Appendix A. Table 1. Ambient Air Concentration Estimates East Vail Workforce Subdivision, Vail, Colorado Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Estimate Data Source Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour Second 35 ppm 2 ppm Grand Junction, Maximum 2015-2017 8 Hour Second 9 ppm 1 ppm Maximum Ozone (03) 8 Hour Fourth 0.070 ppm 0.064 ppm Glenwood Springs, Maximum Feb - Dec 2015 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour 99" 0.075 ppm 0.012 ppm RM Steel Print Shop, Percentile Pueblo, 2013 - 2015 3 Hour Second 0.05 ppm 0.008 ppm Maximum Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Mean 0.053 ppm 0.005 ppm Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015 1 Hour 98' 0.100 ppm 0.0333 ppm Percentile Particulate Matter Less 24 Hour Second 150 ug/m3 40 ug/m3 Glenwood Springs, Than 10 Microns (PM10) Maximum Feb - Dec 2015 Particulate Matter Less Annual Mean 12.0 ug/m3 5 ug/m3 Glenwood Springs, Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) Feb - Dec 2015 24 Hour 98th 35 ug/m3 13 ug/m3 Percentile Lead Rolling 3 -Month 0.15 ug/m3 0.006 ug/m3 Denver Municipal Average Animal Shelter, 2009 Data provided by Nancy Chick, Environmental Protection Specialist, Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. See AppendixA. 2.3 Geology & Hazards Cesare, Inc. (2017) describes the geology and geologic hazards of the project site in the Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel, which is appended to this report. Skyline Geoscience's Geologic Hazard Analysis (2019) also documents the geology and the geologic hazards. The geology and geologic hazards described below are taken from these reports. See TR -2 and TR -3. 2.3.1 Geology The site is underlain by surficial units comprised of artificial fill, colluvium, landslide deposits, and till of the Pinedale glaciation. See Figure 4. The artificial fill is associated with the construction of Fall Line Drive along the southern project boundary. The bedrock underlying with site is mapped as the Minturn Formation (Kellogg and others, 2003; Kellogg and others, 2011). Landslide deposits cover most of the central portion of the project site, and colluvium occurs along the north project boundary. The western end of the project site where development would occur is characterized by the Lower Member of the Minturn Formation and includes conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, shale, and may contain granite. The eastern end of the project site is characterized by the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation, which is comprised of marine limestone and dolomitic limestone. 2.3.2 Geologic Hazards The Town of Vail's official Rockfall Hazard Map (Figure 5) shows that all of the project site is mapped as a High Severity Rockfall Zone. Vail's official Debris Flow Hazard Map identifies debris flows in the town of Vail, but not on the project site. However, the geologic hazards addressed in the Geologic Hazard Analysis (Skyline Geoscience, 2019; TR -3) include debris flows, rockfall, and an existing landslide on the project site. Cesare (2017) states that rock outcrops, a rockfall source zone, occur upslope of the project site and have the potential to impact the site and the proposed development. The stability of the rock mass is generally influenced by the underlying support provided by the 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 the 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 of the project site contain fractures and thin layers of siltstone and shale. As time passes, cracks can be enlarged by weathering of the rock, accumulation of soil and vegetation growth, and the forces associated with freeze -thawing of moisture within the cracks. According to Skyline Geoscience (2019), there is the potential for debris flows at the site. Review of a detailed terrain surface derived from the LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and of aerial photographs of the project site and surrounding area indicates the potential for debris flows. Incised channels with seasonal flowing water are present on the west side of the site (the development area) and on the slopes above, are evidence of active erosive processes. An intense, prolonged precipitation event or rapid snowmelt has the potential to trigger a fast-moving, hyper -concentrated debris flow. Modifications to the existing natural condition my increase the debris flow susceptibility. See Figure 6. 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. Cesare mapped the extent of a large landslide which originates upslope of the project site and encompasses most of the eastern portion of the project site, but does not extend into the development area. See Figure 7. The Gore fault, located about 500 feet northeast of the project, is not considered to be active. See Figure 4. 2.4 Soils Soils at the project area have not been mapped by either the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) nor the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Three soils onsite were described to about 20 inches in depth for the wetland delineation which was conducted on October 24, 2017. The upper horizons of these soils were dark colored (organic rich), fine -loamy, probably deep, and formed from slope alluvium and colluvium derived from sedimentary rocks. The Millerlake soil, which has been mapped by the USFS nearby at Vail Mountain Resort, matches the soils on the project site. The Millerlake soil commonly supports aspen stands, much like those on the project site. The MiIIerlake soil belongs to the fine -loamy, mixed, superactive, Pachic ArgicryolIs family. It is very deep (greater than 60 inches), well drained, and formed from slope alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks. Runoff is medium to rapid, permeability is moderately slow, and available water holding capacity is moderate. Typically, the surface layers are very dark or dark brown loam and clay loam at least 16 inches thick, and below that is clay loam and loam. In the project area, the soils likely have some rocks in the deeper profile. 2.5 Vegetation Resources 2.5.1 Vegetation Types The project site is characterized by an Aspen Forest (Pooulus tremuloides) with a variable density of aspen and two small wetlands. Aspen Forest. The Aspen Forest is classified as a Quaking Aspen /Saskatoon Serviceberry— Mountain Snowberry / California Brome ftpulus tremuloides / Amelanchier alnifolia — Symohoricaroos oregohilus/Bromus carinatus) Forest (NatureServe, 2019). The aspen trees in the area of the landslide (Figure 7) have been impacted by Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) and thus, there is considerable standing dead as well as trees on the ground. The Aspen Forest in the area of the proposed development has not been impacted by SAD. The aspen trees in this area are young, healthy and dense. See Figure 2. The woody understory vegetation in this habitat type is typically characterized by serviceberry, snowberry, and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Other shrubs observed include mountain maple (Acer glabrum), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate var. vaseyana), mountain mahogany (Cercocarous montanus), and common juniper (/unioerus communis sso. alnina). Elimination of the overstory trees due to SAD and perhaps some management activities that cut aspen has resulted in an increase in the cover of the shrubs and herbaceous species. The understory shrubs have been heavily grazed by big horn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Common herbaceous grasses in this habitat type include California brome, blue wildrye (Elymusglaucus), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa ,oratensis). Characteristic forbs include meadowrue (Thalictrum fend/erii), geranium (Geranium vikoissimum), sweet -cicely (Osmorhizae berteroi), fireweed (Chomerion angustifolia), American vetch (Vicia Americana), little sunflower (Heliantella uniforma), and peavine (Lathyrus so.). Wetlands. As illustrated by Figure 3, there are two small wetlands on the project site. The eroded channel of the 2 -foot wide ephemeral stream, which bisects 68 linear feet of the west end of the project site, is classified as a wetland. This wetland extends south off the project site for 24 linear feet to a culvert which diverts water south and under 1-70 toward Gore Creek. However, there is little wetland vegetation along the creek channel. A 705 ftz woody wetland occurs along the east side of the development parcel. However, only 377 ftz of this wetlanc occurs in the development area. Major plants in the wetland include willows (Salix bebbiana, S. scouleriana), dogwood (Cornus sericea)and honeysuckle (Distegia involucrata). The herbaceous understory includes a sparse cover of beaked sedge (Carex utriculata), cow parsnip (Herac%um snhondylium ssn. montanum), and monkshood (Aconitum columbianum) (Birch Ecology, 2019 — TR -4). 2.5.2 Federally Listed & Species of Concern The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2019) Information for Planning & Conservation (IPaC) website identified Ute ladies' tresses orchid (S,oiranthes diluvia&), classified as a Threatened plant, as potentially present in the project region. See Appendix B. The Ute ladies' tresses orchid is endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial streams (USFWS, 1995; Jennings, 1990). In Colorado, the elevational range of known Ute ladies' tresses orchid populations is between 4,528 and 7,753 feet (CNHP, 2017). This orchid prefers sites with permanent sub - irrigation such as floodplains where the water table is near the surface throughout the growing season and into the late summer or early autumn (USFWS, 1995; Jennings, 1990). The orchid frequently colonizes early -successional riparian habitats including point bars, sand bars, and low lying gravelly, sandy, or cobbly edges. These preferred habitat characteristics suggest that this species requires early to mid-seral riparian habitats created and maintained by streams active within their floodplains (USFWS, 1995). This plant has been documented as present in Garfield and Eagle Counties (near Carbondale). The project site is elevationally above the range of this plant, and furthermore, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for this plant. 4 Harrington penstemon, a species listed as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management, is a species of concern in Eagle County. This herbaceous perennial plant occurs primarily in open stands of big sagebrush, or less commonly in pinyon -juniper (Pinus edu/is/uninerus scgnu/orum) woodlands or mountain mahogany (Cercocarnus montanus) shrublands at elevations between 6,800-9,200 feet. Within the sagebrush shrubland, Harrington penstemon is often present on windswept ridgetop habitats with an open shrub layer and reduced vegetative cover. There are known populations of Harrington penstemon in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties (Spackman, et al., 1997). There are populations of Harrington penstemon in the Eagle River Valley from as far east as Avon. However, the aspen community on the project site does not provide habitat for this plant. 2.6 Wildlife Resources 2.6.1 Habitats Present and Project Setting 2.6.1.1 Habitats Present The south -facing, 23.3 -acre, East Vail parcel consists of several seral stages of an aspen and mountain shrub community. The 5.4 -acre development area is dominated by relatively young, pole -stage (30- 35 ft. tall) aspen with a mountain shrub (largely chokecherry and serviceberry) understory. A moderate gradient ephemeral stream bisects the western end of the parcel. The 17.9 -acre NAP portion of the parcel supports a 14.0 -acre, over mature mountain shrub community with sparse sapling aspens and a moderately dense graminoid and herbaceous understory, along with a 3.9 -acre, over mature, but regenerating aspen stand with a dense chokecherry understory. Circa 1998, there was some undocumented management effort on a portion of the NAP parcel's now mountain shrub community in response to the mortality of the former mature aspen stand. Jackstrawed aspen remain on the ground covering a moderate portion of the open space. 2.6.1.2 Characteristics Currently Reducing Wildlife Effectiveness on the East Vail Parcel Some wildlife species using the 5.4 -acre development parcel are negatively affected by existing levels of surrounding development and human activity. The following conditions affect current on-site and off-site wildlife use and will limit, to some extent, the additional, negative, potential development effects to wildlife. 1-70, North Frontage Road and Fall Line Drive The parcel's southern boundary is located as close as 122 feet from the westbound lanes of 1-70, one of the major ground transportation corridors across the United States. Locally, 1-70 consists of two westbound and two eastbound lanes with a posted 65 mph speed limit and supporting an average daily traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles (2017).' The East Vail Interchange and the west -bound on and off ramps are located on the opposite side of North Frontage Road from the parcel. There is virtually no location on the parcel where the sights and sounds of 1-70 use are non -discernable 24/7/365. The current average daily traffic volume on the North Frontage Road is approximately 2,200 vehicles per day (vpd) (K. McDowell Schroeder, McDowell Engineering, pers. comm. May 23, 2019) that are greatest during dawn through dusk. Most local wildlife have adapted to this relatively benign and predictable activity. The most acute North Frontage Road and Fall Line Drive traffic effects on wildlife are the harassment effects to bighorn sheep that occur when motorists stop to view sheep when they are close to or on the road. Human Recreation There is a level of daily recreational use that occurs along North Frontage Road and Fall Line Drive, some of which extends into the proposed development area, generally via the Booth Creek rockfall berm road and buried electric line corridor. Uses, in order of decreasing frequency, include dog - walking, hiking, jogging, biking, motorcycle riding, and transients camping. This unauthorized use of the parcel occurs year-round, but is greatest from spring through fall when not curtailed by ' CDOT Station 103028, monitoring traffic between the Vail and East Vail interchanges. Data from the CDOT website (http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/TrafficData#ui/2/1/1/station/103028/criteria/070A/175/181/true/true/) accessed Jan. 23, 2019. excessive snow depths. Year-round, low to moderate numbers of primarily hikers also pass by the parcel's eastern flank on the Pitkin Creek Trail extending into the Eagles Nest Wilderness. Fire Suppression and Habitat Deterioration The East Vail parcel is located within an approximate 1,800 -acre polygon of bighorn sheep winter range that extends along the south -facing slopes, north of 1-70. Over the last 20-30 years, aspen forest has encroached onto the East Vail parcel, as it has elsewhere in the local area. While mature aspen stands support some of the highest wildlife diversity values of any local vegetation type, they provide poor quality winter range for the local bighorn sheep herd, which has declined in number over that same time period. Sheep also consider forest stands as restrictions due to their need to visually observe the landscape for predators (e.g., bears, coyotes, mountain lions, dogs, etc.; USFS, 1998). Mature aspen stands have died and fallen, creating jackstrawed deposits of logs that restrict and block sheep and elk movements through the winter range. Lastly, mountain shrubs have become decadent and much of their nutritious foliage has grown out of the reach of wintering ungulates. In 1998, the CDOW and USFS recognized that there was an increasingly limited amount of accessible winter forage (quality and quantity) and nearby escape terrain for sheep in the vicinity of project area (USFS, 1998). By suppressing wildfires on this winter range, the aspen and shrub components had become over mature and in need of vegetative treatment. The USFS (1998) proposed a habitat enhancement plan whose specific purposes were to (1) create a movement corridor (through downed aspen) for the bighorn sheep to be able to travel from Pitkin Creek west to Spraddle Creek, (2) reduce the fuel loading to lessen the risk of wildfire, (3) regenerate shrubland and aspen stands that were over mature, and (4) improve the quantity and quality of forage (shrubs, grass, forbs) for big game (sheep, elk, and mule deer). What is now the East Vail parcel was one of the USFS's proposed treatment areas. In 1998, the sheep population was estimated at approximately 125 animals (USFS, 1998). Without implementation of the habitat enhancement plan, the USFS (1998) predicted that aspen stands would continue to age, disease and insect infestations would increase, and the stands would die. Dead and down timber would further restrict big game movements to winter foraging areas and escape terrain. The aspen and aged shrub communities would not regenerate. The shrub component (vital for wintering ungulates) would continue to mature, die, and be replaced by grasses and forbs. Grass/forb communities that are covered by deep snow are largely unavailable to wintering ungulates. Lastly, the USFS (1998) predicted that without enhancement there would be fewer bighorn sheep as a result of continued habitat degradation. The enhancement project was approved, but not implemented because of community opposition to the use of fire (B. Andree, CPW, Jan. 23, 2018). Although there have been two small scale habitat enhancement projects below the Booth Creek cliffs and on the East Vail parcel, the overall sheep winter range has deteriorated as predicted. Over the 2017-2018 winter, Thompson (2018c) detected a total of 41 sheep largely confined to a small non -forested subset of their former winter range. Availability of effective winter range is arguably the greatest threat to the East Vail sheep herd. 2.6.2 Focal Wildlife Species of Concern 2.6.2.1 Bighorn Sheep Colorado Parks and Wildlife Seasonal Range Mapping Figure 8 shows the important 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 (± 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. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has not defined the winter range period for this herd. Based on CPW's generic definition and considering winter range dates for other big game species, average sheep winter range occupancy could be defined, on average, as November 15 to April 15 (dates inclusive). Sheep are present on portions of their winter range (i.e., below the Booth Creek cliffs) outside this period because of illegally -placed salt and mineral blocks. Al 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. For example, "much this this sheep herd was killed off" during severe winter conditions in 2007-2008 (B. Andree, CPW, Vail DWM, pers. comm., Jan. 18, 2018) and the herd has been unable to rebound from that winter die -off (Andree, 2017). The sheep winter range and SWR polygon boundaries are not accurate. In the spirit of the mapping, the polygons were likely intended to extend southeast to the treeline along Pitkin Creek and down to the north side of North Frontage Road. This would include most, if not all, of the East Vail parcel, although, based on the winter sheep study (Thompson, 2018c), only 0.25 acres of the parcel were used for winter foraging. There is no I-70 game fencing in the vicinity of the parcel. Sheep likely used the habitat in what is now the Booth Creek residential area as winter range. Sheep no longer enter the interior of that development and only use peripheral areas when no people are initially present. The winter range and SWR polygons are approximately 1,800 acreS2 and extend west from Pitkin Creek 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. Two Booth Creek homes located 107 and 177 feet below the rockfall berm that is heavily used by sheep in winter give some indication of sheep tolerance of nearby residences. Winter concentration area (WCA) 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. Two WCA polygons occur within the winter range, neither overlapping the East Vail parcel, but habitat effectiveness of the nearest polygon could be influenced by residential development and habitation on the parcel. Bighorn sheep production area is where sheep Iamb. 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 Booth Creek 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 8 is actually used for lambing and most lambing likely occurs farther up the Booth Creek drainage. The effectiveness of production areas could be affected by free -ranging dogs and recreation. A bighorn sheep migration pattern is a subjective indication of the general direction taken by migratory ungulate herds. In the study area, bighorns move downhill on the ridge between Pitkin and Booth Creeks during fall towards their winter range, then move uphill and follow this same general route in spring to their alpine summer range. The bighorn mineral lick shown in CPW mapping (not shown in Figure 8) is defined as a natural site known to be utilized by bighorn sheep for obtaining minerals to meet basic nutritional needs. That lick was mapped in the wrong location. There are two licks (unknown if natural or otherwise) at the top of the rockfall berm cut slope that have been so deeply excavated by the sheep that large rocks forming the tops of the shallow caves are inevitably going to fall. Up to three sheep have been observed under the rocks at one time (Jun1418). If there are sheep under the rocks when they fall they will be killed. Three females in a herd of 41 are important. The Town of Vail (TOV) and CPW are aware that the rocks should come down before they kill sheep and they plan to act when it is safe to do so. There are also mineral and salt blocks that have been illegally deposited by well-meaning z This is a much larger acreage of winter range compared to the approximate 573 acres of winter range mapped by the CDOW in 1995 (CDOW mapping, Sep. 1995) and the <500 acre estimate provided by USFS (1998, p. 1-5), (1) when the entire winter range polygon was contained between Pitkin and Booth Creeks, but where an additional 900 acres of habitat to the west was considered suitable, but unreachable due to dead/down aspen that the sheep would not cross, (2) when the sheep herd was near its peak size of 125 animals (USFS 1998), and (3) shortly before the CDOW and USFS proposed enhancement of approximately 800 acres of winter range to counter fire suppression effects (USFS 1998, p. 1-4). Severe winter range was not designated for the East Vail herd in 1995. This 1,800 -acre number is an update from the 1,880 -acre number used in Thompson (2017 and 2018c). It was derived from updated sampling where measurements ranged from 1,784 to 1,880 acres. 7 sheep enthusiasts.' Whether natural or otherwise, such licks are particularly important for pregnant and lactating ewes. Results of the East Vail 2017-2018 Winter Sheep Study The full East Vail Winter Sheep Study report (Thompson, 2018c; TR -5) is summarized below. The October 13, 2017 to June 14, 2018 wildlife study was primarily designed to detect and characterize winter bighorn sheep use on and in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. The study employed five trail cameras (4 on the East Vail parcel, including 3 overlooking the development area, and 1 below the eastern Booth Creek cliffs), winter tracking, and binocular and spotting scope surveys of the 1,800 -acre sheep winter range polygon. Winter severity4 affects spatial and temporal, winter, big game use patterns. Compared to the last nine years, winter 2017-2018 was below average for total snowfall (-35%), total snowfall days (40%), and mean base snowfall depth (-12%), and above average for maximum base depth (+3%). Shallower and less persistent snow in the East Vail project area over the 2017-2018 winter should have allowed sheep to use higher elevation habitats, more forested habitats,' and a larger portion of their winter range than during average and harsher winters. In total, 93 sheep were detected on (n=50 sheep on 3 days) and in the immediate vicinity (n=43 sheep on 2 days) of the 5.4 -acre East Vail development area during winter 2017-2018. This includes 75 animals detected by trail cameras and 18 animals detected by observational surveys. Virtually all foraging on and in the immediate vicinity of the parcel occurred on the smooth brome cut slope above the Frontage Road, most of which is on the CDOT ROW. The south -facing cut slopes above the Frontage Road are non -forested and steeper than the aspen forest portion of the development area, resulting in shallower depths, less persistent snow, and more favorable foraging opportunities. Use of the aspen forest composing the majority of the parcel was limited to escape routes on two occasions. A single sheep was also detected travelling through the NAP portion of the parcel in May, outside the winter period. The distribution of 847 bighorn sheep sightings over the course of the study was mapped in relation to the East Vail parcel and CPW's sheep winter range, severe winter range, and winter concentration area polygons. No sheep sightings were made outside of CPW's winter range polygon. That 277 - acre sighting distribution included the 625 sheep recorded by all trail cameras and 222 sheep visually observed during the study. Fifteen percent of CPW's 1,800 -acre winter range polygon was used during winter 2017-2018. That distribution represents a spatial subset of overall habitat use over the relatively mild 2017-2018 winter. That may be a function of (1) CPW's polygon reflecting many winters of sheep use, including the 1990's when the herd was at peak numbers (125 sheep, USFS, 1998; 80-100 sheep, B. Andree, CPW, 2017, pers. comm., Jan. 18, 2018), compared to the present population of 41 sheep, (2) sheep now using the highest quality habitat available, (3) sheep avoiding forested habitats, and (4) sheep restricted from some portions of their winter range by jackstrawed I ogs. Sheep were at lower elevations within their overall winter range polygon and used southwest- and south -facing aspects that had the best snow -shedding characteristics, even though it was a mild winter. The cluster of sheep sightings and trail camera results below the Booth Creek cliffs suggests that area ' Who are apparently unaware that their actions are to the detriment of the herd. The sheep's attraction of the salt blocks prolong sheep use of their winter range, well into spring and even summer, putting additional pressure on the vigor and quantity of forage that should be reserved for winter, in a landscape that has deteriorated as a result of wildfire suppression. Concentrated, prolonged, and predictable sheep use of salt blocks may also attract mountain lions that prey on sheep. Not only might the use of salt blocks result in greater sheep predation, but it might also become necessary to kill the lions for public safety. 4 Winter severity is generally an interrelated function of snowfall (standing depths, persistence, and crust presence) and temperature. It only takes one storm with adverse conditions to present severe conditions that may kill big game. 5 Which support deeper and more persistent snow depths than non -forested habitats, all else being equal. is the most heavily used and most important block of winter range within the overall winter range polygon. Four occasions of time lapse images of sheep foraging in the high quality habitat below the Booth Creek cliffs indicated that sheep appeared to select against foraging far into transitional aspen habitat. This "avoidance" behavior was more likely related to the quality, quantity, and availability of forage than to predator detection. Environmental factors explain the greater sheep use of the high quality, mountain shrub -dominated winter range below the Booth Creek cliffs, compared to that on the East Vail parcel. However, all sheep winter range is important, particularly considering the amount of high quality habitats lost to human developments and aspen encroachment. The entire East Vail parcel should be considered sheep winter range. While sheep may use various parcel habitats differently over multiple years, they can access all portions of the property, and that use contributes to the functionality of the overall winter range. With respect to minimum herd size and composition, the maximum number of sheep observed during the study at any one time was 39. Based on sex and age composition of sheep observed over the course of the study, the herd was composed of at least 10 Iambs, 21 ewes, and 10 rams, totaling 41 sheep. The highest number of Iambs seen at any one time was 10 on January 25 and March 14. The 2017, 10:21 Iamb: ewe ratio (0.48%) indicates relatively high productivity. There was no detectable overwinter Iamb or other sheep mortality. Coincident with June 14, 2018 peregrine monitoring, a minimum of 7 Iambs and 12 ewes were observed at the licks on the cut slope above the rockfall berm. Assuming that there was no mortality in the herd since the end of winter, the herd numbered 48 animals at that time. Based on that 2018 productivity, knowing the minimum number of ewes in the herd, and other assumptions, the herd likely numbered at least 53 sheep at that time. The East Vail sheep herd exhibited good productivity in 2017 and 2018. Results of a Meeting with Colorado Parks and Wildlife A May 14, 2018 meeting was held between VR and CPW representatives to discuss the East Vail Workforce Housing project, after the sheep winter range study (Thompson, 2018c) had ended. All biologists agreed that the issue of potential development on the 5.4 -acre parcel related to sheep was not the loss of habitat on the parcel as much as the potential for impacts (i.e., displacement and reduced habitat effectiveness on nearby winter range) from East Vail parcel residents recreating in the high quality sheep winter range below the Booth Creek cliffs and in the NAP area where winter range enhancement is expected. Some mitigation concepts/measures were discussed along with the development of a comprehensive Wildlife Mitigation Plan that covers the entire affected wildlife community as part of the Environmental Impact Report. 2.6.2.2 Peregrine Falcon A cliff south of 1-70's East Vail Interchange has been used in recent years for peregrine falcon nesting. The cliff is located 0.36 miles from the closest point on the East Vail Parcel, on the opposite side of the Frontage Road, 1-70, East Vail Interchange on/off ramps, the East Vail Park and Ride, Vail Trail, Gore Creek, a social trail, and the East Vail Memorial Park. The nest ledge used in 2018 was approximately 600 vertical feet above the valley bottom. Colorado Parks and Wildlife's nesting area polygon is defined as the area that includes good nesting sites and contains one or more active or inactive nest locations (Figure 9). 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. 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. Generally, 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 can become extremely agitated and may abandon the nest site if disturbance occurs during courtship, prior to the initiation of egg laying. Once birds have eggs or young, they have a strong fidelity to their invested resources. The CDOW (2008) recognized that "some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity at a proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests." 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. Peregrine nest cliffs are, therefore, sensitive to disturbance from approximately late February to late June. 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. Annual (2011-2017, n=5 yrs.) cliff monitoring by Anne Esson (a long time Vail resident) indicated that the pair(s) successfully fledged at least two birds during each of the five years. Monitoring of the nest cliff in 2018 indicated that the nesting attempt failed approximately 19 days after incubation was expected to have started (Thompson, 2018b; TR -6). It is unknown why the 2018 nesting attempt failed. Construction of a new sanitary water line on the south side of I -70's East Vail Interchange and the falcons selecting a different nest ledge on the cliff in 2018, compared to prior years, were the only known independent variables that differed from those of past years. There could have been other common causes of the nest failure. Subsequent behavior of the female observed on June 14 suggested that the pair may have been in the process of a second nest attempt. However, cliff monitoring was discontinued for the 2018 season after surveys by Thompson and Esson out to July 1 failed to detect any evidence of peregrine presence at the cliff. Monitoring of the nest cliff in 2019 detected at least one peregrine and a pair was suspected of nesting as recently as May 13 (A. Esson, Vail resident, pers. comm., May 13, 2019). 10 The East Vail parcel represents largely intact undeveloped habitat below and within fairly close proximity to the adjacent nest cliff. Its seral and relatively young aspen forest does not support even moderate concentrations of prey species that would be particularly attractive to peregrines using the adjacent nest cliff, but it does support potential avian prey that could contribute to the local pair's prey base. 2.6.2.3 Elk Figure 10 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 incorrect. The winter range polygon boundary along the north side of 1-70 appears to follow an assumed land ownership boundary. At the time of CPW mapping, the County's and the Town's mapping assumed the East Vail parcel was in CDOT ownership. Colorado Parks and Wildlife appears to have adopted the Town's position and extended the polygon along the USFS property line, rather than bringing it down to the north edge of the Frontage Road and 1-70 where it should be. There are no mapped elk SWR or WCAs in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. Results of the winter wildlife study (TR -5) indicated that a minimum of 15 elk' were occasionally present and moving back and forth between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages through the East Vail parcel. Using the spike in the group as a marker, the same group of elk was captured on the three most widely separated trail cameras in the same night. Compared to the sheep, the local elk were more wary of human activity areas. Although some of their movements closely approached I- 70 and the Frontage Road, they only did so under cover of darkness.' Elk were only captured on the trail cameras at night and their movements between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages were initiated and completed at night. Evidence of elk foraging was captured on all cameras except one of three within the interior of the 5.4 -acre development area. Concerted foraging was noted on cameras located below the cliffs and in the NAP area. Foraging in the meadow in the development area's northeast corner was opportunistic as animals were traveling. Although there are areas of the East Vail parcel that may not be used because of terrain and proximity to human disturbances areas, for all practical purposes, the entire parcel should be mapped as elk winter range. 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 smaller, more crowded, and less effective winter range because of collective habitat losses and the effects of human activities. 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 has increased their hunting permits to increase harvest and reduce the elk and deer populations to levels that the smaller winter range acreage can support. 2.6.2.4 Black Bear Colorado Parks and Wildlife have mapped two black bear seasonal ranges in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel that warrant consideration (Figure 11). 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 entire polygon extends along and above the valley bottom ' Composed of 12 cows, 2 calves, and a spike. ' On the East Vail parcel, elk got as close to 1-70 as the buried electric line corridor. East of Pitkin Creek, elk came down to and grazed up to the edge of 1-70 on several occasions, but always at night. 11 from east of East Vail to west of West Vail. This designation has merit overlapping the subject parcel. During summer, the young, open -canopy aspen stands on the west end of the parcel support a moderate density of berry -rich serviceberry shrubs that represent important summer forage for bears. Bear sign was also detected on the NAP portion of the parcel and on National Forest Service (NFS) lands to the north. 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. 2.6.3 Other Wildlife Groups 2.6.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Federally -listed and proposed animal species that were initially considered in this analysis included those identified by the USFWS's on-line IPaC decision support system for the East Vail project area on February 8, 2019 (Table 2). Humpback chub (G. cypha), bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) were identified. None of these species occurs on the East Vail parcel or in habitats that could be affected by the proposed Workforce Housing project and they are excluded from further consideration in this document for the reasons presented in Table 2. Other listed and proposed species known to occur elsewhere on the WRNF and/or in Colorado were considered, but not analyzed because they were not identified by the USFWS as potentially present in the East Vail project area, their habitats do not occur in the project area, they have no affinities to project area habitats, the project area is outside of the species' range, and the on - and off-site development effects would have "no effect" on the species, on their habitats, or on designated critical habitat. There are no designated critical habitats in the vicinity of the project area. Table 2. Federally listed and proposed animal species that may be affected by the East Vail Workforce Housing project. Common and Scientific Name Status a Rationale for Exclusion from Analysis (Habitat) Excluded. No project -related Colorado River water Humpback chub, Gila cypha E depletions not previously considered (far downstream in Colorado River) Excluded. No project -related Colorado River water Bonytail chub, G. elegans E depletions not previously considered (far downstream in Colorado River) Colorado pikeminnow, Excluded. No project -related Colorado River water Ptychocheilus lUC%Us E depletions not previously considered (far downstream in Colorado River) Razorback sucker, Xyrauchen Excluded. No project -related Colorado River water texanus E depletions not previously considered (far downstream in Colorado River) Greenback cutthroat trout, T Excluded. No suitable on-site habitat. Project outside of Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias historical range (isolated mountain stream headwaters) Mexican spotted owl, Strix Excluded. No breeding habitat present or affected (steep occidentalis T canyons with a Douglas -fir, white fir, ponderosa pine/pinyon-juniper component) Yellow -billed cuckoo, T Excluded. No suitable habitat present or affected (old- Coccyzusamericanus) growth riparian woodlands with dense understories) Canada lynx, Lynx canadensis T Excluded. No potential foraging, denning, or travel habitat (montane and subalpine forests) a Federal status, listed after species, is as follows: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, P = Proposed. Source: List: USFWS's on-line Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaQ decision support system for the East Vail project area, accessed February 8, 2019 and Western Ecosystems, Inc. 12 2.6.3.2 U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species The USFS has designated "sensitive species" (USFS, 2015), representing species declining in number or occurrence or whose habitat is declining, either of which could lead to Federal listing if action is not taken to reverse the trend, and species whose habitat or population is stable, but limited. From the updated animal list (Oct. 23, 2015), a subset of sensitive species, including three insects, five fish, two amphibians, 17 birds, and nine mammals (Table 3), was determined to be present or potentially present on the WRNF after consideration of all sensitive species on the list. This subset of species is considered below in phylogenetically ordered taxa (insects, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals) and discussed individually where appropriate. The proposed Workforce Housing project would have no impact on any other sensitive species not on the WRNF list. The East Vail parcel is not on the WRNF, but this list provides a second tier of species (i.e., below Federally -listed species) that are prudent to consider for the East Vail project. Table 3. USFS sensitive animal species that occur on the WRNF and the rationale for potential project effects related to the East Vail Workforce Housing project. Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) INSECTS Western bumblebee, Bombus No habitat (Montane and subalpine meadows) occidentalis Great Basin silverspot, Speyeria nokomis nokomis No habitat (Wetlands supporting violet populations) Monarch butterfly, Danaus No host plant (milkweed) habitat plexippus plexippus FISH Roundtail chub, Gilarobusta robusta No suitable habitat (CO River up through Glenwood Canyon) Mountain sucker, Catostomus No suitable habitat (small to medium streams below 7000'; 4 platyrhynchus populations documented on the Rifle and Blanco Districts) Bluehead sucker, Catostomus No occupied habitat above Alkali Ck. (CO River upstream to discobolus Alkali Ck) Flannelmouth sucker, Catostomus No occupied habitat above the Eagle River (CO River to latipinnis Granby, Milk, Piceance, and Divide Creeks, Eagle River) Colorado River cutthroat trout, No suitable habitat on or below project area (Isolated, Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus headwater streams and lakes) AMPHIBIANS Boreal western toad, Anaxyrus No suitable habitat on or below project area (Subalpine boreas boreas marshes and wet meadows; ponds, margins of streams; adjacent uplands 8,500-11,000') Northern leopard frog, tithobates Outside range (Permanent wetlands) pipiens BIRDS Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis Potential foraging habitat (Closed montane forests > 7,500') Northern harrier, Circus c aneus No habitat (Grasslands, agricultural lands, marshes, & alpine) Ferruginous hawk, Buteore alis No habitat (Plains,grasslands) American peregrine falcon, Falco Potential foraging habitat (Cliffs, habitats concentrating/ peregrines anatum exposing vulnerable prey) Bald eagle, Haliaeetos leucocephalus No habitat (Open water bodies, big game winter range) White-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus No habitat (Alpine habitat and upper elevation willow stands) 13 Determination of potential project effects to sensitive animals considers direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to those species. Determination of potential project effects to sensitive animals (including insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) considers the area, configuration, and function of suitable and occupied habitat affected, home range size and number of individuals affected, size, density, and location of the population, and consequence of negative effects on the species as a whole within the WRNF and within its range. Potential sensitive animal habitats, where a particular species has not been detected, are considered to be occupied, based on the rationale that animals are wide-ranging, that they may be present, but go undetected, and that suitable, but unoccupied habitat can be quickly recolonized. Impacts to such potential, sensitive, animal habitats are considered negative or beneficial effects. 14 Table 3. USFS sensitive animal species that occur on the WRNF and the rationale for potential project effects related to the East Vail Workforce Housing project. Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) Greater sage grouse, Centrocercus No habitat (Sagebrush) urophasianus Columbian sharp -tailed grouse, Tympanuchusphasianellus No habitat (Sagebrush and mountain shrub) Flammulated owl, Otus flammeolus Marginal, but potential habitat (Old-growth ponderosa pine and aspen) Boreal owl, Ae olius funereus No habitat (Maturespruce-fir & mixed conifer) Black swift, Cyp5eloide5 n/ er No local nesting habitat (Waterfalls, cliffs) Lewis' woodpecker, Melanerpes No habitat (Ponderosa pine and cottonwoods) lewis Olive -sided flycatcher, Contopus No habitat (Open, upper elev. conifer forests) cooperi Loggerhead shrike, Lan/us No habitat (Plains, low valleys, shrublands) ludovicianus Purple martin, Pro nesub/s No habitat (Old-growth aspen) Brewer's sparrow, S izella breweri No habitat (Sagebrush and other structurally similar shrublands) Saes arrow, Am his iza Belli No habitat (Low elevation big Sagebrush and sage/ reasewood) MAMMALS Pygmy shrew, M/crosorexhoy/ No habitat (Variety of subalpine habitats) Montanus Fringed m otis, M otis th mnodes No habitat (Forests/woodlands to 7,500 ft.; unknown on WRNF Hoary bat (Las/urns c/nereus) No habitat (Mixed conifer and lode ole pine forest) Spotted bat, Euderma maculatum No habitat (Cliffs, arid terrain) Townsend's big -eared bat, Corynorh/nus townsend// No habitat (Structures, tree cavities <9,500 ft.) American marten, Martes No habitat (Conifer forests) americana River otter, Lontra canadensis No habitat (Year-round open water and streamflows of >_ 10 cfs) Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Present (High visibility habitat near escape terrain) Ov/s canadensis canadensis Note: Species in bold are potentially present and/or are discussed in the text. Wildlife are listed phylogenetically. Other R2 species are not listed because they have not been found on the WRNF, they have no affinities to project area habitats, the project area is outside of the species' range or elevational distribution. Potential occurrence on the project area, potential for project effects, and habitat affinity is summarized for each species. Source: Forest Service Manual, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO, Chapter 2670 — Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, Supplement No: 2600-2015-1, Effective Date: Oct. 23, 2015 0. Austin, USFS, pers. comm., Nov. 17, 2016). Determination of potential project effects to sensitive animals considers direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to those species. Determination of potential project effects to sensitive animals (including insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) considers the area, configuration, and function of suitable and occupied habitat affected, home range size and number of individuals affected, size, density, and location of the population, and consequence of negative effects on the species as a whole within the WRNF and within its range. Potential sensitive animal habitats, where a particular species has not been detected, are considered to be occupied, based on the rationale that animals are wide-ranging, that they may be present, but go undetected, and that suitable, but unoccupied habitat can be quickly recolonized. Impacts to such potential, sensitive, animal habitats are considered negative or beneficial effects. 14 Nevertheless, not every acre of potential habitat is necessarily occupied by a particular species, and not every acre of suitable habitat is of equal importance, nor must it be maintained to maintain effective, well -distributed habitat for any particular species across the Forest. Some habitat loss or impact may affect individuals so long as sufficient habitat components exist which maintain population viability across the Forest. In addition, "impacts" and "negative effects" on individuals considered herein do not necessarily equate to the death of those individuals. In most cases, negative effects on NFS lands refer to the displacement of individuals from a small portion of their home range or potential habitat. Boreal Western Toad There is an extant boreal toad breeding site in the vicinity of the project area (M. Grove, USFS, pers. comm., Oct. 29, 2018). It is isolated from the East Vail parcel to the extent that project development (direct effects) and habitation, including potential off-site traffic and recreational activity (indirect effects), should have no effect on that population. This species is dropped from further consideration herein. Northern Goshawk Potential goshawk habitat (i.e., that above the Gore Creek valley bottom) in the vicinity of the East Vail project area is large, mature, closed canopy, aspen and conifer habitats. There are no known active goshawk nest territories present in the vicinity of the project area. It is possible that the aspen forest on the parcel could be used as foraging habitat by individual goshawks, but it is disjunct from continuous quality habitat and within the influence of chronic human activities along the Gore Creek valley bottom. There are no raptor stick nests on or in the vicinity of the subject parcel. Goshawks would not be affected by anticipated East Vail project development and this species is dropped from further consideration herein. American Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons are addressed in Section 2.6.2.2, above. Flammulated Owl On the WRNF, flammulated owls have been found in several locations using pure aspen stands and aspen -conifer stands. Most likely, Eagle County habitats are only used by this species during the breeding season, with individuals migrating out for the winter. The East Vail parcel does not support the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat association representing primary habitat that this species is associated with. While the aspen stand in the open space portion of the parcel provides potential nesting structure, it is too small and disjunct to be considered suitable habitat, particularly when superior surrounding habitats are unoccupied. This species is dropped from further consideration herein. American Marten There are no habitats on the East Vail parcel that represent primary marten habitat (upper elevation spruce -fir forest). Marten tracks were detected in the mixed conifer/cottonwood riparian corridor along lower Pitkin Creek in winter, 2017-2018. East Vail parcel development would have no direct or indirect effects on marten and this species is dropped from further consideration herein. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Bighorn sheep are addressed in Section 2.6.2.1, above. 2.6.3.3 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Special Concern The current lists of Colorado endangered and threatened species and Colorado species of state special concern (http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx; accessed Jan., 14, 2019) were considered for species that may occur on and around the East Vail project area. Those lists included two mollusks, 23 fish, seven amphibians, 10 reptiles, 19 birds, and 13 mammals. None of the state species contained in those lists occur or have potential habitat that would be influenced by the proposed project, except for those species that have been previously addressed in this analysis. 15 2.6.3.4 Migratory Birds The East Vail parcel supports a low to moderate diversity of largely migratory birds that reach peak numbers during the spring and mid -summer breeding season. The avian community is typical of those associated with the habitats present and is largely uninfluenced by chronic human activity associated with the adjacent Frontage Road and 1-70. 2.6.3.5 Raptors Red-tailed hawks Wuteoiamaicensis) were the only raptor actually observed on the East Vail parcel. No raptor nests are present and the parcel is within the hunting territory of a pair that nested on the south side of 1-70 in 2018. Other raptors observed in the vicinity of the parcel during field surveys that could hunt the parcel include peregrine falcons, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and sharp - shinned hawks (Acciniterstriatus). 2.6.3.6 Fish The moderate gradient, ephemeral stream bisecting the East Vail development parcel does not support fish. Stream water enters a 24 -inch diameter culvert and flows under the Frontage Road and 1-70 before dropping into Gore Creek that supports a fishery. The culvert's drop prevents Gore Creek fish from attempting to colonize the creek during stream flows. 2.6.3.7. Other Big Game Species Mule Deer The only mule deer seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range. The closest mule deer winter range is 8.7 miles to the west, north of 1-70. Low numbers of deer are present on and around the parcel from May through October. Moose The only moose seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range. The closest moose winter range is 2.5 miles to the northwest in Spraddle Creek. Moose may occur on or in the vicinity of the parcel, as they may just about anywhere else in Eagle County. Moose is the only ungulate whose population is increasing in the Gore Valley (Andree, 2017). Mnuntain Gnat The closest mountain goat seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range in the Gore Range alpine, 2.3 miles up Booth Creek and 2.8 miles up Pitkin Creek. Goats are dropped from further consideration herein. Mountain Lion The East Vail parcel is located within a large polygon designated as a "mountain lion human conflict area" by CPW that includes all residential areas and trailheads from east of East Vail to west of West Vail. Such areas are defined as areas where mountain lions have been involved in incidents (conflicts with humans that have serious results), an attack on a human, predation on domestic pets or livestock held in close proximity to human habitation. Lion conflicts have increased since 2016 with most encounters involving the public encountering lions while hiking with their dogs (B. Andree, CPW, DWM [Ret.] 2017). In 2016, there were two incidents of dogs killed by lions and one lion was euthanized as a result. Lions are occasionally present on and around the East Vail parcel. 2.7 Noise The undeveloped project site does not generate any noise. The major noise source in the vicinity of the project site includes the 1-70 corridor, which generates noise from vehicular traffic. 16 The undeveloped natural habitat of the project site is not a source of any odors. Furthermore, there are no odor generation sources in the vicinity of the project site. 2.9 Visual Resources Visual amenities of the project site include a landscape dominated by an attractive aspen forest which blends with the larger aspen forest and shrub communities on the south -facing slope of the Gore Creek Valley. The project site affords views to the broad floodplain of Gore Creek which is dominated by attractive woody wetlands, and the steep lower slopes of the 11,816 -foot tall Red Mountain which are characterized by an evergreen forest with patches of aspen. Interstate 70 and the East Vail Interchange are also in the view corridor of the project site, as is the residential development along Gore Creek to the southeast. 2.10 Land Use The proposed development area of the project site, an area of 5.4 acres, is zoned as Housing (H), while the eastern end of the project site (17.9 acres) is zoned as Natural Area Preservation (NAP). Existing land uses of the project site include open space and wildlife habitat. 2.11 Access & Transportation The project site, which is located north of 1-70, is accessed via the East Vail Interchange. Fall Line Drive, located north of 1-70, extends east from the interchange to provide access to the Pine Creek townhomes. The 1-70 North Frontage Road extends west from the interchange to provide access to existing developments west of the project site. Further west this road goes under 1-70 and extends along the south side of 1-70 all the way to the Town Center 1-70 Interchange for Vail. The undeveloped project site does not generate any traffic. 2.12 Population The undeveloped project site has no population. 3.0 Proposed Project 3.1 Buildings & Parking The proposed East Vail Workforce Subdivision would create a multi -family community on the 5.4 acres of the project site zoned H for housing. It would consist of eleven buildings with a total of 42 apartment units and 31 townhomes. The buildings will be a combination of two and three bedroom units. There would be approximately 48 at -grade parking spaces near the buildings, as well as driveways from the Townhomes to accommodate additional parking. See Figure 12, TR -7 and TR -8. 3.2 Natural Area Preservation The applicant intends to enhance a substantial portion of the 17.9 -acre Natural Area to create a movement corridor for wildlife from east to west across the site, and to create grazing enhancements for all wildlife including the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. See Section 4.6. 3.3 Access & Traffic The project would be accessed via the existing East Vail Interchange of 1-70. No road construction or modifications would be required to safely accommodate traffic generated by the development (McDowell Engineering, 2019, as revised May 21, 2019 — TR -9). All improvements, including site access, pedestrian circulation, bus stop, and landscaping will be reviewed and approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 17 3.4 Utilities Water and sewer service would be provided by the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. These and all other utilities would be buried within the road system. 3.5 Bus Station A bus station currently exists on the north side of the East Vail Interchange along the southern boundary of the project site. A new bus stop would be located east of the intersection of North Frontage Road and the access road to the development. See Figure 12. 3.6 Drainage Plan Stormwater will be diverted to underground water quality chambers buried within the road system. Water will flow from these chambers via pipes to the pipe that conveys flows in the ephemeral drainage south toward Gore Creek. There will be one at -grade water quality pond located near the entrance to the project site. See Figure 12. 4.0 Impacts & Mitigation 4.1 Hydrology 4.1.1 Surface Water The access road to the development would impact the ephemeral stream via piping and riprap, both on and off-site. A 24 -inch HDPE pipe would convey water across the project site and off-site to an existing culvert which conveys water south and under 1-70 toward Gore Creek. The total length of stream impacted would be 92 linear feet. 4.1.2 Groundwater Based on preliminary subsurface exploration pits conducted by Cesare, Inc. (2018), groundwater would not likely be encountered by project grading and the construction of the roads, buildings and rockfall barrier. 4.2 Atmospheric Condition The proposed development would have a small and immeasurable impact on air quality. There would be a short-term increase in hydrocarbon pollutants and dust during the construction process. With development, there would be small releases of hydrocarbon pollutants generated by activities such as heating the development. The traffic study determined that the project would generate 290 vehicle trips on an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. These vehicle trips would increase the levels of hydrocarbon pollutants. The magnitude of the impact on air quality has not been estimated, but it would likely be small and immeasurable. 4.3 Geology & Hazards 4.3.1 Rockfall & Debris Flow The rock outcrop upslope of the proposed development is a rockfall source zone and incised drainage channels upslope of the development which seasonally have flowing water have the potential for debris flows. Therefore, a Concept Rockfall & Debris Flow Mitigation Plan has been developed by Skyline Geoscience (2019). Rockfall and debris flows can be mitigated with a single barrier system which will reduce but not eliminate rockfall and debris flow hazards. The barrier system would also act as a wildlife barrier and limit human activity in wildlife habitat. As illustrated by Figure 13, an earthen berm and catchment ditch is being considered. A barrier wall with a smaller footprint is also being considered for the area upslope of the proposed development where there is limited space We* between the property boundary and the edge of development. Recommendations for the barrier system include: a) Height — 12 feet. b) Designed to withstand the maximum impact energy estimated = 2,300kj. c) The impact face of the barrier should be as vertical as possible. A 1:1 slope is assumed for the earthen berm option, although a steeper grade is preferred. A vertical face with minimal to positive batter on the upslope side is recommended for the impact barrier wall option. d) Ideal orientation of the barrier is perpendicular to the fall line of the slope. If a perpendicular orientation is not possible, a staggered wall geometry may be considered. There shall be no gaps in the barrier system and staggered sections should have appropriate angles and lengths to accommodate coverage of site development. If the angle of the barrier diverges significantly from perpendicular to the fall line of the slope, the system must be designed to accommodate for containment of rocks within the property boundaries. The orientation of the proposed barrier is perpendicular to the fall line of the slope, except at the western end where the wall deviates about 10 to 15 degrees from the preferred orientation. It is not recommended for the barrier system to deviate more than 20 degrees from perpendicular to the fall line of the slope. e) Adequate space uphill of the barrier for catchment and accumulation of rockfall, and for routine access of equipment for removal of accumulated debris. This area should be graded flat. The actual width of the catchment depends on the size of the equipment to be used to remove accumulated debris and the angle of the slope above. The use of explosives or expansion grout can be used to break up large boulders that accumulate in the catchment, creating smaller fragments that can be removed. f) The catchment area must be routinely maintained, and accumulated debris removed. Debris should not be allowed to pile up and thus diminish the effectiveness of the catchment. g) Surface drainage within the catchment should be controlled with adequate slope of the ground surface. Based on proposed development plans available at the time of the study, the ground surface of the catchment slopes down from east to west with a grade of 2%. Water should not be allowed to accumulate or pond in the catchment. Surface drainage and erosion management related to the deeply incised drainages which had flowing water during the Cesare site visits in May and June 2017 must be considered. h) An access road to the catchment area must be designed and maintained. i) Routine inspection of the barrier system must be enforced and will assist in determining the maintenance and repair needs of the system. Inspections should be conducted on a regular basis and immediately following a rockfall or debris flow event. Other construction, maintenance and inspection recommendations may be provided by the wall manufacturer. j) Observation and inspection by a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer during construction and upon completion of the rockfall barrier is recommended. 4.3.2 Existing Landslide Cesare (2017) determined that there is a large landslide on the east end of the project site, but it does not extend into the development area. Cesare found no evidence of recent movement, however they recommend avoiding development within the mapped extent of the landslide and monitoring the slope if construction occurs near the foot of the landslide. 4.4 Soils The proposed development would impact approximately 5.1 acres of the Millerlake soil as described in Section 2.4. It is recommended that topsoil from the impact area be salvaged and used in areas that are to be landscaped. Specifically, all of the soils on the 5.4 -acre development parcel, except for 19 the area north of the mitigation berm on the northeast corner and a smaI I area on the southeast corner, would be impacted. 4.5 Vegetation Resources 4.5.1 Vegetation Types The proposed development would impact permanently impact approximately 2.7 acres of an aspen forest. Specifically, all of the aspen forest on the 5.4 -acre development parcel, except for the area north of the mitigation berm on the northeast corner and a small area on the southeast corner, would be eliminated. However, there would be a temporary loss of 2.3 acres of aspen forest cleared for the rockfall berm, but reclaimed to a similar habitat. 4.5.2 Wetlands The access road to the proposed development would impact approximately 92 linear feet of a 2 -foot wide ephemeral drainage, which is classified as a wetland. Specifically, 68 linear feet would be impacted on the project site via a culvert and riprap, and 24 linear feet south of the project site would also be piped. The total estimated wetland impact would be approximately 184 ft2. Specifically, a 24 -inch pipe would be installed under the access road to convey stormwater south toward Gore Creek. A permit would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the wetland impact of the access road. Specifically, a Nationwide Permit 29 for Residential Development would be required. Due to the small size of the wetland impact, the Corps would not likely require any mitigation for the wetland impact. 4.6 Wildlife Resources The proposed Workforce Housing project would have both negative and beneficial effects on the local wildlife community. There will be a net loss of habitat and wildlife displacement from development and human activity areas when 21.5% of the overall parcel is developed. Negative effects will include approximately five acres of direct habitat losses,$ reduced habitat effectiveness of adjacent buffer zones, increased traffic along the Frontage Road and regional highways, and the displacement of wildlife around off-site recreation corridors that will likely be used by housing residents.9 Potential negative development effects have already been somewhat reduced through the rezoning process that concentrated development on 23% of the parcel, as well as further avoided, minimized, and compensated with (1) the incorporation of wildlife -oriented design criteria into the development's design, (2) on-site habitat enhancement proposed on 14.6 acres of the parcel that will remain undeveloped, (3) the implementation of wildlife -related construction and operational considerations, and (4) the implementation and enforcement of the human habitation -related minimization measures in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10). The beneficial effect would be the enhancement of sheep and elk winter range that is not currently effective for sheep because of fire suppression effects. Figure 14 shows wildlife habitats that would be affected on and adjacent to the 5.4 acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint, including the driveway and parking lots, buildings, the rockfall wall, and ancillary facilities, would affect approximately five acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. That area of habitat represents 21.5% of the 23.3 -acre parcel; 78.5% of the parcel would remain undeveloped. 8 i.e., 2.7 acres from direct habitat losses and fencing blocking wildlife access to another 2.3 acres of the parcel. 9 With resident education, fencing/ barriers, and aggressive fines and enforcement, these recreational impacts will be minimized on lands surrounding the East Vail development area that are important for sheep winter range and other wildlife uses. However, additional, incremental recreational impacts will occur along other existing trail corridors in Eagle County that bisect wildlife habitats as a result of increased recreational use of those trails by Workforce Housing residents. 20 Undeveloped habitat on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel would be enhanced as big game (bighorn sheep and elk) winter range. Undeveloped habitat on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel that would be enhanced as big game (bighorn sheep and elk) winter range would result in a moderate -term enhancement and net gain of mountain shrub habitat, whose quality, quantity, and availability to ungulates has declined as a result of wildfire suppression (Figure 15). Proposed enhancement would also result in a moderate -term net gain of 3.9 acres of mountain shrub habitat, as an over -mature aspen stand with a dense chokecherry understory is treated to enhance sheep winter range. Mule deer, elk, and other wildlife with affinities to mountain shrub habitat would also benefit. Using the results of the 2017-2018 wildlife study (Thompson 2018c), additional sheep winter range enhancement, probably involving hundreds of acres, is under consideration on surrounding NFS lands and TOV open space. Most wildlife present in development areas at the time of construction will be displaced to adjacent habitats, some of which will be occupied. Small mammals, the young of cavity nesting birds, and a reptile (garter snake, Thamnonhis e%gans) may be killed, depending on the time of year that site clearing starts. The size of the development area likely supports the home ranges of several to a handful of individual bird and small mammal species. After project development and habitation, the development parcel will support those wildlife species tolerant of human development. The effectiveness of habitats surrounding the development to the north, east, and west would be reduced, to a certain extent, by noise, visual, and olfactory disturbances emanating from the development. Distances would vary by species and would be attenuated by screening forest, distance, topography, and the chronic disturbances extending through the parcel from the adjacent Frontage Road and 1-70. Birds and small mammals would be the least affected. Elk would exhibit the broadest avoidance zones. Workforce Housing -related traffic increases may incrementally increase wildlife road -kill probabilities on the Frontage Road and along regional highways. Buildout of the East Vail parcel is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour (McDowell Engineering 2019). Ten to 20% (29-58) of those contributions would be on the North Frontage Road, while 70-80% (203-232) would be on 1-70. These additional contributions represent and average of 9.9% and 0.8% of the current, average, daily traffic volumes on those respective roads and highways. Increased road -kill probabilities on 1-70 resulting from the additional Workforce Housing traffic would be discountable relative to the low mortality associated with current high traffic volumes and should not affect local big game because they don't cross the highway in the vicinity of the project area. Sheep are occasionally present during winter conditions along the Frontage Road and have been known to lick salt off the road, and a few may even cross the road to forage between the road and I- 70. Increased sheep road -kill probabilities on the Frontage Road are possible, but unlikely because of good horizontal visibility along the road, because the sheep are habituated to the traffic, and because most road mortality occurs on roads and highways where posted speeds are >_ 45mph (Gunther et al. 1998). In the vicinity of the site, the North 1-70 Frontage Road has a posted speed limit of 25 mph eastbound and 45 mph westbound. Resident participation in public transportation would reduce potential traffic impacts. The Mitigation Plan contains a section that would educate residents about this issue. Resident education about the parcel's sensitive location in wildlife habitat and the implementation and enforcement of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10), with significant penalties for violators, should reduce and confine potential habitation effects to the parcel's development area and minimize the potential effects of greatest concern (recreationists and dogs) from extending off-site. Issues specific to individual species and wildlife groups are discussed below under those accounts. 21 4.6.1 Focal Wildlife Species of Concern 4.6.1.1 Bighorn Sheep Workforce Housing would permanently convert approximately five acres of bighorn sheep winter range into non -habitat and unavailable habitat (Figure 14). The development footprint would affect 2.7 acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. Another 2.3 acres north of the development area would also be disturbed for the rockfall berm, reclaimed as mountain shrub and aspen habitat, but it would be unavailable to big game because of the fencing needed to restrict residents from the important surrounding wildlife habitats. The forested habitat composing most of the development area was only used on two occasions and for travel only (no foraging) during the 2017-2018 winter (Thompson 2018c), although that use contributed to the functionality of the overall winter range. Workforce Housing would permanently convert 0.3 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, largely composed of smooth brome, into non -habitat. The effectiveness of habitats surrounding the development to the west, north, and east could also be reduced to a certain extent. Retaining screening aspen forest,10 planting screening trees along the access driveway, and existing topography and distance would reduce those potential indirect effects. Approximately 1.7 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, composed of smooth brome stands on the cut slope above the Frontage Road and largely off-site, would not be disturbed," but its effectiveness would be reduced by its linear configuration and location between the Frontage Road and the housing project. That habitat was used on three occasions during the 2017-2018 winter (Thompson, 2018c), but even that small amount of foraging took foraging pressure off other accessible winter range. After housing has been built and inhabited, sheep may still enter that area to forage under cover of darkness. The effectiveness of sheep winter range to the west of the housing's driveway could also be impaired by housing -related traffic, although negative effects could be minimized by construction of a screening berm or temporary construction fencing before the first construction season and by planting screening trees (after housing infrastructure, including water for irrigation, is available). The area affected is difficult to quantify, but it could amount to several acres. The level of habituation in the local sheep herd will limit the extent of diurnal displacement. Sheep will likely forage in that area under cover of darkness when humans are not present, as they do now, so the diurnal displacement may have no negative effects. Bighorn sheep lambing should be unaffected by the direct and indirect impacts of the Workforce Housing project because of distance, intervening screening topography, and the implementation of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Current human habitation of the Booth Creek residential development is not thought to be affecting Iamb productivity or survival. To compensate for the direct and indirect impacts to sheep winter range, 14.6 acres of open space on the East Vail parcel would be enhanced to improve the quality and quantity of accessible forage that is normally maintained by wildfires. That enhancement could start in 2019 and the increased forage availability should be available for the upcoming 2019-2020 winter to compensate for the direct and potential indirect winter foraging losses during project construction that could extend over one winter.12 In spring, 2019, the TOV started habitat enhancement on some of their open space. 10 For example, an existing screen of relatively dense, approximately 15 -to 30 -foot -tall, young to medium -aged aspen on the parcel's western tip and extending onto NFS lands to the northwest that is 444-487 ft. wide (see Fig. 8-2 in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, TR -10) would effectively screen all but the upper floors of the housing and, most importantly, all resident activity on the parcel from the high quality, mountain shrub -dominated, bighorn sheep winter range below the Booth Creek cliffs. In comparison, there are two Booth Creek homes with little aspen buffering located 107 and 177 feet below the rockfall berm that is heavily used by sheep in winter. 11 There would be some disturbance to this habitat resulting from the relocated bus station, however, there are currently no siting or design details available to evaluate. 12 Construction would occur in phases that would present differing levels of disturbance to adjacent habitat effectiveness. Phases would be scheduled to avoid the most obtrusive disturbances during any winter. Initial clearing and site work, when heavy equipment is operating and when disturbances would be greatest, will not occur during any winter. The framing through dry -in phase would occur over one winter. Thereafter, the final inside finishing 22 Additional sheep winter range enhancement, probably involving hundreds of acres throughout the winter range polygon as originally proposed in 1998 (USFS 1998), is under consideration on surrounding NFS lands. The need for that widespread enhancement and specific prescriptions that could be implemented near the East Vail parcel was presented to and discussed with TOV, CPW, and USFS representatives on January 11, and February 6 and 8, 2019. Implementation and strict enforcement of sheep -related rules and regulations in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10) would further reduce potential impacts to sheep resulting from residents living in the Workforce Housing and should reduce impacts to a level that would not negatively affect the sheep herd. Key sheep -related rules and regulations include resident education, using fencing along the rockfalI berm to restrict residents from hiking out of the development onto important sheep winter range surrounding the parcel, prohibiting resident and guest entry into those areas,13 prohibiting trail development on the parcel's open space, limiting dogs on the parcel and enforcing strict dog control measures, and imposing strict fines for violations. The paramount wildlife concern on this project is the potential for inappropriate recreational use extending beyond the Workforce Housing development area that could adversely affect habitat effectiveness on surrounding lands, some of which are vital to the small bighorn sheep herd. The secondary wildlife concern is the potential effect of stray dogs on adjacent winter range. Strictly enforced rules and regulations with significant penalties for first time violators should minimize recreation and stray dog incidents (see TR -10, Section 8.3.2.1). The Workforce Housing project should not jeopardize the viability of the East Vail sheep herd. 4.6.1.2 Peregrine Falcon Development and habitation of the Workforce Housing parcel should not negatively affect the viability or productivity of the peregrine nest cliff on the opposite side of 1-70 from the project area. Regarding buffer zones around peregrine nest cliffs, the CDOW (2008) recommended that "no surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) [occur] within [a] 1/z mile radius of active nests" and that there should be a "seasonal restriction to human encroachment within '/z mile of the nest cliff(s) from March 15 to July 31." That recommendation is valid 14 as a general guideline for all peregrine eyries in Colorado. However, the CDOW (2008) also recognized that "some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity ata proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests." Such is the case with the birds that have nested in East Vail since at least 2011 (Thompson, 2018b; TR -6). A cautionary consideration, however, is that "the tolerance of a particular pair may change when a mate is replaced with a less tolerant individual and this may cause the pair to react to activities that were previously ignored" (CDOW, 2008). The proposed Workforce Housing project (0.36 mi. away from the base of the nest cliff) represents the same type of surface occupancy that is currently associated with the Booth Creek residential area, the Falls at Vail Townhomes, and the East Vail residential area south of 1-70, where the closest home on Lupine Drive is 989 horizontal feet (0.19 mi.) away from and ± 600 vertical feet below the 2018 nest ledge. All of the intervening, chronic, human developments and activities (see Section 2.6.3.2) should adequately buffer the nest cliff from construction and habitation of the Workforce Housing parcel. Mitigation (TR -10) is presented that would avoid and minimize potential construction effects associated with blasting. 4.6.1.3 Elk 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 winter range, further impaired effectiveness of habitat within the influence of the development, and other potential habitation -related effects [e.g., dispersed recreation originating from residences and free -ranging dogs]). As described for sheep, elk habitat use in this area has adapted to 1-70 activity, nearby subdivisions, and dispersed recreational activity, phase would have the least obtrusive disturbances. 13 Le., on TOV open space to the west, National Forest Service lands to the north, and East Vail parcel open space to the east, some of which are vital to the small bighorn sheep herd. 14 For what it was developed to consider. 23 but unlike sheep, the local elk have not habituated at all to human presence.15 The relatively small (5 -acre) potential East Vail development would result in a further, incremental loss of winter range in an overall elk herd whose numbers have declined as a collective result of similar winter range losses and recreational activity effects. The winter range forage losses should be more than offset by reinvigorating forage quality and quantity and facilitating access to 14.6 acres of on-site winter range that are now somewhat impaired by jackstrawed logs and out -of -reach browse. That on-site habitat enhancement could start in 2019, subject to TOV approvals (TR -10). Seventy-nine percent of the parcel would remain available for continued elk use. Additional winter range habitat enhancement being implemented and considered on surrounding TOV and NFS lands would also benefit elk. The subdivision and fencing would also deflect movements from a favored route (the 8-10 ft. wide buried electric line through the parcel) that a small group of elk, 16 wary of human activity and presence, use to move through this portion of their winter range. The project would continue to provide an east - west corridor through the rear portion of the parcel along the north side of the rockfall berm. Elk should also continue to use additional, existing, east -west movement routes buffered to the north of the housing. Other mitigation measures proposed for bighorn sheep would also benefit elk. 4.6.1.4 Black Bear Residential development on the Workforce Housing parcel will be of concern for black bears because of (1) potential habitation -related effects (e.g., potential garbage -handling issues), (2) the small, but additional net loss of summer forage habitat, and (3) further impaired effectiveness of habitat within the influence of the development. Approximately 79% of the parcel would remain undeveloped and available for continued bear use. Implementation of measures contained in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10) should minimize human/bear conflicts to acceptable levels. 4.6.2 Other Wildlife Species and Groups Implementation of construction and habitation measures contained in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10) for the focal wildlife species would also benefit other wildlife species and groups within the project's area of influence. Note that some of the wildlife groups and species considered in the Existing Environment section, above, would not be affected by the proposed development and were not carried forward to this section. 4.6.2.1 Migratory Birds The Workforce Housing project would remove approximately five acres of habitat used by birds for foraging and nesting. Approximately 2.3 acres of habitat north of the development area that were grade for the rockfall berm would be restored to mountain shrub and aspen habitat. That habitat would be available and used by migratory birds as it develops and matures. Some birds tolerant of close human proximity and those attracted to feeders would inhabit the development area. 4.6.2.2 Fish Fish and other aquatic life in Gore Creek should not be negatively affected by the project with the implementation of standard Best Management Practices that would prevent sedimentation and impermeable surface runoff from reaching the creek. 4.6.2.3 Mule Deer and Moose The Workforce Housing project would approximately five acres of deer and moose summer range and deflect east -west movements through the area to the north. Mitigation measures proposed for sheep and elk would also benefit deer and moose. 15 During the 2017-2018 winter wildlife study (Thompson 2018), elk were present on the parcel and in the surrounding area, but only under cover of darkness. 16 Composed of 12 cows, 2 calves, and a spike, in winter 2017-2018. 24 4.6.2.4 Mountain Lion Mountain lions should be unaffected by the Workforce Housing project. There is likely limited current lion use of the development parcel and the lion prey base (largely ungulates) should not be measurably diminished by the project. 4.7 Noise The proposed development would generate a short-term increase in noise levels due to heavy equipment use during construction. When construction is complete, the project would generate approximately 460 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 29 trips during the morning rush hour and 46 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour (TR -9), and noise would also be generated by human occupation of the development. Considering the ambient noise generated by the 1-70 corridor, the added impact of the noise generated by the proposed development following construction would likely be negligible. The proposed development would not generate any odors. 4.9 Visual Resources The development would have a mountain contemporary design that honors the fundamentals of the Town of Vail design guidelines and the precedent of other recent Town of Vail's local housing projects such as Lions Ridge and Chamonix Vail. Buildings would be built into the gradually sloping hillside with the walk -out garden level on the lowest floor, and units on the 2nd floor walking out at grade on the north side of each building. Exterior materials will include stucco and cementitious siding that resembles wood siding, with windows and large sliding doors for most units. Primary roofs would be pitched and have asphalt shingles; metal materials would compose the secondary roofing. Triumph Development has also worked to minimize the height of stepped retaining walls that are required for site access and surface parking that is so important in the economics of a local housing project. The proposed number of parking spaces has been kept to a minimum to keep the footprint of the project as small as possible. The proposed development would not block any view corridors to the Gore Creek Valley or the north -facing mountain slopes to the south as there are no contiguous neighbors. The project will be visible from the CDOT right of way including 170 and the North Frontage Road. An earthen berm and rockfall protection structure have been provided across the rear of the development to, in part, provide a physical and visual barrier between the human -occupied portion of the development and the USFS and Town of Vail open space behind and to the west of the property. 4.10 Land Use The 5.4 acres of the project site zoned as Housing (H) would be developed and used as residential space. The 17.9 acres zoned as Natural Area Preservation (NAP) would remain as open space and be enhanced for wildlife use. Thus, the proposed development is consistent with Town Council's October 2017 rezoning to Housing. The potential development of the Housing parcel and enhancement of the NAP parcel is recognized in Action Item #23 of the update to the Town of Vail 2018 Open Lands Plan Update. Thus, the proposed development would change the land use for 5.4 acres of the project site from open space and wildlife habitat to a residential land use. 4.11 Access & Transportation McDowell Engineering, LLC (2019; TR -9) completed a CDOT Level 2 Study to forecast and analyze the impact of traffic volumes generated by the development on the surrounding roadway network. The traffic analysis was scoped with the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to completion. The analysis determined that: 25 • Site Access & Circulation: The site is proposing to take access directly from the north 1-70 Frontage Road. Sight distance meets the minimum spacing sight distance requirement per CDOT's State Highway Access Code. • Trip Generation: The buildout of the site is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. See Table 4. • Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirement: No additional auxiliary turn lane construction is required. • State Highway Access Permit: A State Highway Access Permit will be required for the proposed 1-70 North Frontage Road access. • Recommendations: Based on the analysis and recommendations in the McDowell Engineering Report (2019), the project can be successfully incorporated into the Town of Vail's roadway network. Table 4. Proposed East Vail Residential Trip Generation Analysis Unit Type Estimated Site -Generated Traffic, East Vail Workforce Housing Persons Per Unit Total Persons High Trip Generation Average Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour 42 Unitsz Rates' Weekday' Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound 1 28 Ave. AM PM Trips % % % % 2 4 Week Peak Peak (VPD) Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips 4 Market TH1 3BR day Hour Hour 30 12 APT 42 DU 3.29 0.21 0.33 138 32% 3 68% 6 54% 7 46% 6 TH4 31 DU 5.44 0.32 0.41 169 27% 3 73% 7 60% 8 40% 5 MMR -10% -17 0 -1 -1 -1 Anticipated Trip Generation 290 5 12 14 10 ' Values obtained from field counts at the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartment Accesses during ski season on December 1, 2018. 2 DU = Dwelling Units s Assumes a dhv of 10% of ADT. 'Values obtained from Trip Generation, 10' Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. APT = Apartments; TH = Townhomes; MMR = Multimodal Reduction 4.12 Population As documented by Table 5, the population of the proposed development would range from a low of 113 to a high of 254. Table 5. Population Projection East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Unit Type Number of Units Persons Per Unit Total Persons High Low High Low VR Units 42 4 2 168 84 EHU TH1 2BR 7 4 1 28 7 EHU TH2 3BR 8 5 2 40 16 EHU TH3 2BR 2 4 1 8 2 EHU TH4 3BR 2 5 2 10 4 Market TH1 3BR 6 5 2 30 12 26 Table 5. Population Projection East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Unit Type Number of Units Persons Per Unit Total Persons High Low High Low Market TH2 3 B R 6 5 2 30 12 Market TH3 0 5 2 0 0 Market TH4 0 5 2 0 0 Total 61 254 113 5.0 Cumulative & Long-term Effects and Irreversible Environmental Changes 5.1 Hydrology 5.1.1 Surface Water The proposed development would impact (pipe) a 92 -foot long segment of an ephemeral stream in order to create transportation access to the development. This represents a long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. 5.1.2 Groundwater There would be no long-term effects or irreversible environmental change to groundwater. 5.2 Atmospheric Condition The slight increase in hydrocarbon pollutants generated by the development and its traffic represents a cumulative long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. 5.3 Geology & Hazards The long-term risk posed by the rockfall hazard potential would be mitigated in a design as developed by Cesare, Inc. The mitigation represents a long-term effect and irreversible environmental change. 5.4 Soils The proposed development would impact 5.1 acres of native soil. The soil loss represents a cumulative and long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. 5.5 Vegetation Resources 5.5.1 Vegetation Types The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of approximately 2.7 acres of an aspen forest. This represents a cumulative and long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. Approximately 2.3 acres of aspen forest habitat would be restored following construction. 5.5.2 Wetlands Piping and riprap on and off-site would impact 184 ft2 of a 2 -foot wide ephemeral stream that is classified as a wetland. This represents a small cumulative effect and a long-term irreversible environmental change. 5.6 Wildlife Resources The proposed project would have both negative and beneficial effects on the local wildlife community. The project would result in the permanent, irreversible loss of 2.7 acres of relatively young aspen with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry, as it is converted largely 27 into an urban wildlife habitat. That area of habitat represents 22% of the 23.3 -acre parcel; 78% of the parcel would remain undeveloped. There would also be a temporary loss of 2.3 acres of similar habitat cleared for the rockfall berm, but reclaimed as a similar community. Big game would be restricted from that acreage by the human exclusion fence, but avian and small wildlife species should recolonize that habitat as it matures. There will also be wildlife displacement and reduced habitat effectiveness in habitats surrounding the on-site development and human activity areas and displacement of wildlife around existing, off-site recreation corridors used by housing residents." Wildlife displacement will vary by species and season of habitat occupancy. These direct and indirect project effects have been and would be avoided, minimized, and compensated with (1) the parcel's rezoning, (2) the incorporation of wildlife -oriented design criteria into the development's design, (3) with 14.6 acres of on-site habitat enhancement, (4) with the implementation of wildlife -related construction and operational considerations, and (5) with the implementation and enforcement of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10). While the resulting project effects would be relatively small, they would nevertheless be additive to the cumulative wildlife habitat losses that have occurred in the Gore Creek Valley and further down valley in Eagle County since the early 1960's. Collective habitat losses, the effects of increasing recreational activity in wildlife habitats, and other factors have reduced the size of the local elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep herds (Andree, 2017). There are no reasonably foreseeable projects that meet criteria warranting consideration in this analysis (CEQ 1997, USEPA 1999). Potential bighorn sheep winter range enhancement on NFS land surrounding the project area is speculative at this time. 5.7 Noise Noise generated by the proposed development and the traffic it generates would create a slight cumulative and long-term environmental change. However, given the proximity to 1-70, this change would be negligible. 5.8 Odors There would be no odor impacts. 5.9 Visual Resources Development of the project site would create a cumulative, long-term and irreversible change to the visual resources of the area. Approximately 4.46 acres of native landscape would be replaced with a residential development. 5.10 Land Use Development of 5.4 acres of the project site which is currently used as open space and wildlife habitat would change the land use to a residential land use. This represents a cumulative, long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change to land use. 5.11 Access & Transportation The traffic generated by the proposed development, an estimated 290 vehicle trips per day, represents a cumulative and long-term effect and irreversible change to the existing traffic condition. 5.12 Population The estimated 113 - 254 residents of the development represent a cumulative long-term increase in the population of the town and an irreversible environmental change. 17 With resident education, fencing, and aggressive fines and enforcement, these recreational impacts will be minimized on lands surrounding the East Vail development area that are important for sheep winter range and other wildlife uses. However, additional recreational impacts will occur along other existing trail corridors in Eagle County that bisect wildlife habitats as a result of increased recreational use of those trails by Workforce Housing residents. 28 6.0 Figures 29 P. :. 106'1 9'0"W 106°18'0"W ' Booth Creek 10 ZZZ Y Area 87 B Gore Creek ��.. _ Parcel Boundary _ " t 1-70 East Vail Exit 2' Pitkin Creek ti 10400 �. 011 106'1 9'0"W BASE: USGS 7.5' Vail East Quadrangle, Colorado COLORADO -.1oJ I 'Copyridht:© 2013 106'1 8'0"W Figure 1. Project Location Map East Vail Workforce Subdivision N A Prepared by. Birch Ecology LLC 1:24,000 BIRCII ECOLOGY —_�-- 429 Main Street P.O. Box 170 'CO 80540 C 30 (720) 350-2530-2530 www. birchecology.com P. co o co '* • y ifs , Fall Line Drive �_ 1� '; `':•� s ,: ,. n sem. �,t► .� w. �t.� 1• M f' . , ►' .`fir ��:�� • ,' . VVIII 01 � M'i r• •ftC•rp-ra i•n O, i ►N �Y" � •i tribufii•n M. D= i+,! •rj'+, EAGLE COUNTY, CO Figure 2. Aerial Photograph East Vail Workforce Housing N A Prepared by: Birch Ecology LLC 1:6,000 BIRCII ECOLOGY 429 Main Street —_�-- P.O. Box 170 'CO 80540 C 3 � (720) 350-2530-2530 www. birchecology.com Legend: Figure 3. Wetland Map 0 Wetlands East Vail Workforce Housing 6 Pit 1 Soil Pits O --Ephemeral Stream Channel Wetland Fla in by: g Prepared oy: Birch Ecology LLC Surveyed Date: February 2019 I// Culverts Peak Land Surveying Inc. of Vail, CO Contour Interval = 2 ft Scale: 1 in = 110 ft nB-170 ei ass P.O. Box V0 $IRCII ECOLOGY -_-- ry— co aosao Project Boundary 32 (M) 2s ww U,ch—.W.c— W:\281A—.ff\1.5888\17.—A-1 Valley Rod 1May 'AC \Flg-4—geMp-g 6/15/281 J i, ?� 31 . uk ter = .f' f w m Q4 s � Cr 14 PROJECT NO: 17.5029 FIGURE 4 PROJECT NAME: Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel Sheet 1 Of 2 DRAWN BY: RAB CHECKED BY: JMF Geologic Map CESARE, INC. DWG DATE: 06.16.17 1 REV. DATE: Page 33 r NnnAratf:Rx;A. &cR.vrr,n sr,�fl.cvtreRn 11.11litl215►1=9IIE�'? 9 Snowfield (latest Holocene) �E Artificial fill flakes[ Holocene) cla Alluvium (Holocene) alsy Recent landslide deposits (Holocene) W Fan deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) Or Talus (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) Qdf Debris.flow deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) Gr Rnck4acier deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) 16W- Wedand deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) [lac Alluvium and colluvium, undivided {Holocene and upper Pleistocene) {tc Colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) `drs -: Landslide deposits (Holocene and upper Pteistocerre) Ofnl Felsen neer (Holocene and Pleistoceoei Qbf Boulder field (upperO Pleistocene) Qtp Pinedale Tilt (upper Pleistocene) Otb Bull Lake Till (muddle Pleistocene) Od Diamlcion (middle to lower Pleistocene) -STI Dike rocks of intermediate to felsic composition (Tertiary) PPm Maroon Formation (Lower Permian to Middle Pennsylvanian) Minturn Formation, undifferentiated (Middle Pennsylvanian) Pml Jacque Mountain Limestone Member Upper sandslone and conglomerate member Pmwq White Quail Limestone Member Pmm Middle member Pill Individual limestone bed Pmr Robinson Limestone Member Pmrl Individual limestone bed Lower member IPmis Individual limestone bed F4Cu Pennsylvanian to Cambrian units, undifferentiated --Shown on cross section B•B' only Pzcd Clastic dike (lower Paleozoic?) Parting Formation (Upper Devonian) £p Peerless Formation (Upper Cambrian) es Sawatch Quartzite (Upper Cambrian) EARLY PROTEROZOIC ROCKS _ Early Proterozoic rocks, undifferentlated—Showrt only in cross sections Rocks of the Cross Creek batholith (Early Proterozoic) Aplitic granite ZXm Crow Creek Granite DioriteGabbroMigmatitic biotite gneiss (Early Proterozoic) ) Biotite gneiss (Early Proterozoic) ha Comact­-Dashed where approximately located; dated where concealed: showing dip where known Fault or prominent fracture—Dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. Showing dip where known. For some faults, no apparent offset Interpreted from air photographs 1 Normal fault—Dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. Ball and bar on downthrown side. Dip of fault plane shown where known Reverse fault—Dashed where approximat4 located: dotted where concealed; rectangles on upper plate ' Thrust fault—Dotted where concealed. Teeth on upper plate. Dip of fault plane shown where known Strike-shp fault—Dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed; arrows show relative slip direction — Mykmitic sheat -Generally parallel to Proterozoic Homestake shear zone (Tweto and Sims, 1963) Antichne—Showing trace of axial plane. Dotted where concealed } Syncline—Showing trace of axial plane. Dotted where i concealed Strike and dip of beds y Inclined + Vertical Overturned Horizontal Approximate strike and dip of beds 3 Inclined Strike and dip of foliation Inclined Vertical • rs Bearing and plunge of lineation �ts Strike and dip of foliation and bearing and plunge of associated lineation Strike and dip of small fault or fracture -A— Inclined + Vertical A Latter;ndicates Incalft referred its In text CONVERSION FACTORS Muhiply By To obtain centlme[ers(cm i 0.aa37 inaltes [in.) maters (m) 3.281feet VI) k[lama[ars(km} 0.6214 mi[es[mII GA AZ ze Muhlpty By To obta in i nchestin.} 2.56 Oakr"atera Icmi feet V0 0.3048 meters (m) Milos (mi) 1-608 kilometers (km) 106'i5' F 111CIP l GA Q QyaE L °o ff°� c," 4 a w 4�o NO GA AZ ze INDEX MAP SHOWING SURROUNDING QUADRANGLES PROJECT NO: 117.5029 FIGURE 4 PROJECT NAME: Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel Sheet 2 of 2 DRAWN BY: RAB CHECKED BY: IMF Geologic Map CESARE, INC. DWG DATE: 06.16.17 REV. DATE: -- Page 34 urnfrrhnirnl Eingrfrw•rr .t C rl-rrfllfrO M.11 ruh Cori k -Or 35 t .f F Creek 4 = -. 3 5. itkin Creek Townhomes Base , Li DAR group d sur face. A�aa 5- la,dsl da haad=, dt,w, d,,ppad, dataahma�ta�aa. N —E- Vail Workforce Housin g Parcel -pa t,b,d,v1,p,d(+/-5.4acres) Areal -d own d ropp'darea with",, la,t graphy. Area 3 - d,'I"ated, —, intaa block that has moved downslope ---- Approximate landslide Erten Lr from the point of origin, h,m ,kyand uneven topogaphy. 0 rjpp 1000 — ApproximateExtents, publish ed landslide deposit (Kelloggand oth ers, 2003) Area 4-Iandslid, Flank, over -steepened slope. A,aa5- la,dsl,da t,,, ora,t,,pa.ad -�dopa. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 7 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Landslide Map GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Date: 01.31.2019 Page 37 Figure 8. Important bighorn sheep seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). See text for range definitions. Bighorn sheep winter range and severe winter range cover the same largest area and are shaded light blue. Winter concentration area is shown in the two darker blue polygons. The southern edge of a lambing area above the Booth Creek cliffs is outlined in green. 38 Figure 9. Active peregrine falcon nesting cliff complex and surrounding 0.5 -mile buffer (shaded blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). 39 Figure 10. Elk winter range (outlined in light blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). In undeveloped habitats, which include the entire East Vail parcel, the winter range actually comes down to the north shoulder of 1-70. 40 Figure 11. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area (a single polygon outlined and shaded purple) mapped byCPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). 41 Ephemeral StreamProposed Mechanically Proposed Riprap iie-into Existing Proposed 24 Pip. / \ Lined Swale Stabilized Eadh Wallfor Electric \ Rockfall Protection Connect to Eliit ng G\ Century L nk F ber --- Proposed Stormwater Pipes - Proposed Century Link gi Bus, ,vE engineering Shelter - Proposed Water Lines - Proposed Comcast N Edwards, CO •rrmrr• Ephemeral Stream Channel Proposed Date: May 2019 \ Wetlands Stonnwater contourintervai=2rt scale:l In=75R Sur veyed by: Peak Land surveying Inc. Existing Culverts treatment 42 \ Manholes Connecito Ex st ng Gas Proposed Water Gualty Ex stingg 24\„ Culved Pond \: Proposed Stormwater Pipe _ Proposed Rockfall Mitigation Be— Tie -into Existing 10" Water Main Tiered Boulder Walls Wetlands to be proteded ,nfe/yf4 ravel Pat /Q AO Proposed B Sewer Man , Proposed ' W ooden Stairs Legend: Existing Contours --- Proposed Stormwater Pipes - Proposed Century Link gi ,vE engineering tiProposed Contours - Proposed Water Lines - Proposed Comcast N Edwards, CO •rrmrr• Ephemeral Stream Channel - Proposed Sewer Lines Date: May 2019 Wetand Flagging Wetlands -Pro osed Electric p contourintervai=2rt scale:l In=75R Sur veyed by: Peak Land surveying Inc. Existing Culverts - Proposed Gas 42 Vail, CO Figure 12. Proposed Development Plan East Vail Worldorce Housing P P a Birch Ecology LLC �tRcFr ECOLOGY Access and Existing ground surface accumulation area 3.0 Earthen berm approximate 1:1 slope 12.0 .0 A. Earthen Berm 40.0 Access and Existing ground surface accumulation area 12.0 Rockfall wall 12.0 I--6.0L115.0 B. Structural Wall Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel Date: 01.25.2019 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 13 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Typical Sections - Rockfall Barriers GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Page 43 Figure 14. Wildlife habitats affected on and adjacent to the 5.4 -acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint would affect 3.3 acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. Approximately 0.3 acres of bighorn sheep winter foraging habitat, largely composed of smooth brome, would be permanently lost. Approximately 1.7 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, also composed of smooth brome and largely off-site, would not be disturbed, but its effectiveness would be reduced by its linear configuration and location between the Frontage Road and the housing. The effectiveness of winter range to the west of the housing's driveway could also be impaired by housing -related traffic, but that area is difficult to quantify. Mitigation is proposed to better maintain that habitat effectiveness. 44 A. Y Figure 15. Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Enhancement Bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions proposed on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel (red outline) to compensate for winter range lost to, and affected by, development of the Workforce Housing project. 45 7.0 References Ackerfield, J. 2015. The Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press, Ft. Worth, Texas. 818p. Andree, B. 2017. Untitled letter re: the sustainability of wildlife populations within the Gore Valley. CPW. Glenwood Springs, CO. Ltr. to P. Wadden, Watershed Community Coordinator, Town of Vail. Mar. 6. 7pp. Birch Ecology. 2019. Wetland Delineation Report, East Vail Workforce Subdivision, Eagle County, Colorado. Prepared for Triumph Development & Western Ecological Resource. February 2019. Bush, T. 2006. Plant fact sheet: smooth brome, Bromus inermis. USDA NRCS Rose Lake Plant Materials Center, East Lansing, Michigan. 2pp. May 25. Cesare, Inc. 2018. Preliminary Subsurface Exploration, East Vail Housing Rock Mitigation and Geotechnical Study, Vail Colorado. Prepared for Triumph Development. November 14, 2018. Cesare, Inc. 2017. Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel, Vail, Colorado. Prepared for Kevin Hopkins, Vail Resorts Development Company. June 19, 2017. Chick, Nancy. 2018. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Background Estimates for Air Pollution, East Vail Workforce Subdivision. December 27, 2018. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2017. Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. [Online]. Available: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/tracking/vascular.html Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. CPW, Denver, CO. Craig, G.R. 1978. American peregrine falcon, Fa/co ,neregrinus anatum. Pages 40-45 in Essential habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife in Colorado. CDOW, Denver. 84 pp. Gunther, K.A., M.J. Biel and H.L. Robison. 1998. Factors influencing the frequency of road -killed wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. pp. 395 to 405 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Fort Myers, FL, Feb. 9 to 12, 1998. Jennings, William F. 1990. Final Report. Species studied: S,niranthes di/uvia/is, Sisyrinchium pallidum. Report for the Nature Conservancy under the Colorado Natural History Small Grants Program. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. 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. 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. Skyline Geoscience. 2019. Geologic Hazard Analysis, East Vail Parcel, Vail, Colorado. Prepared for Cesare, Inc. February 12, 2019. 46 Spackman, S., et al. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Thompson, R.W. 2019. Wildlife Mitigation Plan, East Vail Workforce Housing Project, Town of Vail, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. February 2019. Thompson, R.W. 2018a. Recommended wildlife design criteria for Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp., June 15. Thompson, R.W. 2018b. East Vail peregrines — 2018 nesting attempt to date. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp., June 18. Thompson, R.W. 2018c. Wildlife monitoring reportfor the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 33 pp., Aug. 31. Thompson, R.W. 2018d. East Vail Workforce Housing project conceptual bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions memorandum. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 3 pp., Nov. 5. Thompson, R.W. 2017. Rezoning wildlife assessment of Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 10 pp., Aug. 10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. ERDC/EL TR -08-28. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. Wash., D.C. 64 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Consideration of cumulative effects in EPA review of NEPA documents. U.S. EPA Off. Fed. Activities. Wash., D.C. 18 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Ute Ladies' -tresses (5,piranthe5 0(i/uvia/i5) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. U.S. Forest Service. 2015. White River National Forest revised sensitive species list -terrestrial. USDA Forest Service, Glenwood Springs, CO. (updated by J. Austin, USFS, Nov. 7, 2016) U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Environmental Assessment, Booth Creek Project Burn Area, Eagle County, Colorado. Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Minturn, CO. Feb. 6. 47 Appendix A. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Correspondence — Background Estimates for Air Pollution in Project Site STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 0.075 Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH RM Steel Print Shop, Pueblo, 2013 - 2015. Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 Located in Glendale, Colorado (303) 692-3090 www.colorado.gov/cdphe David Johnson By email: david@westerneco.com December 27, 2018 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Dear Mr. Johnson, You recently requested background estimates for air pollution in the area of the following project: East Vail Workforce Subdivision County: Eagle Latitude: NAD83: 39.645108 AND / OR NAD27 Longitude: -106.304878 The estimates, and their bases, are given below. Pollutant Standard Standard Estimated Concentration Basis for Estimate CO requested? Yes CO 1 Hour Second Maximum (ppm) 35 2 Grand Junction, 2015 - 2017. CO 8 Hour Second Maximum (ppm) 9 1 03 requested? Yes 03 8 Hour Fourth Maximum (ppm) 0.070 0.064 Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015. SO2 requested? Yes SO2 1 Hour 99th Percentile 0.075 0.012 RM Steel Print Shop, Pueblo, 2013 - 2015. SO2 3 Hour Second Maximum (ppm) 0.05 0.008 (Secondary Standard) SO2 24 Hour Second Maximum (ppm) 0.003 SO2 Annual Mean (ppm) . 0.001 NO2 requested?) Yes NO2 Annual Mean (ppm) 0.053 0.005 Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015. NO2 1 Hour 98th Percentile (ppm) 0.100 0.033 PM10 requested? Yes 150 40 Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015. PM10 24 Hour Second Maximum (ug/m3) PM2.5 requested? Yes PM2.5 Annual Mean (ug/m3) 12.0 5 Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015. PM2.5 24 Hour 98th Percentile (ug/m3) 35 13 Pb requested? Yes Pb Rolling 3 -Month Average (ug/m3) 0.15 0.006 Denver Municipal Animal Shelter, 2009. A-1 Any ozone concentrations provided here are for informational purposes only. They are not for use in modeling. Ozone concentrations for use in modeling (AERMOD / OLM) should be requested separately. Upon request, refinement of a single value background concentration listed above may be conducted by the modeling staff (email: emmett.malone@state.co.us), if applicable, appropriate, and justified. These estimates are derived from ambient monitored concentrations that are available to the Division to represent background levels (added to the impacts of the project emissions and emissions from other nearby sources) in cumulative ambient air impacts for comparison to the NAAQS. They are not suitable for applications beyond that scope of use. The quantity of data is sometimes limited and may be of uncertain quality. The ambient background concentrations - 1. Do not necessarily substitute for on-site monitoring data; i.e., for permitting actions subject to PSD rules, pre -construction monitoring may be required. 2. Indicate the ambient levels in general geographic areas, not a specific location. This is particularly true for particulate concentration values. 3. Are subject to change without notice as new information is acquired. Use of these background estimates should be accompanied by an appropriate citation that indicates their source and their limitations. Referencing this letter would be adequate, but an expanded explanation is suggested. If you have questions, I can be reached at 303-692-3226, or email: nancy.chick@state.co.us. Sincerely, t�j I. D�'_k Nancy D. Chick Environmental Protection Specialist Air Pollution Control Division CAbackground concentration\request no. 177 A-2 Appendix B. IPaC Resource List IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trustresources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Eagle County, Colorado �w Local office Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office t. (970) 243-2778 18 (970) 245-6933 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240 Grand junction, CO 81 501-571 1 http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/Colorado/ http://www.fws.gov/pIatteriver/ Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project -specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Mammals NAME STATUS Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652 Birds STATUS Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8196 Yellow -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened Fishes NAM E STATUS Bonytail Chub Gila elegans Endangered This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: • Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fks.gov/ecp/species/1377 Colorado Pikeminnow (=squawfish) Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: • Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3531 Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2775 Humpback Chub Gila cypha This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: • Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3930 Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: • Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/530 Endangered Endangered Flowering Plants NAM E STATUS Ute Ladies' -tresses Sp iranthes diluviali-C) Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.go specvs12159 U 70 Critical habitats %k Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. Migratory birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Acti and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. ME 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.ggy/m gratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E -bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area NAME 'OPA Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 B-5 BREEDING SEASON (IF A .............................................................................. BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE ..................................................................................................... BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN .............................................................................................................. THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, .......................................................................................... WHICH IS AVERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE ........................................................................................................ WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS .................................................................................. ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. ......................................................................................... ''BREEDS ELSEWHERE'' INDICATES ............................................................................................................. THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY ............................................................................................................. BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.) Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 Olive -sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914 Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus Breeds elsewhere This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4 -week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data ( ) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPEC IES Bald Eagle Non -BCC Vulnerable ................................................. (This is nota Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this .................................................. area, but warrants ............................................ attention because of the Eagle Act or for ............................................... potential ...................... susceptibilities in .......................................... offshore areas from ................................................. certain.types of ..................................... development or ...................................... activities.) Olive -sided probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV Jll 1111 till 1111 - - �11� ---- Flycatcher ,C , C Rangewide 0?4%k. (CON) (This is a Bird ................................................ of Conservation ...................................... Concern (BCC) ................................... throughout its range in the continental .......................................... USA and Alaska.) Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide ..................... (CO This is a Bird of Conservation ....................................... Concern (BCC) throughout its range ..................................... in the continental ........................................... USA and Alaska.) ......................................... Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. Im What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the E -bird Explore Data Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? A\k The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, bAding, and citizen science datasets . ! 1k Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects :: For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. V n Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. THERE ARE NO KNOWN WETLANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. l EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 3 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Prepared for: Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 May, 2019 1Western Ecosystems, Inc. Eco Cog icaCConsuCtants goy Nest Coad Road, Boulder, Colorado 8o302 (303) 442-6144 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Prepared by: Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, Colorado 80302 Submitted to: Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 Western Ecological Resource 711 Walnut Street Boulder, CO 80302 MAY, 2019 C:\...\Vail Resorts\East Vail Parcel\WEI\Workforce Housing Subdivision 2018-\EIR Wildlife Sections\EV Wildlife Mit Plan May2819 Final Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS CURRENTLY REDUCING WILDLIFE EFFECTIVENESS ON THE EAST VAIL PARCEL......................................................................................................1 2.1 I-70 AND THE FRONTAGE ROAD..................................................................................................1 2.2 HUMAN RECREATION........................................................................................................................1 2.3 FIRE SUPPRESSION AND HABITAT DETERIORATION........................................................ 3 3.0 WILDLIFE USING THE EAST VAIL PARCEL....................................................................3 3.1 FOCAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN................................................................................. 4 3.1.1 Bighorn Sheep............................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.1.1 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Seasonal Range Mapping ..................................... 4 ROCKFALL BERM................................................................................................................................16 3.1.1.2 Results of the East Vail 2017-2018 Winter Sheep Study ................................... 6 3.1.2 Peregrine Falcon......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Elk................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1.4 Black Bear..................................................................................................................................11 7.6 3.2 OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN..............................................................................11 3.2.1 Migratory Birds.........................................................................................................................11 3.2.2 Raptors.......................................................................................................................................11 3.2.3 Fish.............................................................................................................................................12 3.2.4 Other Big Game Species.........................................................................................................12 3.2.4.1 Mule Deer...............................................................................................................12 3.2.4.2 Moose......................................................................................................................13 3.2.4.3 Mountain Goat......................................................................................................13 3.2.4.4 Mountain Lion.......................................................................................................13 4.0 2017 EAST VAIL PARCEL REZONING...............................................................................13 5.0 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CRITERIA..............................................................................13 6.0 EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL...............................14 7.0 WORKFORCE HOUSING DESIGN CRITERIA REDUCING POTENTIAL IMPACTS 16 7.1 STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERING........................................................................16 7.2 PARCEL ACCESS...................................................................................................................................16 7.3 ROCKFALL BERM................................................................................................................................16 7.4 DEVELOPMENT BUFFER.................................................................................................................16 7.5 ASPEN SCREENING............................................................................................................................17 7.6 DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD CUT SLOPE ..................17 7.7 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE SETBACKS...................................................................17 7.8 UNIT NUMBERS....................................................................................................................................18 7.9 INTERNAL PARKS...............................................................................................................................19 7.10 TREE CLEARING.................................................................................................................................19 Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 7.11 MAINTAINING SHEEP MOVEMENTS ABOVE THE FRONTAGE ROAD......................19 7.12 FENCING.................................................................................................................................................19 7.13 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT.............................................................................................................20 7.14 HUMAN HABITATION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND WILDLIFE MITIGATIONPLAN............................................................................................................................ 20 8.0 PROJECT -RELATED WILDLIFE EFFECTS.....................................................................20 9.0 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN.........................................................................................23 9.1 WINTER RANGE ENHANCEMENT.............................................................................................. 23 9.1.1 On-site Enhancement..............................................................................................................24 9.1.2 Off-site Enhancement............................................................................................................. 27 9.2 CONSTRUCTION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES.................................................28 9.2.1 Wintering Sheep........................................................................................................................ 28 9.2.2 Nesting Peregrine Falcons...................................................................................................... 31 9.2.3 Other Construction -related Mitigation.................................................................................. 31 9.3 HUMAN HABITATION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND MANAGEMENTPLAN....................................................................................................................... 31 9.3.1 Requirements for the Developer of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel ............... 32 9.3.2 Wildlife Requirements for Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel........ 33 9.3.2.1 Recreation...............................................................................................................33 9.3.2.2 Pet Controls........................................................................................................... 34 9.3.2.3 Resident Education Regarding Black Bears/ Trash Removal/ Nuisance Wildlife.................................................................................................................... 36 9.3.2.4 Resident Education on Mountain Lions............................................................. 37 9.3.2.5 Education on Wildlife Mortality on Local Roads ............................................... 37 9.3.2.6 Adjacent National Forest Lands......................................................................... 38 9.3.2.7 Resident Education on Other Wildlife Concerns ............................................. 38 9.3.3 Enforcement............................................................................................................................. 38 9.3.4 Miscellaneous............................................................................................................................ 40 10.0 LITERATURE CITED...........................................................................................................40 11.0 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................42 A. APPENDIX A. WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT FOR THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING PARCEL, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO .................................. 42 B. APPENDIX B. EAST VAIL PEREGRINES — 2018 NESTING ATTEMPT ........................... 42 Western Ecosystems, Inc. 11 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 2-1. Location of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel, north of I -70's East Vail Interchange and composed of the 5.4 -acre, Lot 1, Housing Parcel and the 17.9 -acre, Tract A, Natural Area Preservation (NAP) Parcel. Also shown are contiguous and adjacent USFS and Town of Vail (TOV) lands. The TOV parcels to the west, the USFS parcel to the north, and the NAP parcel to the east compose the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern on this project ................................................. 2 Figure 3-1. Bighorn sheep winter ranges mapped by CPW (Dec. 6, 2017) in the vicinity of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel (red outline). See text for range definitions. Bighorn sheep winter range (BSWR) and severe winter range (BSSWR) cover the same largest polygon shaded light blue. Winter concentration area (BSWCA) is shown in the two darker blue polygons .............................. 5 Figure 3-2. Active peregrine falcon nesting cliff complex and surrounding 0.5 mile buffer (shaded blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline) .................................................. 8 Figure 3-3. Elk winter range (outlined in light blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). In undeveloped habitats, which include the entire East Vail parcel, the winter range actually comes down to the north shoulder of I-70..............................................................................10 Figure 3-4. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area (a single polygon outlined and shaded purple) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline)..............12 Figure 6-1. East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision site plan..................................................15 Figure 8-1. Wildlife habitats affected by structural development on and adjacent to the 5.4 acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint would affect 2.7 acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. Another 2.3 acres (not shown; see Triumph Development 2019) north of the development area would also be disturbed for the rockfall berm, reclaimed, but blocked by fencing from big game access. Approximately 0.3 acres of bighorn sheep winter foraging habitat, largely composed of smooth brome, would be permanently lost. Approximately 1.7 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, also composed of smooth brome and largely off-site, would not be disturbed, but its effectiveness would be reduced by its linear configuration and location between the Frontage Road and the housing. The effectiveness of winter range to the west of the housing's driveway could also be impaired by housing -related traffic, but that area is difficult to quantify. Mitigation is proposed to better maintain habitat effectiveness.............................................................................22 Figure 9-1. Bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions proposed on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel (red outline) to compensate for winter range lost to, and affected by, development of the Workforce Housing project. See text for prescription descriptions..................................................25 Western Ecosystems, Inc. m May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 1.0 INTRODUCTION Vail Resorts (VR) owns the ± 23.3 -acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. Triumph Development is under contract to purchase the property and is interested in locating affordable housing on a portion of the property. The parcel supports important wildlife habitat and is closely surrounded by habitats and wildlife uses that are unique in the Gore Creek Valley. Development and human habitation of this site without designing it around the wildlife community, without safeguards, and without habitat enhancement would result in impacts that would be unacceptable to the local community. This stand-alone Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be provided to residents of the Workforce Housing subdivision to educate them about (1) the parcel's setting, (2) the sensitivity of the local wildlife, (3) the effort that went into the development's design to avoid, minimize, and compensate for project effects, and (4) requirements that residents must abide by to live in this sensitive setting. 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS CURRENTLY REDUCING WILDLIFE EFFECTIVENESS ON THE EAST VAIL PARCEL Some wildlife species using portions of the East Vail parcel are negatively affected by existing levels of surrounding development and human activity. Figure 2-1 shows the two parcels composing the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel and surrounding land ownership. The following parcel conditions affect current, on-site and off-site wildlife use and limit, to some extent, the additional, negative, potential development effects to wildlife. 2.1 I-70 AND THE FRONTAGE ROAD The parcel's southern boundary is located as close as 122 feet to the westbound lanes of I-70, one of the major ground transportation corridors across the United States. Locally, I-70 consists of two westbound and two eastbound lanes with a posted 65 mph speed limit and supporting an average daily traffic volume of 29,000 vehicles (2016). The East Vail interchange and the west -bound on and off ramps are located on the opposite side of the Frontage Road from the parcel. There is virtually no location on the parcel where the sights, sounds, and smells of I-70 use are non -discernable 24/7/365. he current average daily traffic volume on the North Frontage Road is approximately 2,200 vpd (K. McDowell Schroeder, McDowell Engineering, pers. comm. May23, 2019) that are greatest during dawn through dusk. Most local wildlife have adapted to this relatively benign and predictable activity. The most acute Frontage Road traffic effects on wildlife are the harassment effects to bighorn sheep that occurs when motorists stop to view them when the sheep are close to the road. 2.2 HUMAN RECREATION There is a level of daily recreational use that occurs along the Frontage Road, some of which extends into the proposed development area, generally via the Booth Creek rockfall berm road and buried electric line corridor that bisects the center of the parcel. Uses, in order of decreasing frequency, include dog -walking, hiking, jogging, biking, motorcycle riding, and transients camping. Unauthorized use of the parcel occurs year-round, but is greatest from spring through fall when not curtailed by excessive snow depths. Low to Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife MitieationPlan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision Figure 2-1. Location of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel, north of I -70's East Vail Interchange and composed of the 5.4 -acre, Lot 1, Housing Parcel and the 17.9 -acre, Tract A, Natural Area Preservation (NAP) Parcel. Also shown are contiguous and adjacent USFS and Town of Vail (TOV) lands. The TOV parcels to the west, the USFS parcel to the north, and the NAP parcel to the east compose the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern on this project. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision moderate numbers of primarily hikers also pass by the parcel's eastern flank on the Pitkin Creek Trail extending into the Eagles Nest Wilderness. 2.3 FIRE SUPPRESSION AND HABITAT DETERIORATION The East Vail parcel is located within an approximate 1,800 -acre polygon of bighorn sheep winter range that extends along the south -facing slopes north of I-70. Over the last 20-30 years, aspen forest has encroached onto the East Vail parcel, as it has elsewhere in the local area. While mature aspen stands support some of the highest wildlife diversity values of any local vegetation type, they provide poor quality winter range for the local bighorn sheep herd, which has declined in number over that same time period. Sheep also consider forest stands as restrictions due to their need to visually observe the landscape for predators (e.g., bears, coyotes, mountain lions, dogs, etc.; USFS 1998). Mature aspen stands have died and fallen creating jackstrawed deposits of logs that restrict and block sheep and elk movements through the winter range. Lastly, mountain shrubs have become decadent and much of their nutritious foliage has grown out of the reach of wintering ungulates (bighorn sheep and elk). In 1998, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW, now Colorado Parks and Wildlife, CPW) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) recognized that there was an increasingly limited amount of accessible winter forage (quality and quantity) and nearby escape terrain for sheep in the project area (USFS 1998). By suppressing wildfires on this winter range, the aspen and shrub components had become over mature and in need of vegetative treatment. The USFS (1998) proposed a habitat enhancement plan whose specific purposes were (1) to create a movement corridor (through downed aspen) for the bighorn sheep to be able to travel from Pitkin Creek west to Spraddle Creek, (2) to reduce the fuel loading to lessen the risk of wildfire, (3) to regenerate shrubland and aspen stands that are over mature, and (4), to improve the quantity and quality of forage (shrubs, grass, fortis) for big game (sheep, elk, and mule deer). The East Vail parcel was one of the USFS's proposed treatment areas. In 1998, the sheep population was estimated at approximately 125 animals (USFS 1998). Without implementation of the habitat enhancement plan, the USFS (1998) predicted that aspen stands would continue to age, disease and insect infestations would increase, and the stands would die. Dead and down timber would further restrict big game movements to winter foraging areas and escape terrain. The aspen and aged shrub communities would not regenerate. The shrub component (vital for wintering species) would continue to mature, die, and be replaced by grasses and fortis. Grass/ forb communities that are covered by snow are unavailable to winter browsers. Lastly, the USFS (1998) predicted that without enhancement there would be fewer bighorn sheep as a result of continued habitat degradation. The enhancement project was approved, but not implemented because of community opposition to the use of fire (B. Andree, CPW, Jan. 23, 2018). Although there have been two small scale habitat enhancement projects below the Booth Creek cliffs and on the East Vail parcel ca. 2000, the overall sheep winter range has deteriorated as predicted. Over the 2017/ 2018 winter, Thompson (2018c) detected a total of 41 sheep largely confined to a small non -forested subset of their former winter range. Availability of effective winter range is arguably the greatest current threat to the East Vail sheep herd. 3.0 WILDLIFE USING THE EAST VAIL PARCEL Our understanding of wildlife on the East Vail parcel and in the surrounding area was documented using the results of past observations, discussions with wildlife professionals (e.g., B. Andree, CPW District Wildlife Manager, pers. comms., now Ret.), mapping and studies conducted by the CDOW and CPW and Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision USFS (e.g., 1998), along with site-specific seasonal surveys conducted between August 4, 2017 and June 14, 2018 for the East Vail parcel Rezoning (Thompson 2017) and Workforce Housing (Thompson 2018b,c) processes. 3.1 FOCAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN There are four wildlife species of particular concern on this project, bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregnnus anatum), elk (Cereus canadensis), and black bear (Ursus americanus). 3.1.1 Bighorn Sheep 3.1.1.1 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Seasonal Range Mapping Figure 3-1 shows the important bighorn sheep seasonal ranges mapped by CPW (Dec. 6, 2017) in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. The winter range and severe winter range polygons are approximately 1,800 acres and extend west from Pitkin Creek along the north side of I-70 nearly to I -70's Vail exit. This is the only sheep winter range mapped on either side of the Gore Range. Bighorn sheep winter range and severe winter range cover the same area and overlap most (± 75%) of the parcel. Winter range (BSWR) 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. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has not defined the winter range period for this herd. Based on CPW's generic definition and considering winter range dates for other big game species, average sheep winter range occupancy could be defined, on average, as November 15 to April 15 (dates inclusive). Sheep are present on portions of their winter range (i.e., below the Booth Creek cliffs) outside this period because of salt and mineral blocks. Severe winter range (BSSWR) 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 winter range and severe winter range polygon boundaries are not accurate based on the results of the 2017-2018 winter sheep study (Thompson 2018c). In the spirit of the mapping, the polygons were likely intended to extend southeast to the treeline along Pitkin Creek and down to the north side of the Frontage Road. This would include most, if not all, of the East Vail parcel, although, based on the winter sheep study (Thompson 2018c), the only meaningful foraging habitat used was that along the Frontage Road, below and mostly off of the parcel. There is no I-70 game fencing in the area. Sheep likely used the habitat in what is now the Booth Creek residential area before its development. Sheep no longer enter the interior of that development and only use peripheral areas when no people are initially present. Winter concentration area (BSWCA) 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. Two BSWCA polygons occur within the winter range, neither overlapping the East Vail parcel, but habitat effectiveness of the nearest polygon could be influenced by residential development and habitation on the parcel. A bighorn sheep migration pattern (not shown in Fig. 3-1) is a subjective indication of the general direction taken by migratory ungulate herds. In the study area, bighorns move downhill on the ridge between Pitkin and Booth Creeks during fall towards their winter range, then move uphill and follow this same general route in spring to their alpine summer range. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife MitieationPlan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision Figure 3-1. Bighorn sheep winter ranges mapped by CPW (Dec. 6, 201) in the vicinity of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel (red outline). See text for range definitions. Bighorn sheep winter range (BSWR) and severe winter range (BSSWR) cover the same largest polygon shaded light blue. Winter concentration area (BSWCA) is shown in the two darker blue polygons. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 3.1.1.2 Results of the East Vail 2017-2018 Winter Sheep Study Results of the 2017-2018 East Vail Winter Sheep Study (Thompson 2018c, App. A) are summarized below. The October 13, 2017 to June 14, 2018 wildlife study was primarily designed to detect and characterize winter bighorn sheep use on and in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. The study employed five trail cameras (4 on the East Vail parcel, including 3 overlooking the development area, and 1 below the eastern Booth Creek cliffs), winter tracking, and binocular and spotting scope surveys of the 1,800 -acre sheep winter range polygon. Winter severity' affects spatial and temporal, winter, big game use patterns. Compared to the prior nine years, winter 2017-2018 was below average for total snowfall (-350/o), total snowfall days (40%), and mean base snowfall depth (-120/o), and above average for maximum base depth (+3%). Shallower and less persistent snow in the East Vail project area over the 2017-2018 winter should have allowed sheep to use higher elevation habitats, more forested habitats,z and a larger portion of their winter range than during average and harsher winters. Sheep use detected on the East Vail parcel over the 2017-2018 winter included foraging along the smooth brome-dominated cut slope above the Frontage Road on three occasions, forced travel through the potential 5.4 -acre development area on two occasions, and a single animal travelling through the NAP portion of the parcel in May, outside the winter period. The south -facing cut slopes above the Frontage Road are non -forested and steeper than the aspen forest portion of the development area, resulting in shallower depths and less persistent snow that facilitated foraging. Trail cameras captured 125,699 images over the study period. A total of 91 sheep were caught on two of the four trail cameras on the East Vail parcel during the winter range period, both of them in the 5.4 -acre development area (where strategic camera placement covered all trails and much of the area 24/7). Sheep use of the property caught on cameras occurred on January 24, 2018 (n=24 sheep) and 28 (n=28), February 7 (n=±15), and March 24 (n=8), 2018, and involved a total of 75 sheep. All but eight of the sheep (67 of 75 sheep) detected in the development area were associated with foraging along the cut slope above the Frontage Road on three days during the winter. In comparison, images of 534 sheep were caught on the single camera below the eastern portion of the Booth Creek cliffs (with a 4.4 -ac. field of view). More meaningfully, sheep were detected on the four cameras on the East Vail parcel on four days compared to sheep detected on the single camera below the cliffs on 40 days. Although the entire 23.3 acre parcel warrants consideration as winter range, meaningful foraging only occurred on the cut slope below (and largely of�the East Vail development area for up to several hours at a time on three days. That foraging was stressful to the sheep because of the ensuing traffic jams, as motorists stopped to observe and photograph the sheep. On at least one occasion Qan. 25, 2018), the sheep where chased by some human disturbance from the cut slope into the interior of the East Vail parcel. It is possible that during more normal winters with deeper and more persistent snow depths, those ' Winter severity is generally an interrelated function of snowfall (amounts and persistence) and temperature. 2 Which support deeper and more persistent snow depths than non -forested habitats, all else being equal. s This total includes a double counting of the same 24 sheep that were captured on Trail Camera (TC) 2 and TO on Jan. 24. Numeric differences (i.e., 91 vs. 75 sheep) associated with double counting the same group of sheep on two cameras in the same day are attributable to the different minimum number of sheep visible on images from each camera vs. the actual number of sheep present (i.e., not all sheep present were captured on one of the cameras). Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision grasses on the cut slope would not be available to the sheep. However, what foraging that occurs along the cut slope takes foraging pressure off other accessible winter range. The distribution of 222 bighorn sheep sightings over the course of the study was mapped in relation to the East Vail parcel and CPW's sheep winter range, severe winter range, and winter concentration area polygons. No sheep sightings were made outside of CPW's winter range polygon. That sighting distribution did not include the 625 sheep sightings recorded by all trail cameras during the study, all of which were within the 2017-2018 sightings distribution. The visual sightings represent a spatial subset of overall winter range use over the relatively mild 2017-2018 winter. Sheep were at lower elevations within their overall winter range polygon and used southwest- and south -facing aspects that had the best snow - shedding characteristics, even though it was a mild winter. The cluster of sheep sightings and trail camera results below the Booth Creek cliffs to the west of the study parcel suggests that area is the most heavily used and most important block of winter range within the overall winter range polygon because of higher quality forage in close proximity to escape cover. Four occasions of time lapse images of sheep foraging in the high quality habitat below the Booth Creek cliffs indicated that sheep appeared to select against foraging far into transitional aspen habitat above and to the west of the study parcel (i.e., where sparse seedling to pole stage aspen extend west into the mountain shrub habitat below the cliffs). This "avoidance" behavior was more likely related to the quality, quantity, and availability of forage than to predator detection. Only 15% (266.28 acres) of CPW's 1,800 -acre winter range polygon was used during winter 2017-2018.4 That is likely a function of (1) the smaller present population of 41 sheep, (2) sheep now using the highest quality habitat available, (3) sheep avoiding forested habitats, (4) sheep restricted from some portions of their winter range by jackstrawed logs, and (5) sheep not using isolated mountain shrub patches, over mature shrub patches with little available forage, and shrub communities where forage has grown out of their browsing range. Rams used more distant portions of winter range compared to ewes and lambs. With respect to minimum herd size and composition, the maximum number of sheep observed during the study at any one time was 39. Based on the observed sex and age composition of sheep, the herd was composed of at least 10 lambs, 21 ewes, and 10 rams, totaling 41 sheep. The highest number of lambs (born in 2017) seen at any one time was 10 on two occasions. There was no detectable overwinter lamb mortality. The above numbers do not include a minimum of seven lambs born in 2018.5 4 The acreage was calculated by encircling the locations of all sheep detected over the 2017/2018 winter (see Fig. 4-8 in Thompson 2018c) and adding likely movement corridors and straight line segments between the outer locations. This estimate underestimates actual use because there were days during the study when no sheep or only a small number of sheep were observed. Although virtually all of the lowest elevation, highest quality, and most effective winter range was detectable from the valley bottom, some portions of CPW's winter range polygon were not visible from valley bottom observation points. For example, considering two observations of sheep in winter 2018-2019 by a TOV employee (G. Ruttier, K. Bertuglia, TOV, pers. comm., Jan. 10, 2019), the winter range use polygon for those two winters would be 17% of the overall winter range. Furthermore, sheep never used the entire 1,800 acres of winter range during any one winter. The polygon is a composite of winter sheep locations observed over many years as well as adjacent apparently suitable habitat. 5 The sheep study (Thompson 2018c) was not designed to extend outside the winter range period. These lambs were opportunistically observed with 12 ewes and yearlings at the licks atop the rockfall berm cut slope on June 14, 2018 coincident with peregrine monitoring. Assuming equal productivity of the other known ewes in the herd, the herd could have numbered 54-55 animals in mid June, 2018. This estimate was supported when Rick Spitzer, a local photographer, documented 54 sheep in East Vail on February 24, 2019. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 3.1.2 Peregrine Falcon A cliff south of I -70's East Vail Interchange has been used in recent years for peregrine falcon nesting. The cliff is located 0.36 miles from the closest point on the East Vail parcel, on the opposite side of the Frontage Road, I-70, East Vail interchange on/off ramps, the East Vail Park and Ride, Vail Trail, Gore Creek, a social trail, and the East Vail Memorial Park. Colorado Parks and Wildlife's nesting area polygon is defined as the area that includes good nesting sites and contains one or more active or inactive nest locations (Fig. 3-2). 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. Figure 3-2. Active peregrine falcon nesting cliff complex and surrounding 0.5 mile buffer (shaded blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). 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. Once birds have eggs or young, they have a strong fidelity to their invested resources. The CDOW (2008) recognized that "some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity at a proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests." The East Vail peregrines are examples of how wildlife, in Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 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. 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. Annual (2011-2017, n=5 yrs.) cliff monitoring by a long time Vail resident (Anne Esson) indicated that the pair(s) successfully fledged at least two birds during each of the five years. Monitoring of the nest cliff in 2018 indicated that the nesting attempt failed approximately 19 days after incubation was expected to have started (Thompson 2018b). It is unknown why the 2018 nesting attempt failed. Construction of a new sanitary water line on the south side of I -70's East Vail interchange and the falcons selecting a different nest ledge on the cliff in 2018, compared to prior years, were the only known independent variables that differed with those of past years. There could have been other common causes of the nest failure. Subsequent behavior of the female observed on June 14 suggested that the pair may have been in the process of a second nest attempt. However, cliff monitoring was discontinued for the 2018 season after surveys by Thompson and Esson out to July 1 failed to detect any evidence of peregrine presence. Monitoring of the nest cliff in 2019 detected at least one peregrine and a pair was suspected of nesting as recently as May 13 (A. Esson, Vail resident, pers. comm., May 13, 2019). The East Vail parcel represents a small area of largely intact undeveloped habitat below and within fairly close proximity to the adjacent nest cliff. Its seral and relatively young aspen forest does not support even moderate concentrations of prey species that would be particularly attractive to birds using the adjacent nesting cliff, but it does support potential avian prey that could contribute to the local pair's prey base. 3.1.3 Elk Figure 3-3 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 incorrect. The winter range Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 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 the East Vail parcel was in USFS 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 and I-70 where it should be. There are no mapped elk severe winter range or winter concentration areas in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. Figure 3-3. Elk winter range (outlined in light blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). In undeveloped habitats, which include the entire East Vail parcel, the winter range actually comes down to the north shoulder of I-70. Results of the winter sheep study found that a minimum of 15 elk' were occasionally present and moving back and forth between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages through the East Vail parcel. Using the spike in the group as a marker, the same group of elk was captured on the three most widely separated trail cameras in the same night. Compared to the sheep, the local elk were more wary of human activity areas. Although some of their movements closely approached I-70 and the Frontage Road, they only did so under cover of darkness. Elk were only captured on the trail cameras at night and their movements between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages were completed at night. Evidence of elk foraging was captured on all cameras except one of three within the interior of the 5.4 -acre development area. Concerted foraging was noted on cameras located below the cliffs and in the NAP area. Foraging in the meadow in the development area's northeast corner was opportunistic as animals were traveling. 6 Composed of 12 cows, 2 calves, and a spike bull. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 10 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Although there are areas of the East Vail parcel that may not be used because of terrain and proximity to human disturbances areas, for all practical purposes, the entire parcel should be mapped as elk winter range. 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 smaller, more crowded, and less effective winter range because of collective habitat losses and the effects of human activities. 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. 3.1.4 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. 3-4). 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 entire 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 summer, the young, open -canopy aspen stands on the west end of the parcel 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. 3.2 OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN 3.2.1 Migratory Birds The East Vail parcel supports a low to moderate diversity of largely migratory birds that reach peak numbers during the spring and mid -summer breeding season. The avian community is typical of those associated with the habitats present and is largely uninfluenced by chronic human activity associated with the adjacent Frontage Road and I-70. 3.2.2 Raptors Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were the only raptor actually observed on the East Vail parcel during 2017-2018 wildlife baseline surveys. No raptor nests are present and the parcel is within the hunting territory of a pair of red-tailed hawks that nested on the south side of I-70 in 2018. Other raptors Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 11 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision observed in the vicinity of the parcel during field surveys that could hunt the parcel include peregrine falcons, golden eagles (Aquila cbrysaetos), and sharp -shinned hawks (Accoiter straatus). 3.2.3 Fish The moderate gradient, intermittent creek bisecting the East Vail development parcel does not support fish. Stream water enters a 24 -inch diameter culvert and flows under the Frontage Road and I-70 before dropping into Gore Creek that supports a fishery. The culvert's drop prevents Gore Creek fish from attempting to colonize the creek during stream flows. Figure 3-4. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area (a single polygon outlined and shaded purple) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). 3.2.4 Other Big Game Species 3.2.4.1 Mule Deer The only mule deer seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range. The closest mule deer winter range is 8.7 miles down valley to the west, north of I-70. Low numbers of deer are present on and around the parcel from May through October. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 12 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 3.2.4.2 Moose The only moose seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range. The closest moose winter range is 2.5 miles to the northwest in Spraddle Creek. Moose may occur on or in the vicinity of the parcel, as they may just about anywhere else in Eagle County. Moose is the only ungulate whose population is increasing in the Gore Valley (Andree 2017). 3.2.4.3 Mountain Goat The closest mountain goat seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range in the Gore Range alpine, 2.3 miles up Booth Creek and 2.8 miles up Pitkin Creek. 3.2.4.4 Mountain Lion The East Vail parcel is located within a large polygon designated as a "mountain lion human conflict area" by CPW that includes all residential areas and trailheads from east of East Vail; to west of West Vail. Such areas are defined as areas where mountain lions have been involved in incidents (conflicts with humans that have serious results), an attack on a human, predation on domestic pets, or livestock held in close proximity to human habitation. Lion conflicts have increased since 2016 with most encounters involving the public encountering lions while hiking with their dogs (B. Andree, CPW, DWM [Ret.] 2017). In 2016, there were two incidents of dogs killed by lions and one lion was euthanized as a result. Lions are occasionally present on and around the East Vail parcel. 4.0 2017 EAST VAIL PARCEL REZONING The East Vail Parcel was originally zoned Two Family Residential, which would have allowed 30-45 homes and roads to be spread out across most of parcel with no open space required. Development under that zoning would have appreciably altered big game use on and surrounding the parcel, with no resident education, wildlife requirements reducing negative wildlife effects, or any on-site enhancement. After an assessment of development and natural resource considerations and via the Town Planning Process, Vail Resorts successfully rezoned the parcel. Current zoning allows multifamily housing (zoned Housing Zone District) on the western 5.4 -acre tip of the parcel, while preserving the more isolated 17.9 acres as Natural Area Preservation (NAP, open space). As a result of rezoning, development would be clustered into 23% of the parcel closest to the Frontage Road and I-70 where wildlife values are currently reduced to some extent by exiting human disturbances. A single, more isolated portion of the parcel (77%) extending into NFS land, would be preserved as open space (Thompson 2017). 5.0 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CRITERIA Western Ecosystems, Inc. proactively developed an approach to Workforce Housing on the East Vail parcel that, if incorporated into the project's design, would avoid, minimize, and offset potential direct negative development effects to wildlife to the extent possible. The first draft of that document was finalized on February 28, 2018, after the author (Thompson) gave a presentation entitled "Optimal development design" at the January 18, 2018 Town of Vail Wildlife Forum. The document was finalized after the seven-month wildlife study report (Thompson 2018c) was finalized, but well before the developer of the Workforce Housing parcel was selected by Vail Resorts so that the wildlife criteria would be Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 13 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision considered and incorporated as initial integral components of the project's design, rather than the common development approach of trying to retrofit measures into a plan lacking and resistant to wildlife considerations. A disclaimer in Thompson (2018a) indicated that "There is some flexibility in the implementation of these design measures and it should be recognized that some of these recommendations are contradictory. It will be an iterative process to develop a design that works for wildlife and the developer." 6.0 EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL The current East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("EVWHS") proposal (aka the Booth Heights Neighborhood) and this section is based largely on Triumph Development (2019). Triumph Development is under contract to purchase from Vail Resorts the 23.3 acre East Vail parcel, located at 3700 North Frontage Road. Recognizing both the need for locals housing and nearby critical wildlife habitat, Vail Resorts rezoned the parcel from 23 acres of Two Family Residential to 5.4 acres of Housing and 17.9 acres of Natural Area Preservation set aside for wildlife, thereby clustering development onto 23% of the overall parcel. This application to the TOV proposes to develop the 5.4 -acre "Lot 1" of the EVWHS in conjunction with wildlife enhancements and conservation on the 17.9 acre "Tract A". The latter will be one of the most significant wildlife enhancement projects in the history of the Town on private property. The development plan has been prepared with a conscientious focus on protecting wildlife It will include a substantial landscape area and berm to protect the neighborhood from rockfall and a fence on the north side of the property to create a physical barrier restricting neighborhood residents to important surrounding wildlife areas. The new development, in keeping with the purpose of the underlying Housing Zone district, would be a mixture of rental and for -sale homes with more than 70% of the square footage built as Employee Housing Units ("EHUs'�. To that end, the applicant proposes 73 total residences comprised of 42 EHU apartments, 19 EHU townhomes, and 12 market -rate townhomes within 11 buildings (Fig. 6-1). The apartments would be all 830 -square -foot, two-bedroom units with surface parking. The townhomes would be a mix of two- and three-bedroom homes ranging in size from 1,300 square feet to just under 2,200 square feet with one car garages, driveways with two outdoor parking spaces in most cases, and private outdoor space at the rear of most units. Each new home will include ample storage, durable long- lasting and fire-resistant building materials, such as cementitious siding and stucco, 30 -year asphalt shingle and metal roofs, oversized low -e glazed windows, R40+ insulation, Energy Star appliances, and long -cycle interior finishes. The apartment buildings would have separate ground floor storage for bikes and outdoor equipment that are so prevalent among Vail residents. There would also be an outdoor community picnic and barbecue area and low maintenance and low water landscaping. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 14 Wildlife Mitivation Plan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision PRELcoIMINRYA LE END -- __ � _ ••"� : � _ �' �'= ���aor FOR iasrnucnoa------- W� i C � o new. �' � �`.' `•�-, fir; -�, ��_�\ ;�• •`;� ` , ���_ �''� --, CO LL 00 r - \ U 1 `(moi/ // \ JJ AL _�'��� \� + •\� \ ��\ � ' fin, � _ ;` a Figure 6-1. East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision site plan. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 15 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 7.0 WORKFORCE HOUSING DESIGN CRITERIA REDUCING POTENTIAL IMPACTS Recognizing the wildlife benefits resulting from the rezoning (Section 4.0), the following design criteria that were incorporated into the Workforce Housing plan further reduced potential impacts. 7.1 STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERING Structural development (16% of parcel) has been clustered as close as possible to the Frontage Road and within the interior of the parcel (Triumph Development 2019). A small area (0.26 ac.) of the most isolated, relatively open habitat on the development parcel, and the best potential sheep foraging habitat away from the Frontage Road, would be avoided. That area could be added to the open space enhancement acreage and would be important for better connecting the on-site enhancement with the heavily used sheep and elk winter range below the Booth Creek cliffs. The overall development footprint, including impervious surfaces, buildings, and snow storage is 2.7 acres (Triumph Development 2019), 50% of the 5.4 -acre development parcel and 11.6% of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel. While most of the remaining development area will be disturbed (e.g., for the rockfall berm) and then landscaped, most of that restored habitat would be unavailable or of lower value to the wildlife community (focusing on big game) because of access restricted by the fencing and its interstitial location within the development matrix. Thus, big game would lose access to approximately 5.0 acres of habitat, 21.5% of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel. Areas of direct and indirect habitat losses can be offset by on-site habitat enhancement. 7.2 PARCEL ACCESS Proposed parcel access off the Frontage Road at the existing rockfall berm road exploits the existing disturbance and provides the most gradual ascent to the development area, as recommended (Thompson 2018a). 7.3 ROCKFALL BERM A rockfall berm is proposed to the north of all structural development (Skyline Geoscience 2019) that is consistent with the recommended development design criteria (Thompson 2018a).. 7.4 DEVELOPMENT BUFFER With the exception of the initial driveway access onto the parcel, the Workforce Housing buildings and human activity areas would be well buffered by intervening forest cover from undeveloped surrounding habitats on TOV lands to the north and west and most private open space to the east. Temporary construction screening, berm installation, and tree plantings northwest of the driveway entrance that could screen project -related vehicles from nearby wildlife have been considered and could be constructed in areas that do not already have a berm/wall in time for the first bighorn sheep winter range season that is coincident with construction. The need and design for such screening will be resolved with CPW and the TOV during the planning process. The screening concern is that it would not be needed if sheep displaced by construction traffic during the day return and use that nearby habitat under cover of darkness, as sheep now use habitat along the Frontage Road. Furthermore, temporary construction screening could actually block sheep from accessing and foraging in the ± 1.7 -acre smooth brome stand that is east of the Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 16 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision driveway entrance and above the Frontage Road, unless they went around the screen's end and onto the Frontage Road at night. 7.5 ASPEN SCREENING The on-site development effects would be well screened (visually and somewhat acoustically) from the important sheep foraging habitat on NFS and TOV lands below the Booth Creek cliffs by a broad (444- 487 ft.; see Fig. 8-2, below) band of young to medium -aged aspen whose screening should increase as the trees age. However, there are issues to consider regarding the building heights warranting consideration. The upper floors of the buildings that would face undeveloped wildlife habitat to the north are three and two stories above grade. The tops of the habitable space (i.e., the area below the bottoms of the roof lines) are approximately 32 and 25 feet above the ground on the multifamily buildings and uphill town house buildings, respectively. Maximum tree heights in this area are around 30-35 feet. The building heights extending above the current aspen canopy should not be a wildlife concern because of the broad intervening distances (444-487 ft.) to occupied habitat and the local sheep being habituated to such sights as they look down on the Booth Creek neighborhood (e.g., where the closest home is 107 ft. downhill from the top of the rockfall berm). Furthermore, such inanimate objects are generally ignored by most wildlife. Perhaps, most importantly, portions of the buildings extending above the canopy are also less of a concern because none of the residential units have outside decks above ground level, as recommended in the design criteria (Thompson 2018a), where human activity could be visible and distracting to wildlife. 7.6 DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD CUT SLOPE Over the relatively mild 2017-2018 winter, sheep foraged along the smooth brome-dominated cut slope above the Frontage Road on three occasions (Thompson 2018c). While use of that habitat was limited, all sheep winter range is important, particularly considering the amount of habitat deterioration and high quality habitats lost to human development. Even limited foraging in small areas takes foraging pressure off other accessible winter range. Virtually all of that smooth brome foraging area is off the East Vail parcel and would not be directly affected by development. However, some type of development setback was sought (Thompson 2018a) to increase the likelihood that sheep would continue foraging along that cut slope under suitable conditions. . Along most of the parcel's southern boundary, a young aspen stand exists in much of the 20 foot building setback and on the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way (ROW) that would help separate and screen housing activity from the smooth brome foraging area below. Multifamily buildings 1 and 2 at the west end of the site overlap a shallow draw and would provide no setback from the foraging habitat and would even directly remove a small amount of foraging habitat. Realistically, the diurnal effectiveness of that narrow foraging area, located between the Frontage Road and the Workforce Housing development/ activity areas may not be possible to save, although sheep could still access the area at night. Nevertheless, those forage resources could be offset by winter range enhanced in more remote open space portions of the parcel and possibly on surrounding NFS and TOV lands. 7.7 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE SETBACKS With the exception of the two north-western town house buildings, which are setback 50 feet and 95 feet, respectively, the development plan would be consistent with CPW's past, arbitrary, 100 -foot setbacks of residential development from private/ USFS property lines. This residential setback from the USFS property is further enhanced along most of the property rockfall berm. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 17 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 7.8 UNIT NUMBERS The proposed 73 housing units is on the low end of the range of possible units (72 to 120 units) anticipated in the design criteria document (Thompson 2018a). Nevertheless, consideration of the individual, unit -related, design considerations relative to the 73 proposed units is warranted. "While the fewer the number of units, the better for wildlife, there is practically not much difference within a ± 10-15% range of units, particularly if the development effects can be localized and buffered. Once a development gets to a certain size, a few more units have additional, but diminishing discernable effects. For this project, there is also a trade-off of clustering development as tightly as possible (i.e., to minimize habitat loss and development effects extending off-site) versus keeping structural development with visible human activity' from extending vertically above the forest canopy and into view of wildlife on important surrounding habitats" (Thompson 2018a). The proposed number of units falls at the low end of the range of the number of units anticipated in the design recommendations. The proposed housing has largely been clustered as close as possible to the Frontage Road and within the parcel's interior and all outside, ground level human activity would be screened by existing aspen forest and rockfall berms/ walls from the heavily used sheep winter range to the west and northwest. 2. "...to that end, two story structures might be best, but three story buildings might also work. Stepping structures up the hillside on the parcel might help keep most of most structures below the canopy" (Thompson 2018a). The proposed buildings would be two and three stories on their north sides that face the important sheep winter range. All but the roofs of the buildings would be screened from wildlife view. Most importantly, all outside, ground level human activity would be screened by existing aspen forest and rockfall berms / walls from the heavily used sheep winter range to the west and northwest. There , and there are no outside, west- and northwest -facing, upper level decks proposed on any of the buildings that would expose human activity, sounds, and smells to wildlife. 3. The number of units identified in the design criteria document (Thompson 2018a) was a surrogate for what really matters, the number of residents, which could not be accurately estimated until the project was designed. The proposed Workforce Housing would support 113 to 254 residents, depending on the number of people that would choose to live in a unit.' That number of people confined to the parking lot and in the buildings, clustered in the interior of the parcel and screened from important surrounding wildlife habitats is fine. The paramount issue associated with this project is not the habitat lost to development, or temporary construction disturbances, but keeping the residents away from the important surrounding habitats, particularly in winter.' That means no trails developed onto private open space, no use of the Booth Creek rockfall berm road (possibly a seasonal ' An example of this would be an outside, north -facing deck on the upper level of a housing structure where human activity above the forest canopy would be visible to sheep on the hillside above. However, a roof or floor level without resident access to the outside (i.e., an inanimate object) could extend above the canopy. 8 Source: Triumph Development, M. O'Connor, May 7, 2019, pers. comm., file: EVWHS Population Projection 051919.xlxs. 9 This was a conclusion reached amongst biologists at a May 14, 2018 meeting held between Vail Resorts, the project biologist (Thompson), and CPW representatives (B. Andree, District Wildlife Manager, and Perry Will, Area Manager) to discuss the East Vail Workforce Housing project. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 18 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision or permanent closure of TOV open space), no on-site use of National Forest System (USFS) lands beyond (north oo the rockfall walls, no sidewalks along the Frontage Road, no dogs, no drones, resident education, penalties for non-compliance (including losing the lease), and HOA and Town enforcement. Details of these restrictions and Wildlife Requirements will be fleshed out in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. While such avoidance and minimization measures may not have 100% compliance, the project's design, enforcement opportunities, and the leverage and consequences of resident non-compliance make it likely that compliance will be adequate to avoid significant adverse effects to the sheep herd. 7.9 INTERNAL PARKS As recommended in the design criteria (Thompson 2018a), there would be no sizeable internal parks, open space, or similar amenities, which could increase the footprint of the development area. The small community park and BBQ shelter is an internal location at the center of the site and would be screened from the Frontage Road with the proposed grading. There would also be small amounts of private outdoor space at the rear of each unit. This is highly preferable to upper level outside decks where some residents would grill and use for other activities, possibly in view of wildlife. 7.10 TREE CLEARING Tree clearing would be consistent with the intent of recommended design criteria (Thompson 2018a). Tree clearing outside the development area (i.e., on the NAP parcel) would be implemented to increase winter foraging habitat. 7.11 MAINTAINING SHEEP MOVEMENTS ABOVE THE FRONTAGE ROAD Consistent with the recommended design criteria (Thompson 2018a), the developer is not proposing excessive cut slopes, fencing, or entrance landscaping that could block east -west sheep movements along the north side of the Frontage Road. The TOV Public Works Department has requested consideration of a public trail/sidewalk along the Frontage Road that would connect with the existing sidewalk ending west of Katsos Ranch Road, as well as a possible full -movement bus stop that would need to be located near the west end of the parcel (M. O'Connor, Triumph Development, Dec. 14, 2018 pers. comm.). Regarding both improvements, in addition to the direct loss of foraging habitat from trail and bus stop construction, the displacement of sheep from adjacent winter foraging habitat by pedestrians would affect sheep use not only below the East Vail parcel, but also the heavily used CDOT ROW and TOV open space to the west. A winter closure of such a trail would be difficult to enforce and would likely be ineffective. Should winter sheep use of the cut slope above the Frontage Road near the East Vail parcel be determined to be lost, a sidewalk could be considered east of the Workforce Housing access road. Although the project design documents have demonstrated adequate space and the ability to add these requested pedestrian and transportation improvements, a substantial new bus stop and pedestrian trail, eventually connecting to the Booth Creek neighborhood to the west is not recommended for the above reasons. 7.12 FENCING Fencing to block human access from the property into important surrounding wildlife habitat was Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 19 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision requested by CPW 1' before the Workforce Housing plan and the rockfall berm were designed. Such fencing would not only restrict humans from surrounding habitat, but also exclude big game from entering undeveloped and native landscaped areas of the development parcel (approx. 2.3 ac.). The need and design of fencing will be resolved with CPW and the TOV during the PEC/ TC planning process, with details finalized during the Building Permit process. A fencing concern includes a design that allows big game (that will inevitably find their way into the subdivision at night then become trapped and panic onto an adjacent Frontage Road when residential activity increases in the morning) to safely exit the development area. Fencing and jump gate designs, similar to those that have been installed in wildlife fencing along I-70 in Eagle County, have been obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT, J. Peterson, CDOT Wildlife Program Manager) and would be incorporated into the rockfall berm to facilitate the needed egress. 7.13 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Now that a detailed housing plan has been developed, the enhancement of bighorn sheep winter range (that will also benefit other wildlife [e.g., elk and mule deer] in the area) recommended in the design criteria document (Thompson 2018a), has been further refined (see Section 9.1, below). While the long-term viability of the local sheep herd is much more dependent on the implementation of a broad -scale enhancement plan on NFS and TOV lands supporting the vast majority of the winter range, Triumph Development plans to proceed with the enhancement of winter range under its control as soon as possible after receiving TOV approval. 7.14 HUMAN HABITATION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN The Wildlife Mitigation Plan in Section 9.0, below, addresses topics related to Workforce Housing construction and resident habitation of the property, as recommended in the design criteria (Thompson 2018a). 8.0 PROJECT -RELATED WILDLIFE EFFECTS The proposed Workforce Housing is going to have a mix of negative and beneficial effects on the local wildlife community. There will be a net loss of habitat and wildlife displacement from development and human activity areas when 21.5% of the overall parcel is developed. Negative effects will include approximately five acres of direct habitat losses, 11 reduced habitat effectiveness of adjacent buffer zones, increased traffic along the Frontage Road and regional highways, and the displacement of wildlife around off-site recreation corridors that will likely be used by housing residents.12 Potential negative development effects have already been somewhat reduced through the rezoning process that concentrated development on 23% of the parcel, as well as further avoided, minimized, and compensated with (1) the incorporation of wildlife -oriented design criteria into the development's design (Section 7.0 and 9.2), (2) with on-site 10 At a May 14, 2018 meeting with Vail Resorts. ii I.e., 2.7 acres from direct habitat losses and fencing blocking wildlife access to another 2.3 acres of the parcel. lz With resident education, fencing/ barriers, and aggressive fines and enforcement, these recreational impacts will be minimized on lands surrounding the East Vail development area that are important for sheep winter range and other wildlife uses. However, additional, incremental recreational impacts will occur along other existing trail corridors in Eagle County that bisect wildlife habitats as a result of increased recreational use of those trails by Workforce Housing residents. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 20 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision habitat enhancement proposed on 14.6 acres of the parcel that will remain undeveloped (Section 9.1), (3) with the implementation of wildlife -related construction and operational considerations (Section 9.2), and (4) with the implementation and enforcement of the human habitation -related minimization measures and management plan (Section 9.3). The beneficial effect would be the enhancement of sheep and elk winter range that is not currently effective for sheep because of fire suppression effects. Additional details of project effects are contained in the wildlife section of the 2019 Environmental Impact Report submitted to the TOV as part of the planning and approval process for this project. Figure 8-1 shows wildlife habitats that would be affected on and adjacent to the 5.4 acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint, including the driveway and parking lots, buildings, the rockfall wall, and ancillary facilities, would affect approximately five acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. That area of habitat represents 21.5% of the 23.3 -acre parcel; 78.5% of the parcel would remain undeveloped. Undeveloped habitat on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel would be enhanced as big game (bighorn sheep and elk) winter range. Mule deer, elk, and other wildlife with affinities to mountain shrub habitat would also benefit. Using the results of the 2017-2018 wildlife study (Thompson 2018c), additional sheep winter range enhancement, probably involving hundreds of acres, is under consideration on surrounding NFS lands and TOV open space. Most wildlife present in development areas at the time of construction will be displaced to adjacent habitats, some of which will be occupied. Small mammals, the young of cavity nesting birds, and a reptile (garter snake, Thamnophir elegans) may be killed, depending on the time of year that site clearing starts. The size of the development area likely supports the home ranges of several to a handful of individual bird and small mammal species. After project development and habitation, the development parcel will support those wildlife species tolerant of human development. The effectiveness of habitats surrounding the development to the north, east, and west would be reduced, to a certain extent, by noise, visual, and olfactory disturbances emanating from the development. Distances would vary by species and would be attenuated by screening forest, distance, topography, and the chronic disturbances extending through the parcel from the adjacent Frontage Road and I-70. Birds and small mammals would be the least affected by the adjacent development. Elk would exhibit the broadest avoidance zones. Workforce Housing -related traffic increases may incrementally increase wildlife road -kill probabilities on the Frontage Road and along regional highways. Buildout of the East Vail parcel is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour (McDowell Engineering 2019). Ten to 20% (29-58) of those contributions would be on the North Frontage Road while 70-80% (203-232) would be on I-70. These additional contributions represent and average of 9.9 % and 0.8% of the current, average, daily traffic volumes on those respective roads and highways. Increased road -kill probabilities on I-70 resulting from the additional Workforce Housing traffic would be discountable relative to the low mortality associated with current high traffic volumes and should not affect local big game because they don't cross the highway in the vicinity of the project area. Sheep are occasionally present during winter Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 21 Wildlife Mitivation Plan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision Figure 8-1. Wildlife habitats affected by structural development on and adjacent to the 5.4 acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint would affect 2.7 acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. Another 2.3 acres (not shown; see Triumph Development 2019) north of the development area would also be disturbed for the rockfall berm, reclaimed, but blocked by fencing from big game access. Approximately 0.3 acres of bighorn sheep winter foraging habitat, largely composed of smooth brome, would be permanently lost. Approximately 1.7 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, also composed of smooth brome and largely off-site, would not be disturbed, but its effectiveness would be reduced by its linear configuration and location between the Frontage Road and the housing. The effectiveness of winter range to the west of the housing's driveway could also be impaired by housingrelatedtraffic, but that area is difficult to quantify. Mitigation is proposed to better maintain habitat effectiveness. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 22 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision conditions along the Frontage Road and have been known to lick salt off the road and a few may even cross the road to forage between the road and I-70. Increased sheep road -kill probabilities on the Frontage Road are possible, but unlikely because of good horizontal visibility along the road, because the sheep are habituated to the traffic, and because most road mortality occurs on roads and highways where posted speeds are >_ 45mph (Gunther et al. 1998). In the vicinity of the site, the North I-70 Frontage Road has a posted speed limit of 25 mph eastbound and 45 mph westbound. Resident participation in public transportation would reduce potential traffic impacts. The Mitigation Plan contains a section that would educate residents about this issue. Resident education about the parcel's sensitive location in wildlife habitat and the implementation and enforcement of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, with significant penalties for violators, (App. G) should reduce and confine potential habitation effects to the parcel's development area and minimize the potential effects of greatest concern (recreationists and dogs) from extending off-site. Issues specific to individual species and wildlife groups are discussed below under those accounts. 9.0 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN Project -related effects on the local wildlife community can be further minimized with the implementation of this Workforce Housing Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Three categories of mitigation measures are outlined, below, (1) sheep winter range enhancement, (2) construction -related minimization measures, and (3) habitation -related minimization measures. The first two sections related to the East Vail parcel are relevant to the developer while the last section primarily applies to residents. Section 9.3 will likely be developed as a legally binding, stand-alone document that residents will be required to read, sign, and abide by should they wish to live in this setting. 9.1 WINTER RANGE ENHANCEMENT Even with the implementation of minimization measures, Workforce Housing development is going to result in the permanent loss of approximately five acres of bighorn sheep and elk winter range and reduce the effectiveness of surrounding habitat. Construction would remove 0.3 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat on the East Vail parcel (Fig. 8-1). Wintering sheep could also be displaced by construction activity from two nearby foraging habitats, (1) the cut slope above the Frontage Road that is below the development area (1.7 ac.) and (2) from nearby TOV open space, west and northwest of the of the project's driveway entrance.13 Sheep displacement from adjacent foraging areas could also continue during the habitation phase of the project. To compensate for lost and impaired habitat, the developer is proposing on-site habitat enhancement on 14.6 acres that would more than offset winter foraging habitat losses to the development. Enhancement treatments could occur in fall 2019 and spring 2020 following initial Development Application approval. Increased forage would be available to compensate for the direct and indirect habitat losses that would and might occur during construction in winter 2020-2021 and thereafter. Suggestions are also provided in this section for what enhancement might be implemented on surrounding public lands to better connect the private East Vail parcel enhancement with other winter range segments also in need of enhancement, with or without the Workforce Housing. Proposed winter 13 As a worst case scenario, animals might be completely displaced from these foraging areas (i.e., in addition to their diurnal displacement, they would not forage in these areas during the 16 hours of the day when construction is not occurring and human activity has ebbed). Conversely, and more likely, if animals that may be displaced from these foraging areas during the day return to forage in this adjacent habitat under cover of darkness, as they do now, there would be little meaningful reduced habitat effectiveness. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 23 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision range habitat enhancement on private and public lands was presented to and discussed with TOV, CPW, and USFS representatives on January 11, and February 6 and 8, 2019. 9.1.1 On-site Enhancement The above direct and indirect effects to sheep winter range can be more than offset via on-site habitat enhancement on a portion of the 17.9 acre NAP parcel. On-site enhancement is generally best for wildlife because it benefits the individual animals affected by the development. It is rare for a development project to have the opportunity to implement any meaningful percentage of habitat enhancement on-site to offset its impacts, let alone enhance more than what is needed. The enhancement would be oriented at restoring bighorn sheep winter range, which has been degraded over the last 30 years by aspen encroachment, fallen aspen, and a mountain shrub community where much of the browse has grown out of the reach of sheep and elk, all effects of wildfire suppression. The enhancement would also benefit elk winter range use and black bear and mule deer summer range use. Figure 9-1 shows 14.6 acres of habitat on the East Vail parcel that would be enhanced for sheep and elk winter range. Additional enhancement could occur on 0.26 acre in the undeveloped northeast corner of the 5.4 -acre development parcel. The overall enhancement area is shown as a blue polygon, the bottom of which is above the shoulder of the steep slope dropping down to the valley bottom. The shoulder occurs in the vicinity of the ca. 1998 fire line or historic road. The untreated mountain shrub habitat below the shoulder is suitable for treatment, but there is assumed to be some need for (1) a physical barrier to prevent people from climbing up to the enhancement area (which does not currently occur) and (2) stabilizing vegetation to retard any runoff from above (although it may not be a practical concern in this small, gently -sloping enhancement area). If these concerns are invalid, the enhancement area could be larger. There is also a need to maintain a band of young aspen with a dense chokecherry understory and jackstrawed logs west of the Pitkin Creek Trail as a physical restriction and visual barrier between the trail and the enhancement area. Within the enhancement area are three treatment categories, described below, where the common enhancement goal would be to restore the mountain shrub community within the browsing height of big game that is normally maintained by periodic wildfires (Fig. 9-1). While broadcast buming 4 to restore the mountain shrub community could be the most cost effective, quickest, and most widespread treatment option that would best meet the goal of mountain shrub restoration/reinvigoration and nutrient recycling, the approach recommended by the TOV would involve cutting and stacking trees and downed logs, cutting shrubs, then burning the slash and log piles when dry (P. Cada and M. Novak, TOV, Jan. 11, 2019 pers. comm.). Soils sterilized and vegetation removed at burn piles should be reseeded with a wildlife mix suitable for the site.'-' Fertilizing as soon as possible after spring snowmen would increase forage availability for the first winter post-treatment. With two exceptions, enhancement prescriptions differ between the three treatment categories (Fig. 9-1). First, the entire enhancement area is in need of pruning to remove shrub stems that are out of reach of wintering big game and to stimulate new nutritious growth that is available for winter browsing. This is 14 Prior broadcast burns conducted by the TOV on their open space below the Booth Creek cliffs and on what is now the East Vail parcel's NAP area was marginally successful in late 1990's (pers. comm. between, P. Cada, TOV, and M. O'Conner, Triumph Development, Jan. 30, 2019). 15 To be developed by the silviculturalist. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 24 Wildlife Mitivation Plan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision Figure 9-1. Bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions proposed on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel (red outline) to compensate for winter range lost to, and affected by, development of the Workforce Housing project See text for prescription descriptions. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 25 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision best accomplished in early spring when shrubs are still dormant and before they begin contributing resources to the new year's growth. Pruned stems," with new multiple shoots within the browse range of ungulates, would be available as forage for the following winter (e.g., winter 2020-2021) if pruning is prioritized to start as early in spring 2020 as possible. Second, the entire treated enhancement area could be fertilized" to increase forage nutrition and grass, forb, and shrub productivity. Fertilizing in spring, before (preferred), during, or after other treatments, would increase forage availability for the following winter. The effects of fertilizing last for three growing seasons. The 3.9 -acre "mature aspen" stand on the parcel is regenerating and consists of young to overly mature trees with an overly mature mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry (Fig. 9-1). Most trees" should be removed and the shrub understory pruned, as above. Felled trees should be cut into lengths that can be carried to piles. Logs and slash piles should be spaced apart (e.g., >_ 10-15 ft.) such that they do not restrict animal movements. Shrub pruning, tree canopy removal, and increased light penetration to the shrub understory would stimulate increased forage production that would be available the following winter. Tree removal would stimulate aspen suckering. The branches of aspen suckers within the browse range of sheep and elk would provide additional forage. However, when sucker foliage has grown out of the browse range (e.g., every ± 5-7 yrs.), it should be cutback to provide available forage and to prevent aspen stand regeneration. "Jackstrawed logs" are mature aspen that have died and fallen. At a certain density, they impede and block big game movements, reducing and eliminating forage and other habitat values that would otherwise be available. Winter snow cover makes such areas even more inaccessible. There are 4.8 acres of such "jackstrawed logs" in the enhancement area that impair sheep movements and reduce forage availability (Fig. 9-1). Those polygons contain the same vegetative composition as the 5.9 -acre "over mature shrub" community, which consists of young, sparse to dense, aspen seedlings and pole stage trees with a chokecherry -dominated mountain shrub understory and a dense graminoid understory. Most of the chokecherry branch tips have grown out of the reach of ungulate (sheep, deer, and elk) browsing. In these areas, in addition to the shrub pruning and the removal of young aspen,19 described above, the logs should be piled and burned to where they no longer restrict big game movements. Triumph Development intends to proceed with the private land enhancement in either the fall of 2019 or spring 2020, subject to receiving initial TOV Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval of the project. On Town land and private property in the TOV, there are no regulations, official permitting process, Town Code, or State requirements to conduct the type of enhancement proposed above on the East Vail parcel (pers. comm., P. Cada, TOV, and M. O'Conner, Triumph Development, Jan. 30, 2019). 16 E.g., shrub pruning could consist of a two-man team lassoing (using a 15-20 ft. length of rope with loops on the ends to encircle and tightly cinch the shrub, then us a chainsaw to cut shrub stems at shrub -specific heights where the new growth would be available to big game as winter browse. 17 Since 1986, the CDOW/ CPW has been aerially fertilizing (i.e., treating 1.57 acres of habitat once every three years in perpetuity to offset each 1.0 acre of habitat lost to development) of big game winter range in the Eagle Valley to increase its productivity and offset habitat losses (based on CDOW research in Middle Park). The application rate is 300 lbs. of ammonium nitrate per acre (=100 lbs. of nitrogen/ acre) and treatments are effective for three growing seasons. Application under suitable (moist) soil conditions in spring 2019 would require hand spreading. Occasional aerial application thereafter might be coordinated with CPW. 18 Except those needed for "feathering" to create a more organic shape to the clearing where the aspen stand meets the USFS property line. Young aspen with branches within the browse range of sheep and elk (e.g., 4 ft. above ground level) could be left to help create this visual form. 19 I.e., those whose branches have grown out of the winter browse range of ungulates. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 N11 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision The TOV Fire Department (FD) recommends enhancement treatment approval through the PEC application process for the whole project rather than a separate process. TOV FD has the capability and permission to implement cut/pile/burn projects and would be willing to help with the East Vail enhancement. Practically, it would work better if the TOV FD would do the piling to facilitate an efficient burn. The Work Plan would be prepared by the TOV FD. Some direction from a silviculturalist on the final appearance of the cleared forest, how and when to trim shrubs, reseeding, etc., is recommended. Triumph would pay for FD time; likely a crew of three, working for two to three months for nine to 15 acres, doing work by hand, plus the planning time. The subsequent pile burns will likely occur start in the following spring or fall when the logs have dried and there is sufficient (min. 4 in.) snow on the ground. Treatment access will likely be via the Pitkin Creek trail (to most of the large open space area) and via the rockfall barrier catchment corridor (to the enhancement area in and adjacent to the northeast corner of the 5.4 -acre development area). Any access track(s) from the trail will be blocked and restored upon completion of the project to discourage pedestrian access. To maximize the effectiveness of the enhancement area and surrounding habitats, there should be no trails or non -authorized human access onto the NAP parcel and no trails emanating from the Workforce Housing parcel onto surrounding TOV or NFS lands. Triumph Development is also aware that for maximum effectiveness of their enhanced winter range, it should be "connected" with current high quality habitats on NFS lands via non -forested corridors, including (1) the currently suitable, but over mature, winter range below and east of the main Booth Creek cliffs, and with (2) the cliff band above the East Vail parcel (as relayed to the U.S. Forest Service [USFS] on Feb. 6, 2019). Triumph will provide east -west connectivity through the site on the uphill side of the rockfall berm. This on-site winter range enhancement could complement a larger project now under consideration by the Town, USFS, and CPW to treat other areas within the overall sheep winter range polygon .2" However, with the undetermined timeline and uncertainty of enhancement approval by the USFS, this off-site enhancement is not part of the Triumph's proposal for the East Vail project. With the above habitat enhancement, the 15.6 acres of treated habitat would provide a larger amount of isolated, better quality sheep winter range (foraging habitat) than what currently exists and would more than offset the winter foraging habitat located adjacent to the Frontage Road and I-70 that would be directly (0.3 ac.) and indirectly (.) affected by the new housing project. While the entire 3.3 acre development footprint and adjacent habitat represent sheep winter range, its value as foraging habitat is limited to 0.25 acres on-site and the narrow band of largely non-native smooth brome along the cut slope above the Frontage Road, which is almost entirely off the parcel and would not be developed. Therefore, the extent of the compensatory replacement of lost project -related foraging habitat is even more apparent. 9.1.2 Off-site Enhancement The East Vail Workforce Housing project has enlightened the Vail community about the bighorn sheep herd and has become a catalyst prompting the TOV and resource agencies (the USFS and CPW) to again consider broad scale habitat enhancement, the real key to maintaining this herd. Most of the habitat within the 1,800 -acre sheep winter range polygon is in need of some type of enhancement to restore and reinvigorate the mountain shrub community that is normally maintained by periodic wildfires. Such a widespread enhancement plan, similar in scope and approach to that proposed by the USFS in 1998, is now under preliminary consideration with the TOV, USFS, and CPW. Few of the personnel involved and familiar with the 1998 habitat enhancement proposal are currently available. Suggestions were provided to 20 Initial meetings to discuss this project occurred on Jan. 11 and Feb. 5, 2019. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 27 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Town and agency personnel regard what and where enhancement might be implemented on surrounding public lands to better connect the private East Vail parcel enhancement with the larger treatment area, with or without the Workforce Housing. This potential enhancement in the immediate vicinity of the East Vail parcel was also presented to and discussed with TOV and CPW representatives on January 11, 2019 and with TOV, USFS, and CPW representatives on February 5, 2019. As of the spring 2019, some of this enhancement on Town of Vail property is underway. 9.2 CONSTRUCTION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES Temporary (i.e., 1-2 yr.) construction disturbances will affect wildlife on and adjacent to the parcel. Of greatest concern are potential effects to wintering sheep and nesting peregrine falcons. The following minimization measures that would be implemented by Triumph Development would reduce potential negative effects. 9.2.1 Wintering Sheep Construction would remove 0.3 acres of winter foraging habitat on the East Vail parcel (i.e., in the vicinity of the multifamily buildings' footprint and the driveway entrance; Fig. 8-1). Wintering sheep could also be displaced by construction activity from two nearby foraging habitats, (1) the cut slope above the Frontage Road and below the development area (1.7 ac.) and (2) from the nearby CDOT ROW and TOV open space, west and northwest of the of the project's driveway entrance. Combined, all of these areas support three+ acres of foraging habitat dominated by smooth brome. See Section 3.1.1.2, above, for comments regarding the stress level of sheep foraging close to the road, the frequency and amount of foraging on and adjacent to the development area, and the importance of this forage to wintering sheep. While sheep displacement from the cut slope below the construction area is most likely, most construction activity within the parcel's interior would be screened by intervening trees from the important foraging habitat to the west and northwest. The exception to this would be disturbances from vehicles entering the site where no effective screening is present to the west. In consideration of the construction activity's displacement significance on the wintering sheep, the most obtrusive disturbances from site clearing, excavation, grading and wildlife/rockfall berm construction would not occur outside buildings during the winter range period. Some outside activity (which would largely be screened for view) such as framing and skinning the buildings would occur during the first winter, and any activity during the second winter would be largely inside the buildings. As a worst case scenario, animals completely displaced from adjacent foraging areas (i.e., in addition to their diurnal displacement, they would not return to forage in these areas during the 16 hours of the day when construction is not occurring and human activity has ebbed, as now occurs) they would have to obtain their forage from other areas of their winter range. Colorado Parks and Wildlife's sheep winter range polygon is approximately 1,800 acres. However, during winter 2017-2018, sheep only used 15% (277 acres) of the area within that polygon (Thompson 201 8C).2' While that percentage underestimates winter range actually used by the sheep, the five acres of winter foraging habitat that would be removed and unavailable to wintering sheep represents 1.8% of the winter range used during winter 2017-2018. That is a relatively small proportion of available habitat, however all winter habitat is important not only for the zi That is likely a function of (1) the smaller (than in past years) present population of 41 sheep, (2) sheep now using the highest quality habitat available, (3) sheep avoiding forested habitats, (4) sheep restricted from some portions of their winter range by jackstrawed logs, and (5) sheep not using isolated mountain shrub patches, over mature shrub patches with little available forage, and shrub communities where forage has grown out of their browsing range. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 28 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision forage it provides, but also by reducing foraging pressure on other areas of winter range. The range of measures that would minimize and offset, temporary, construction -related, winter range reductions include: 1. Schedule construction phasing so the most obtrusive disturbances do not occur outside buildings during the winter range period22 Initial clearing and site work, when heavy equipment would be operating and when disturbances would be greatest, should not occur during any winter. The framing through dry -in phase could overlap the first winter. All of that activity, other than framing, enclosing, and outside finishing of the upper floors, would be screened from sheep winter range to the west by a broad band of aspen forest. Most construction noise should blend in with noise associated with I-70 and the Frontage Road. Thereafter, the final inside finishing phase would have the least obtrusive disturbances. 2. Conduct construction activities only during daylight hours, excluding emergencies. This would give sheep the opportunity to enter foraging areas adjacent to construction areas (i.e., where they may be diurnally displaced) under cover of darkness and forage (as they do now in diurnal human activity areas near the Frontage Road), minimizing any reduction of forage availability. 3. With the exception of construction traffic entering the parcel on its western tip, virtually all construction activity23 would be screened from sheep winter range to the west by a broad band of aspen forest. To better maintain sheep winter range habitat effectiveness on the CDOT ROW and TOV open space to the west of the project's driveway entrance, temporary construction screening, berm installation, and tree plantings northwest of the driveway entrance that could screen project - related vehicles from nearby wildlife have been considered. The need and design for such screening will be resolved with CPW and the TOV during the planning process. The screening concern is that it would not be needed if sheep displaced by construction traffic during the day return and use that nearby habitat under cover of darkness, as sheep now use habitat along the Frontage Road. Furthermore, temporary construction screening could actually block sheep from accessing and foraging in the ± 1.7 -acre smooth brome stand that is east of the driveway entrance and above the Frontage Road, unless they went around the screen's end and onto the Frontage Road at night. Should screen be needed, a berm or temporary, non -transparent construction fence that visually blocks construction traffic (and subsequent housing traffic) could be installed before the first winter construction season where traffic would enter the parcel. A berm could be seeded with an initial mix to stabilize the soils without irrigation. Thereafter, the berm could be reseeded with site -appropriate vegetation that would provide winter forage values. After construction, when project utilities are functional, trees could be strategically planted on areas around the berm to better screen traffic entering/ leaving the site. Irrigation would be needed for tree establishment and maintenance. Tree species, tree density, screening width, and topography should be considered. Conifers, whose lower branches would not lift, would be most effective. Screening effectiveness would increase over time and would be beneficial over the life of the project. The location of those plantings may extend onto TOV open space where permission would be required to landscape. 22 CPW has not defined the winter range period for this herd. Their generic winter range definition 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. Based on that definition and considering winter range dates for other big game species, average sheep winter range occupancy could be defined, on average, as November 15 to April 15 (dates inclusive). Sheep are present on portions of their winter range (i.e., below the Booth Creek cliffs) outside this period because of salt blocks. 23 Other than framing of the upper floors, but certainly all ground -level activity. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 29 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 4. Prohibit all construction personnel from bringing non -service animals on-site at any time of year. 5. A rockfall berm is planned for the upslope edge of the development area (Skyline Geoscience 2019). The tree- and shrub -less rock collection area uphill of the wall could function as a corridor facilitating wildlife movements around the development area. That narrow corridor could be cleared of jackstrawed logs and extended to the open mountain shrub below Booth Creek cliffs with the USFS's permission. Fencing to block human access from the property to important wildlife habitats beyond was requested by CPW24 before the Workforce Housing and the rockfall berm was designed. The need and design of fencing along the rockfall berm to block restrict resident access will be resolved with CPW and the TOV during the planning process. The fencing concern includes a design that allows wildlife that might enter the development area to exit safely. The following design criteria are under consideration: a. If fencing is required, it should be continuous to keep residents and domestic animals in and wildlife out. A fence midway down the uphill side of the berm would allow a portion of the berm to be used as wildlife habitat and a wildlife movement corridor. An eight -foot -tall cyclone fence would be recommended. Closure signs spaced on stakes along the base of the rockfall berm would not restrict access as effectively as a fence. b. Jump gates (i.e., like those installed along fenced sections of I-70) might be the most appropriate features to allow wildlife that might enter the development area under cover of darkness to safely exit, while also preventing wildlife from entering the property. Their locations and design would require consultation with CPW, the landscaper, and geotechnical personnel, but by locating these fences on the uphill side of the berm, regularly spaced jump ramps can be incorporated into the berms grading. Fencing and jump gate designs, similar to those that have been installed in wildlife fencing along I-70 in Eagle County, have been obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT, J. Peterson, CDOT Wildlife Program Manager) and would be incorporated into the rockfall berm to facilitate the needed egress. c. Access to the barrier catchment area should be secured with similar fencing. d. Any rockfall wall/ fencing configuration should be continuous along the north and east property lines. e. Signs (e.g., "Important wildlife habitat. Area behind sign closed to all non -authorized access year-round. Trespassers will be prosecuted.' should be strategically placed on at jump gates and at the fence ends to remind and educate residents and guests about the restricted access. 6. If debris removal from the barrier catchment area occurs during the early peregrine falcon nesting period (May and June, inclusive) and there are large boulders that must be broken into smaller fragments, use expansive grout rather than blasting. Depending on when in on-site habitat enhancement is initiated and depending on what the treatment consists of, there could be increased forage availability on the entire 14.6 acres for the first winter of construction. Fertilizing and shrub cutting would provide an immediate response, followed by a gradual increase in habitat quality and forage availability over the following years. Treatments have been and can continue to be implemented on TOV open space and the CDOT ROW to the west of the East Vail parcel 24 At a May 14, 2018 meeting with Vail Resorts. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 30 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision (both of which are in need of enhancement), whose vegetative response would be available to sheep in the first winter of Construction (see Section 9.1.2, Enhancement on TOV Lands). Those treatments could total up to 20.0 acres or more. 9.2.2 Nesting Peregrine Falcons A pair of peregrine falcons have nested on a cliff on the opposite side of I-70 from the East Vail parcel in recent years (Thompson 2018b,c). The pair is largely habituated to the chronic traffic and human activity below their cliff. Most Workforce Housing construction activity should not affect the pair because of their level of habituation, the distance of the nest cliff from the closest construction activity (0.36 mi.), and the considerable amount of noise, traffic, and recreational activity present between the parcel and the nest cliff. For the same reasons, habitation of the Workforce Housing, which will be similar to other East Vail subdivisions to the east, west, and below the cliff, should not meaningfully affect nest success. However, there is one potential component of Workforce Housing construction could adversely affect their nesting success, blasting. It is unknown if blasting will be needed, but if it is, it should be conducted outside of the March 15 to July 31 (dates inclusive) nesting period or until fledging. It is unknown if blasting could be adequately baffled to attenuate noise and shockwaves from hitting the cliff (>_1,923 feet away)2' and startling the birds. Blasting during the incubation period (early to mid-May to mid-June; Cade et al. 1996, Craig and Enderson 2004) would likely produce the greatest negative effects that could jeopardize recruitment. 9.2.3 Other Construction -related Mitigation In addition to the above sheep and falcon measures, the following would minimize, temporary, construction -related, impacts on the broader wildlife community: 1. Prohibit all construction personnel from bringing dogs on-site at any time of year. 2. Prohibit all construction personnel from feeding or baiting wildlife. 3. To minimize conflicts with black bears, all construction activity on the parcel shall have available certified bear -proof trash receptacles for the disposal of any refuse associated with food or drink. No food products or food containers should be thrown in the larger roll -off style dumpsters. Receptacles shall be adequately distributed to facilitate use and be in place before any ground disturbance occurs. All construction personnel associated with the project shall be initially briefed about the bear issue and the need to properly handle and dispose of all materials that can attract bears. At no time will any refuse, that has been associated with food or drink, be allowed to be available to any wildlife species. 4. All vehicle windows should be kept closed and doors locked on all vehicles to prevent bear entry. 5. Sediment basins and other Best Management Practices should be implemented to contain construction -related erosion and sedimentation on-site and prevent parking lot runoff from reaching Gore Creek where it could negatively affect fish and other aquatic biota. 9.3 HUMAN HABITATION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND MANAGEMENT PLAN In addition to construction impacts, resident habitation of the Workforce Housing will have additional 2s As measured in Google Earth. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 31 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ongoing effects to on-site and off-site wildlife communities. This section and its reference to preceding sections of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan identifies (1) tasks to be implemented by the developer and (2) Wildlife Requirements for residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision to avoid and reduce these effects. It is anticipated that these commitments and requirements will be incorporated into the subdivision's Development Application, approvals, and any Home Owners Association (HOA) governing documents. The term "Responsible Party" shall mean any resident, owner, tenant, family guests of the resident, owner, or tenant of the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. 9.3.1 Requirements for the Developer of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel The following additional recommendations should be implemented and/or overseen by the developer and its selected apartment management company ("Housing Management's to further avoid and minimize wildlife -related habitation effects. 1. The planting of gardens and fruit/ nut bearing trees or bushes on the parcel will be prohibited because bears will be attracted to these plants in close proximity to residences. If flowering trees are desirable, the developer should consult with a local landscaper to select a sterile variety that produces flowers, but no fruit. 2. There shall be no roads or trails developed on the undeveloped portion of the East Vail parcel. Such roads and trails would encourage recreational access, which is expressly prohibited 21 outside of the development area year-round. Unauthorized hiking and biking trails developed by third parties on the East Vail parcel shall be promptly deconstructed and reclaimed as soon as possible after they are discovered. Of paramount concern on this project is prohibiting all recreational use of Town of Vail (TOV) open space to the west, , the East Vail parcel Natural Area Preservation Parcel to the east, a National Forest Service lands to the north (i.e., the "Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern;" see Fig. 2- 1), some of which are vital to the small bighorn sheep herd. There are currently no official recreational trails on those lands between the Pitkin Creek trail to the east and the Booth Creek trail to the west. If and when Housing Management becomes aware of any such trails on those surrounding public lands, they shall promptly notify the appropriate land owner about the trail so that it may be decommissioned. 3. There shall be no outside storage of any trash or garbage, no matter how briefly (e.g., overnight), at any residence within the development, unless it is in a fully enclosed structure or contained within commercial -size, bear -proof containers, which meet North American Bear Society, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), or U.S. National Park Service specifications, or are of a custom design approved by CPW. Housing Management shall provide an adequate number of trash containers, distributed around the development to encourage and facilitate their use, and arrange and maintain a trash collection schedule that is adequate to prevent trash "overflow" that could attract and lead to bear conflicts. A separate bear -proof trash container shall be provided at the BBQ shelter. 4. Because the mountain shrub community within the bighorn sheep winter range polygon (see Section 3.1.1.1) is unlikely to be naturally maintained by periodic wildfires, it will need to be periodically restored and reinvigorated via some type(s) of enhancement, such as those prescriptions recommended in Section 9.1. In the best interest of the sheep, consideration and implementation of such 26 Except as may be needed for (a) access to the rockfall wall cleanout area (b) authorized wildlife assessment, (c) periodic habitat enhancement, (d) utility maintenance and repairs, and (e) emergencies. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 04 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision enhancement should occur approximately every 15-20 years. The owner or HOA responsible for the NAP parcel should undertake these enhancements periodically on its property. 5. Owner of the East Vail parcel will develop and implement a weed management program on and around the development area. Such a plan would be most important in the first few years following development and habitat enhancement. 6. The developer will post signs around the property informing the Responsible Parties of the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern and the prohibition of accessing these areas by their lease or HOA Documents. 9.3.2 Wildlife Requirements for Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel The East Vail Workforce Housing parcel is located adjacent to the most important block of bighorn sheep winter range in the valley. It also supports other important wildlife values. The development and habitation of the project is going to have negative effects on the wildlife community. However, the potential negative effects have been, and will be, avoided, minimized, and compensated with (1) the parcel's rezoning, (2) the incorporation of wildlife -oriented design criteria into the development's design, (3) with on-site habitat enhancement, and (4) with the implementation of wildlife -related construction and operational considerations. The last component required to avoid and minimize project -related impacts on the local wildlife community is for residents to recognize that they are living in a sensitive wildlife setting and that they must strictly abide by the following Wildlife Requirements to maintain the wildlife community. It was only with the implementation of all of these wildlife protection measures that Workforce Housing was authorized on this site. 9.3.2.1 Recreation Inappropriate recreational use beyond the Workforce Housing development area could adversely affect continued wildlife use of surrounding lands, some of which are vital to the small bighorn sheep herd. This is the paramount wildlife concern on this project. Lands of particular concern include TOV open space to the west, National Forest Service lands to the north, and the East Vail Natural Area Preservation parcel to the east, that extend above the East Vail parcel to the highest cliff band, hereinafter the "Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern" (see Fig. 2-1). There are currently no official recreational trails on those lands between the Pitkin Creek trail to the east and the Booth Creek trail to the west. Therefore, in the best interest of the sheep, the following recreation -related measures shall be enforced to minimize negative effects and will be implemented in partnership with the Town of Vail: 1. The TOV will use its authority as a municipality and property owner to enact and enforce protective restrictions on nearby Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern at appropriate times during the year, including but not limited to, closing privately owned parcels to access, and assisting the property owners with policing and preventing trespassing violations. 2. Responsible Parties will be prohibited from accessing the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern during the times of year that the TOV determines that the property should not have human presence, which can include complete closure of privately owned property. This particularly includes the gated Booth Creek rockfall berm road that starts immediately west of the Workforce Housing driveway entrance. This measure is focused on protecting and maximizing bighorn sheep use of the habitat. While sheep are generally present from October through July, they may be present in this area year - Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 33 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision round. Any human presence could reduce sheep habitat effectiveness27 and have negative effects on the herd. Because of habitat deterioration, winter range losses, and other factors, no further habitat losses or reduced habitat effectiveness should occur. 3. Colorado Parks and Wildlife specifically requested the fencing that extends along the northern and eastern boundaries of the development area as a physical barrier to restrict and discourage resident use from extending into the important Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern. Subject to TOV approval, the developer will install fencing recommended by CPW along the north side of the rockfall berm and eastern boundaries not already protected by natural grade. 4. Responsible Parties are prohibited from flying drones on the housing parcel and on or around the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern year-round. 5. Responsible Parties are encouraged to recreate along existing official trails elsewhere in the area, to understand and follow all associated trail rules, including seasonal trail closures for wildlife, and not to use or create volunteer trails. 9.3.2.2 Pet Controls Most pets and those properly controlled do not negatively affect wildlife. Of all pets, dogs present the most conflicts. Domestic dogs are carnivores and all breeds have the potential to be predators at some level. All domestic dogs were wolves or their wild canine relatives and 7,000-15,000 years of domestication and out -breeding aggression (Kendall 2002, Savolainen et al. 2002) has not bred all predatory tendencies out of all breeds. At some level, domestic dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and/or chase prey. It is well established that domestic dogs, including a loose or temporary "stray" dog that might originate from Workforce Housing, could harass, chase, exhaust, bite, injure, severely maul, or kill wildlife, including sheep, deer, and elk. In addition, free -ranging domestic cats are the top human -caused threat to wildlife in the United States, killing an estimated 1.3 to 4 billion birds and 6.3 to 22.3 billion mammalsZs annually (Loss et al. 2013). Because of the sensitivity of the Workforce Housing parcel's location in wildlife habitat and in the winter range of a small bighorn sheep herd, where the mortality of a single individual could negatively affect herd viability, the avoidance of any conflict between pets and wildlife must be avoided. Therefore, each of the following East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel Pet Policy (aka the General Pet and Dog Policy) measures shall be included in the development application commitments, any leases for residents, and/or HOA documents enforced to minimize negative effects to wildlife. General Pet, Service Animals, and Emotional Support Animals Policy As background, residents who have need of assistance from "service animals" Z`' or "emotional support 27 Habitat effectiveness may be thought of as the ability of wildlife to use the amount, quality, and distribution of available forage and cover without being impaired from that use by human activities and developments. 28 Including mice, shrews, voles, squirrels and rabbits. 29 Service animals include dogs and are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Tasks performed can include, among other things, pulling a wheelchair, retrieving dropped items, alerting a person to a sound, reminding a person to take medication, Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 34 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision animals" 30 are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or the Fair Housing Administration Act (FHA). Other applicable Federal, State, and/or local laws and regulations may also apply. Such animals will not be prohibited or limited from the development and instead will be required to follow the rules and regulations of the community to the extent allowed by Federal and Colorado law. 1. All dogs shall be prohibited in any rental property on the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel at all times, except for those that have valid documentation as a service animal or emotional support animal, which shall be provided to Housing Management. This prohibition applies to all Responsible Parties renting units in community. This measure reduces potential dog issues from those associated with 73 units to 31 units, with the possible exception of service or emotional support animals. 2. Owners shall be limited to harboring no more than two dogs on the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel at any time. No resident shall be limited to the number of service or emotional support animals. 3. Other than pets of owners, no pets of family, guests, and/or contractors of residents will be permitted on the parcel other than service animals, emotional support animals, or other animals as required by Colorado and Federal law. 4. Any animal within the parcel must be under the direct control of its owner or Responsible Party at all times. 5. Anytime an animal is outside of the residence it shall be controlled by a leash of no more than 12 feet in length, unless it is a service animal that must be unleashed to perform its services. 6. An exception to Measure 6, above, is that owners may construct an outdoor facility (i.e., a dog run or kennel) that is adequate to contain the dog(s) when outside and unattended and then only for limited periods of time, not to exceed 30 minutes, to allow the dog to "do its business," before its return to the residence. Dogs kept in a kennel or dog run for longer than 30 minutes shall constitute a violation of these rules. Enclosed runs or kennels must: (a) be located immediately adjacent to the home, surrounding an outside door, and as best possible attached to and integrated into the design and visual appearance of the residence and (b) not exceed 500 square feet. Dog run or kennel height shall be adequate to contain the breed of dog(s). Eight -foot fence heights are generally adequate to contain the most athletic of dogs, particularly if there is no opportunity to climb. Owners need not completely enclose the tops of kennels or runs to protect dogs from possible mountain lion predation because of the short duration that dogs will be present in the confinement area. The design, characteristics, and location of the kennel or dog run must be reviewed and approved by the HOA. If facilities are inadequate to contain the resident's dog(s) when outside and unattended, the animals will be immediately removed from the property until adequate structures can be built. 7. The walking of animals within the property shall be confined to the developed areas (parking lots and around buildings) within the Workforce Housing project area. Small parks and open space were intentionally excluded from the development to minimize the footprint of the development area and native habitat loss. Walking dogs along the Frontage Road would reduce wildlife use of adjacent habitat (e.g., Lenth et al. 2008, Ellenberger and Byrne 2009, Miller et al. 2011), a negative effect that must be avoided, particularly in winter (approx. Nov. 15 - Apr. 15). or pressing an elevator button. 30 Emotional support animals (ESA) do not need any specialized training and are there to purely gives comfort and love. Emotional support animals can be dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, lizards, etc. People may use all sorts of animals to give them the emotional support they need to live a fulfilling life. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Ubl Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 8. Residents shall pick up after their animal and put any waste materials in proper trash containers. 9. Pets shall not be fed outside. 10. No animals shall be permitted to chase any wildlife (including, but not limited to, sheep, deer, elk, marmots, rabbits, coyotes, foxes, porcupines, and chipmunks) anywhere within or beyond the parcel, and each resident shall take all steps reasonably necessary to prevent its animal from chasing wildlife anywhere within or beyond the parcel (including off-site public trails). 11. No Responsible Party shall permit any animal to be a public nuisance. Examples of nuisance behavior include, but are not limited to, barking, whining, or howling in an excessive, continuous, or untimely fashion, as determined by Housing Management and/or the HOA, in their sole and absolute determination, which also reserve the right to define public nuisance in additional ways. 12. Housing Management, at their sole discretion, may ask a Responsible Party to remove their animal from the premises if it is not under control, if the handler fails to act to gain to control, if the animal is behaving aggressively, or if the animal is posing a threat to human health and safety. If a service animal or emotional support animal must be removed for a legitimate reason, Housing Management and/or the HOA must permit the handler to obtain the services or goods they need without the animal's presence, including a new service animal or emotional support animal. 13. All rules and regulations required of residents will be required of the family, guests, and contractors of the residents. Remedies for infractions by the resident's family, guests, and contractors will be enforced upon the residents as if the animals where owned by the residents. 14. Each resident or homeowner in the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision shall sign a separate copy of the General Pet and Dog Policy indicating that the he/she understands and agrees to abide by the General Pet and Dog Policy as a part of its lease or in conjunction with the purchase of their unit in the HOA. 15. Responsible Parties requesting to have a service animal or emotional support animal that is a dog shall provide documentation to Housing Management, the HOA, and/or the employer, as applicable, who is/are responsible for the home or unit used by the Responsible Parry demonstrating that: (a) the Responsible Parry has a disability (i.e. a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities) and (b) the Responsible Party has a disability -related need for the service or emotional support animal as allowed under the ADA and/or FHA. 16. The application for a service or support animal will be reviewed by Housing Management, the HOA responsible for the unit, or the employer. Approval will not be unreasonably withheld and will follow all state and federal laws. 9.3.2.3 Resident Education Regarding Black Bears/ Trash Removal/ Nuisance Wildlife The Workforce Housing project is located in high quality black bear habitat. Most bears do not cause damage where residential and other developments have encroached into bear habitat. The key is that if a bear doesn't find food it will move on. Black bears are omnivorous and while they mostly eat vegetation, they will eat almost anything. Bears will eat human food, garbage, hummingbird nectar, bird seed, pet food, grease off grills, suntan lotion, etc. Garbage generally provides the greatest attraction for bears to residential developments. Once a bear has found an easily accessible, consistent food source, it will often overcome its wariness of people and visit the site regularly. This increases the chance of a bear -human encounter. After repeated use of the food source, the bear may even act aggressively toward residents or their unsuspecting neighbors. When this happens and wildlife authorities are notified, the bear is usually killed to protect human Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision safety. The following education measures will be required to reduce potential bear problems: 1. Residents will be provided and are encouraged to review the bear section in this Plan (Section 3.1.4) describing the project's setting in bear habitat. Residents will be provided with information to educate themselves about most bear issues they might encounter by being provided the following link on CPW's website, or similar information: htWs: / /cpw. state.co.us /Documents /Education /LivinyWithWildlife /LivinyWithBears.pdf 2. Residents are also encouraged to access and view a wide variety of pamphlets, brochures, reports, and videos of other bear -related topics such as CPW's Bear webpage: https: / /cpw. state.co.us /learn /Pages/LivingwithWildlifeWildBears.asi2x 3. Bird feeders attract bears. For this reason, residents are discouraged from using bird feeders of any design (e.g., mixed seed, sunflower, thistle [niger], suet, fruit, mealworms, nectar [hummingbird], etc.) from April 1 to November 15, dates inclusive, the period of the year when bears are actively seeking food, unless the feeders and seed spillage from them are clearly inaccessible to bears. 9.3.2.4 Resident Education on Mountain Lions Mountain lions are occasionally present year-round in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel, but may be more common in the area from fall through spring when bighorn sheep and elk (prey species) are wintering and at lower elevations. In other areas of Colorado, where subdivisions have encroached upon mountain lion habitat containing high concentrations of prey species, encounters between lions, humans, and their pets and livestock have increased. The following measures will be implemented to minimize lion -human conflicts: 1 Residents are encouraged to review the mountain lion section of this Plan (Section 3.2.4.4) describing the project's setting in lion habitat and the recent increase involving the public encountering lions while hiking. Residents can further educate themselves about most lion issues they might encounter by via the link on CPW's website or similar information: https: / /cpw. state.co.us /Documents /Education /LivinyWithWildlife /LivinyWithLions.pdf Residents are also encouraged to access and view a wide variety of other lion -related topics on CPW's Lion webpage or similar information: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/LivingwithWildlife LionLaspx 9.3.2.5 Education on Wildlife Mortality on Local Roads The following information will be provided to residents of the Workforce Housing parcel to minimize conflicts and wildlife mortality on local roads: Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 37 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision The Workforce Housing parcel is accessed by the I-70 Frontage Road where the posted speed limit is generally slow enough to avoid most wildlife mortality. Obeying posted speed limits would not only reduce wildlife mortality, but would also reduce the risks of collision, damage to personal property, and injury to motorists. Residents and their contractors, employees, and guests should obey posted speed limits to avoid wildlife mortality on roads. During winter, bighorn sheep occasionally come down and graze along the cut slope above the Frontage Road, in the vicinity of the housing. Under certain conditions, they will lick salt off the road. To discourage this behavior, the TOV changed from using a salt product to cinders for treating slick road conditions in this area. However, the cinders still contain approximately 5% salt to keep the cinders from clumping, so the sheep continue to lick the road. Sheep on or adjacent to the road cause traffic jams. Traffic backs up as drivers stop to view the sheep. Drivers of some vehicles try to go around stopped traffic and end up closely approaching the sheep. The sheep often seem oblivious to the traffic. Law enforcement eventually shows up with the goal of restoring traffic flow. The sheep are chased off the road and traffic is encouraged to resume. If you encounter sheep grazing near or along the road, residents may slow down, but should not stop. It is stressful to the sheep to be foraging in such close proximity to humans and their vehicles and they only do it because they are starving and need the forage. If residents are caught in a sheep jam, they should not try to go around stopped vehicles or park and get out of their vehicle to get a better view the sheep. 9.3.2.6 Adjacent National Forest Lands Undeveloped habitat north (uphill) of the Workforce Housing is National Forest Land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. While all Workforce Housing residents and guests are prohibited from those lands to protect their wildlife values (see Section 9.3.2.1), it is possible that residents may see hunters wearing fluorescent orange or pink clothing carrying weapons in that area during the fall hunting seasons. That activity is legal and residents need not report it by calling 911, CPW, or Housing Management. 9.3.2.7 Resident Education on Other Wildlife Concerns With the exception of bird feeders, as described in Section 9.3.2.3, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting wildlife is prohibited. It is illegal in Colorado to intentionally place or distribute feed, salt blocks, or other attractants for big -game animals and such actions are subject to fines for violations. The well-meaning sheep enthusiasts who illegally placed salt and mineral blocks on TOV open space are apparently unaware that their actions are deleterious to the herd. The sheep's attraction to salt blocks prolongs their use of winter range well into spring and even summer, putting additional pressure on the vigor and quantity of forage that should be reserved for winter, in a landscape that has deteriorated as a result of wildfire suppression. Salt blocks can spread disease. Concentrated, prolonged, and predictable sheep use of salt blocks may also attract mountain lions that prey on sheep. Not only might the use of salt blocks result in greater sheep predation, but it might also become necessary to kill the lions for public safety. 9.3.3 Enforcement The East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision is located within the TOV's jurisdiction and is subject to its laws. The Developer, Housing Management, and the HOA, if applicable, together with the TOV, will maximize the impact of enforcing the above Wildlife Requirements for the Developer and Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel through the following measures. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 38 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 1. The TOV will use its authority as a municipality and property owner to enact and enforce protective restrictions on TOV and private property that is important wildlife habitat at appropriate times during the year, including but not limited to, closing all or portions of parcels to access by the public, including residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, and policing and preventing trespassing violations. 2. Housing Management staff will enact and enforce the above restrictions regarding pet ownership as allowed by Federal and Colorado law. These items will be included in the community's rules and regulations and HOA documents, as applicable. 3. Residents of the Workforce Housing parcel will ultimately be responsible for costs related to any damage done by pets or service and emotional support animals. 4. Housing Management and HOA management will provide assistance to the TOV in enforcing violations of restrictions to TOV property by the timely reporting of observed violations of those restrictions, including providing evidence of the violation(s) to TOV authorities, who can take appropriate action. 5. Upon the occurrence of a violation of these policies by a Responsible Party, Housing Management or the HOA Manager, as applicable, shall give written notice ("Notice of Violation's to the Responsible Party (and a copy to the owner and Master Lessee of the unit, if the owner or Master Lessee is not the Responsible Party) regarding the occurrence of the violation, stating with reasonably detailed information concerning the violation, noting, among other things, the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation as well as the day, approximate time, and approximate location of the violation. 6. Housing Management should maintain a file of Wildlife Requirement violations by Responsible Parties. The TOV and CPW may periodically request summarized wildlife -related violation records to evaluate compliance with the Wildlife Requirements and determine if any adaptive management is needed to increase compliance. 7. East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision residents and tenants are encouraged to report Wildlife Requirement violations associated with recreation and pet controls to Housing Management or the HOA, as appropriate, along with documentation (e.g., photos or video) of the violation, if possible. It is in the best interest of residents, owners, and tenants of the project, and the larger East Vail community to report violations to minimize impacts to wildlife so residents can continue appreciating the wildlife in this special setting and so more stringent requirements are not developed and implemented. 8. The Housing Manager is authorized, empowered, and obligated to impose the following fines and enforcement measures for violations of these Wildlife Requirements. a. Upon the occurrence of the first violation, a fine in the amount of $250.00 will be assessed to the owner or Master Lessee of the unit. b. Upon the occurrence of the second violation, a fine in the amount of $500.00 will assessed will be assessed to the owner or Master Lessee of the unit. c. Upon the occurrence of a third and all subsequent violations, a penalty will be assessed according to ownership status of the Responsible Party as follows: i. A Responsible Party who is a tenant in the Workforce Housing Parcel will be given a one- month notice in writing to vacate their premises, regardless of hardship. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 39 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ii. A Responsible Party who owns a home in the Workforce Housing Parcel will assessed a fine of $750.00. d. Notwithstanding the above, for violations by residents whose occupancy at the East Vail Workforce parcel is a component of their employment, and subject to federal and state labor laws, fines and enforcement actions will be determined by and imposed solely through their employer, and include fines and enforcement measures up to and including the loss of housing at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision. 9. The Owner or HOA of the East Vail parcel will retain any fines collected by the Housing Manager or HOA and use these funds for future wildlife -related enhancement on the parcel or otherwise valid enhancement that would benefit the local sheep herd. All fine assessments shall be due and payable to Housing Management within 30 days of written notice of such fine or assessment, as described below. All unpaid fines are subject to the imposition of liens on the unit as may be provided by the community's governing documents. If any fine assessment is not paid within ten days after the due date, a late charge in the amount of $100 shall be assessed to compensate Housing Management for the expenses, costs, and fees, including attorney fees, involved in handing such delinquency. Responsible Parties shall be personally, jointly, and severally liable for all fines/penalty assessments. 9.3.4 Miscellaneous 1. In the event of a specific conflict between any non -wildlife related Workforce Housing Policies and these Wildlife Requirements, the Wildlife Requirements shall prevail. 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Wildlife Requirements, Housing Management hereby reserves the right, at any time and from time to time hereafter, to modify, amend, repeal, and/or re-enact these Wildlife Requirements to better protect the wildlife community on and surrounding the Workforce Housing parcel, in accordance with non -wildlife related Workforce Housing Policies, Declarations, Bylaws, Town of Vail procedures, and applicable law. 3. For modifications or amendments to the Wildlife Policies that impact residents whose occupancy at the East Vail Workforce parcel is a component of their employment and subject to federal and state labor laws, such modifications and amendments will be subject to the review and approval of the employer. 4. Failure by Housing Management or any person to enforce any provision of these Wildlife Policies shall in no event be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 5. Adaptive management will be used to resolve unanticipated wildlife issues. The TOV and CPW are two resources that may be consulted to assist. 6. The provisions of these Policies shall be deemed to be independent and several, and the invalidity of any one or more of the provisions hereof, or any portion thereof, by judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, which provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 10.0 LITERATURE CITED Andree, B. 2017. Untitled letter re: the sustainability of wildlife populations within the Gore Valley. CPW. Glenwood Springs, CO. Ltr. to P. Wadden, Watershed Community Coordinator, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 40 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Mar. 6. 7pp. Brennan, J. and Nguyen, V. 2014. Service animals and emotional support animals, where are they allowed and under what conditions? Southwest ADA Center at ILRU, Houston, TX. 17pp. Bush, T. 2006. Plant fact sheet: smooth brome, Bromus inermi.r. USDA NRCS Rose Lake Plant Materials Center, East Lansing, Michigan. 2pp. May 25. Byrne, G. and R. Sherman. 2011. Aldasoro Ranch wildlife assessment: a review & update of the 1990 assessment. Wildlife Management and Consultants, LLC, Palisade, CO and Wildlife Habitat & Natural Resource Specialists, Montrose, CO. Nov. 20. Cade, T.J., J.H. Enderson and J. Linthicum. 1996. Guide to management of peregrine falcons at the eyrie. The Peregrine Fund and Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group. Boise, ID and Santa Cruz, CA. Sep. 97pp. Craig, G.R and J.H. Enderson. 2004. Peregrine falcon biology and management in Colorado 1973 - 2001. CDOW, Denver, CO. Tech. Publ. 43. July. 80pp. Ellenberger, J.H. and G. Byrne. 2009. Monitoring deer and elk response to human disturbance on the Dart Conservation Easement. Wildl. Manage. Consh. & Assoc. Palisade, CO. Unpub. Rpt. 35pp. (as cited in Byrne and Sherman 2011) Kendall P. 2002. Stone age man kept a dog. Nature, 22 November 2002 (in science update). http://www.nature.com/nsu/021118/021118-12.html Lenth, B.E., R.L. Knight, and M.E. Brennan. 2008. The effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Natural Areas J. 28:218-227. Loss, S.R.; T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free -ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Comm. 4:1396. McDowell Engineering. 2019. Transportation Impact Study for Triumph Development's East Vail Residential. McDowell Engineering, LLC. Eagle, CO. May 19. Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:124-132. Savolainen, P., Y. Zhang, J. Luo, J. Lundeberg and T. Leitner. 2002. Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science. 298: 1610-1613. Thompson, R.W. 2017. Rezoning wildlife assessment of Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 10 pp., Aug. 10. Thompson, R.W. 2018a. Recommended wildlife design criteria for Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp., June 15. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 41 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Thompson, R.W. 2018b. East Vail peregrines — 2018 nesting attempt to date. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp., June 18. Thompson, R.W. 2018c. Wildlife monitoring report for the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 33 pp., Aug. 31. Thompson, R.W. 2018d. East Vail Workforce Housing project conceptual bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions memorandum. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 3 pp., Nov. 5. Triumph Development. 2019. Booth Heights Neighborhood at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, Vail, Colorado, PEC Submittal, June 10, 2019. Triumph Development, Vail, CO. U.S. Department of Justice. 2011. Service animals. Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. July. app. (hfps://www.ada.gov/service_anitnals_2010.pdo USFS. 1998. Environmental Assessment, Booth Creek Project Burn Area, Eagle County, Colorado. Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Minturn, CO. Feb. 6. 11.0 APPENDICES A. APPENDIX A. WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT FOR THE EAST VAIL Workforce Housing parcel, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO. To be inserted in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan provided to Workforce Housing residents. B. APPENDIX B. EAST VAIL PEREGRINES — 2018 NESTING ATTEMPT. To be inserted in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan provided to Workforce Housing residents. Western Ecosystems, Inc. EN May, 2019 Triumph Development www.triumphdev.com To: Town of Vail PEC From: Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development West RE: Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan with TOV Biologist Recommendations Date: August 7, 2019 This memo serves to outline the process and outcomes that resulted from the Town of Vail's review of the Booth Heights Wildlife Mitigation Plan. This review was conducted by Town Staff, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and the three wildlife biologists engaged by the Town of Vail, as well as the applicant and its biologist, Rick Thompson. This discussion was conducted via three meetings of the group on July 19, July 26 and August 5 — with the final results of the review provided to the applicant on August 7. The discussion of the group was comprehensive in nature — focusing first on potential challenges encountered by the big horn herd on its entire winter range and enhancements that can be pursued on public lands, as well as specific design recommendations for the Booth Heights plan and options that would allow the applicant to improve upon its proposed offsite mitigation plan to increase the benefits to the bighorn winter range in partnership with the Town of Vail. In the paragraphs below, Triumph has summarized its support for the recommendations of this roundtable on the steps that can help address the long-term health of wildlife in the Booth Creek vicinity, as well as the components of the applicant's proposed revisions to the mitigation plan based on these conversations (items that are changes to the original proposed triumph mitigation plan are highlighted in green italics). Booth Heights Design Criteria Reducing Potential Impacts: • Development Clustering — Concentrate development onto the front of the Housing Parcel. • Parcel Access — Vehicular access from the west to work with natural grade. • Rockfall Berm — Utilize the rockfall berm as a buffer and physical barrier between wildlife and the new development. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail's biologists, this berm will be screened from townhomes with a row of aspens and replanted with native grasses and forbs that could provide additional sheep winter foraging habitat. This berm will be built in the first phase of construction with final landscaping completed prior to the first buildings' Certificate of Occupancy. • Development Buffer— In addition to the berm, uuu ,anascape screening ar me wesr and north of the driveway to provide additional screening. • Aspen Screening - Utilize the existing aspen forest to the north and west of the site to buffer the development improvements. Setback from the Right of Way — Setback 20' from the property line. The applicant has also adjusted the landscape plan to identify areas that trees can be saved in this front setback and ROW. P. 970.688.5057 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657 • Minimize Internal Parks and Parking -To keep the footprint of development small. • Tree Clearing - along and above the berm to allow east -west wildlife passage. • Do Not Inhibit East West Wildlife Movement at the Right of Way—Applicant is proposing no major cut slope, structures or paths across the front of the site. • Fencing —At the recommendation of the Town's biologists, the proposed fencing has been removed from the initial site plan. CPW has asked to maintain the ability to add a fence at a later date. The applicant proposes that this can be accomplished by granting an easement to the Town of Vail for the installation and maintenance of a wildlife fence at CPW-'s election. • New Bus Stop Location — Wildlife biologists favor using the existing East Vail bus stop and not building a new bus stop as proposed in the application. The Town's Public Works department requests that a full movement bus stop be installed at the site for pedestrian and vehicular safety. The only location where natural grade in the ROW will allow this stop is at location on the west end of the site. Due to the public safety concerns of Public Works, the applicant is proposing this new west bus stop location with landscaping at the rear to buffer the bus stop from the surrounding open space. Wildlife Mitigation Plan Winter Range Enhancement • Conservation Easement on the NAP Parcel —At the recommendation of the Town's biologists, Triumph will commit to placing a Conservation Easement on the NAP parcel prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit. This Conservation Easement will need to retain the right to make certain work on the NAP parcel that facilitates the development of the Housing Parcel, such as ongoing wildlife enhancements, geotechnical monitoring, and possible soil stabilization. • Enhancement on the NAP Parcel — While the CPW and the Town of Vail's wildlife biologists all agree that the NAP parcel is valuable wildlife habitat — particularly for elk, deer, bears, and birds — they concluded that resources should be focused on other higher -quality winter range for bighorn sheep. At the recommendation of the Town's wildlife biologists, Triumph will limit the enhancement of the NAP to pruning of overgrown shrubs to improve winter elk foraging habitat. • Equivalent Wildlife Enhancement on Higher Quality Bighorn Winter Range — The biologist roundtable recommended that treatments and habitat enhancements be focused around prime bighorn sheep ranges that are not on the Booth Heights development site (e.g. Booth Creek cliffs on the east and west sides of Booth Creek TOV and USFS habitat). Triumph will work with the Town of Vail Staff and CPW to identify alternate areas of enhancement that are quantitatively equivalent to that originally proposed on the NAP Parcel — namely 14.3 acres of enhancement that are in quantities and site conditions similar to that original proposal on the NAP parcel. These improvements will be completed before November 15 of the first year of construction, before the winter range period. This work could be extended onto Forest Service property with USFS permission through a Categorical Exclusion that the Applicant and the Town of Vail will continue to pursue together. As an example, the team identified these areas between the upper www.triumphdev.com and lower band of booth cliffs that have been overgrown with Aspen as shown on the below photo: Construction -Related Minimization Measures • Heavy site construction including clearing, excavation, grading, retaining wall construction, and berm construction will only be performed from June 1 through November 14. The June 1 start date will be reviewed and modified with CPW based on the severity off the winter and availability of other forage and lambing areas. • Prohibit construction personnel from bringing animals onto the site as allowed by law, feeding wildlife, and certified bear -proof trash receptacles for food refuse. • No rock blasting will be performed until July 31 or until peregrine fledging of nearby nests. Wildlife Requirements for Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel to Minimize Human Habitation Relative Impacts • Short-term rentals will be prohibirea. • No planting of garden fruit/nut bearing trees and bird feeders will not be allowed. • No additional roads or trails will be built on the undeveloped portion of the entire East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision. Social trails will be deconstructed and the neighboring landowner (e.g. Town of Vail) will be notified of the trespassing. • Signage around the property notifying residents and guests of the Important Surrounding Wildlife Area and the prohibition of access to these properties from the site. • Education program for the residents of Booth Heights about the Important Surrounding Wildlife Areas and Wildlife protections incorporated into all leases and HOA Documents. www.triumphdev.com • No outside overnight storage of garbage or trash at the residences. • Implement a weed management program to discourage the growth of noxious weeds. • Prohibition of flying drones on or around the property. • All pets will be prohibited at rental properties, except as required by law. • Pets of guests, families and contractors will be prohibited, except as required by law. • No resident -occupied townhome will have more than one dog, except as required by law. • All livestock, including domestic sheep and goats, are prohibited. • Animals must be under direct control of its owner at all times on a leash of no more than 12 feet (unless the duties of the service animal require it to be unleashed). • The walking of animals within the property shall be confined to the developed areas below the berm. All residents will pick up after their animal. Pets shall not be fed outside. No pets shall be permitted to chase animals. • No animal will be permitted to be a public nuisance, such as excessive barking, as determined by the HOA at its discretion. • Policies and procedures for enforcement and fines as well as education of the residents will be as outlined in detail in the applicant's Wildlife Mitigation Plan and will be documented in the HOA documents and/or residential leases. The applicant also will grant the Town of Vail the ability to enforce these fines on its behalf of the owner and HOA at the Town of Vail's election. Wildlife Enhancement Recommendations to TOV, CPW, and USFS on the 1880 -acre Winter Range • Establish a Colorado Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Special District • Establish a mitigation fund for enhancement and protection of bighorn sheep habitat. Triumph will contribute $50,000 in seed money upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the establishment of this fund and these funds could be used on items outlined below. • Fund a bighorn sheep movement study in cooperation with CPW, USFS, and the proponent to determine how sheep are using the Booth Creek areas. [Possible use of Triumph seed money] • Consider fertilization. It might be wise to do a treatment/control study to determine efficacy of treatments. [Possible use of Triumph seed money] • Treat burn areas with herbicide effective in preventing native vegetation from being replaced by cheatgrass and other noxious weeds post -burn. [Possible use of Triumph seed money] • Encourage CPW to update current CPW sheep mapping to reflect the current distribution and use patterns. • Burn or cut, stack, and burn to open -up aspen woodlands to create and maintain important surrounding wildlife areas. Burning will be most effective and cheapest alternative. Investigate methodologies to allow for prescribed fire. • Prohibit bike paths and sidewalks along the frontage road in the Booth Creek area. • Work with USFS and TOV to set up a winter closure on the Booth Creek area to prevent human recreation use. • Work with USFS to prohibit dogs year-round on the Booth Creek area. www.triumphdev.com • Cut/maintain winter sheep movement corridors suggested in the 1998 USFS habitat plan. • Consider using salt or other supplements to keep bighorn sheep away from the frontage road and 1-70. During construction of the development and in the event of a severe winter, Triumph will share the cost of feeding the bighorn herd in the immediate vicinity of the Booth Cliffs at the election and direction of CPW. Town of Vail to use its authority as a municipality and property owner to enact and enforce protective restrictions on nearby important surrounding wildlife habitat at appropriate times during the year, including, but not limited to, closing Town property that includes bighorn winter range to access (e.g. the Town property to the west) and assisting property owners with policing trespassing (e.g. the NAP Parcel). www.triumphdev.com EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 4 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT East Vail Workforce Subdivision Eagle County, Colorado prepared for: TRIUMPH DEVELOPMENT 12 VAIL ROAD, SUITE 700, VAIL, CO 81657 8� WESTERN ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE 711 WALNUT STREET, BOULDER, CO 80302 prepared by: BIRCH ECOLOGY, LLC 429 MAIN STREET, LYONS, CO 80540 IPIR Ic°L01- BIRCH ECOLOGY FEBRUARY 2019 Table of Contents Section/Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 DELINEATION METHODS.................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 WETLANDS & WATERS OF THE U.S....................................................................................................2 4.1 Wetland A.......................................................................................................................................2 4. 1.1 Location................................................................................................................................... 2 4.1.2 Classification........................................................................................................................... 2 4.1.3 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................. 2 4.1.4 Hydrology................................................................................................................................ 2 4.1.5 Soils............................................................................................................................................2 4.2 Ephemeral Stream Channel.......................................................................................................2 4.2.1 Location................................................................................................................................... 2 4.2.2 Classification........................................................................................................................... 2 4.2.3 Hydrology................................................................................................................................3 5.0 ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTIONAL STATUS...........................................................................................3 6.0 FIGURES...............................................................................................................................................4 7.0 TABLES..................................................................................................................................................8 8.0 PHOTOS.............................................................................................................................................12 9.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A. FIELD DATA FORMS.......................................................................................................19 List of Figures Number/Title Page Figure 1. Project Location Map...........................................................................................................5 Figure2. Aerial Photo............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure3. Wetland Map.......................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables Number/Title Page Table 1. Potential Waters of the U.S. Summary.................................................................................9 Table 2. Vascular Plant Species List...................................................................................................10 List of Photos Number/Title Page Photo 1. View to the southeast, toward the 1-70 corridor and East Vail Exit (10/18/17)......... 13 Photo 2. The steep forested hillside above the project site.(10/24/17)...................................13 Photo 3. Wetland A is a seep with an overstory dominated by willows. (10/24/17) ..............14 Photo 4. Wetland A is on a steep, southwestern -facing slope.(10.18/17)..............................14 Photo 5. The ephemeral stream has a bed that averages 2 feet wide. (10/24/17) ..............15 Photo 6. Aspen forest next to Wetland A.(10/24/17)..................................................................15 Photo 7. Pits 2 (foreground) and 1 (background).(10/24/17)....................................................16 Photo 8. Pit 3 is within Wetland A......................................................................................................16 1.0 INTRODUCTION Triumph Development has plans to construct a workforce housing project near the 1-70 Exit in East Vail. The development would be located on the western part of the ±23.3 -acre property, on a 5.397 -acre parcel which is the focus of this wetland delineation. The eastern 17.915 acres will be designated for Natural Area Preservation. Specifically, the project site is located in the southeast '/4 of Section 2 of Township 5 South and Range 80 West in Eagle County, Colorado (Figures 1 & 2). To aid in project planning, a wetland delineation was completed for the 5.397 -acre project area where the development would be located. This report describes the wetlands and waters identified in terms of their vegetation, soil, and hydrology, and includes photos and a Wetland Map. Please note, all Figures are included in Section 6.0, Tables are in Section 7.0, and Photos are in Section 8.0. Appendix A contains copies of the field data forms. 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The East Vail Workforce Housing project site is located on a south to southwest -facing hillside above the Frontage Road on the north side of 1-70 (Photo 1). The 5.397 -acre parcel where the development would be located is dominated by aspen (Populus tremuloides) forest with scattered Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanii) and a mixed mountain shrub community that includes serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa), Woods' rose (Rosa woodsii), and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), among other species (Photo 2). There is a small seep wetland near a landslide area at the eastern boundary (Photos 3 & 4), and a narrow ephemeral stream channel that crosses the western side (Photo 5). Elevations of the delineation area range from a high of 8,520 in the northeastern corner to a low of 8,374 in the southwestern corner where the ephemeral stream channel flows off the project site. 3.0 DELINEATION METHODS Wetlands were delineated by Heather Houston of Birch Ecology, LLC and formerly of Western Ecological Resource, Inc. and David Buscher of Buscher Soil & Environmental, Inc. in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast (2010) on October 24, 2017. In general, wetland boundaries were delineated and flagged based upon the prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and indicators of a wetland hydrology. Field forms for the three test pits with vegetation, soil and hydrology data are included in Appendix A. These test pits are located in both wetland and upland habitats. In general, plant species names follow Weber and Whitmann (1992). The wetland status of plants follows the 2016 National List for the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region. Classification of wetlands follows Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland flagging was surveyed by Peak Land Surveying of Vail, Colorado. 4.0 WETLANDS & WATERS OF THE U.S. Approximately 377 square feet of a seep wetland are located within the 5.397 -acre project area boundary. In addition, approximately 68 linear feet of an ephemeral stream channel bisect the project site, as illustrated by the Wetland Map (Figure 3) and summarized in Table 1. 4.1 Wetland A 4.1.1 Location Wetland A is a seep located near the eastern boundary of the project site. The wetland extends into the project area from the Natural Area Preservation parcel to the east. Approximately 377 square feet of this wetland occur within the 5.397 -acre project site (Photos 3&4). 4.1.2 Classification Under the Cowardin Classification System for Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats (Cowardin et al., 1979), Wetland A is in the Palustrine System, Scrub -Shrub Wetland Class. 4.1.3 Vegetation Wetland A is a seep within the aspen forest (Photos 3, 4 & 6). In the area mapped as wetlands, the shrubby overstory is dominated by willows (Salix bebbiana, S. scouleriana), redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and bush honeysuckle (Distegia involucrata), with serviceberry, snowberry, Woods' rose, common juniper (Juniperus communis), and mountain maple (Acer glabrum) in the moist soil at the periphery. The understory of the delineated wetland is dominated by a sparse cover of beaked sedge (Carex utriculata) growing with cow parsnip (Heracleum sphondylium ssp. montanum), starry false Solomon's seal (Maianthemum stellatum) and monkshood (Aconitum columbianum), as well as the shade - tolerant introduced species orchard grass (Dactylis glomerate). 4.1.4 Hydrology This wetland is a seep fed by groundwater discharge and snowmelt runoff. As noted on the data form for Pit 3, the soil was saturated below a depth of 11 inches on the date of the delineation, and there was flowing water nearby in a small channel. 4.1.5 Soils Three soil pits were used to define the limits of Wetland A. Pits 1 and 2 were located just outside the wetland boundary (Photo 7) in a shallow drainage swale. Both pits lacked hydric soil and indicators of a wetland hydrology. Pit 3 was located inside the wetland boundary. The soil was hydric and was saturated below a depth of 11 inches (Photo 8). 4.2 Ephemeral Stream Channel 4.2.1 Location A 2 -foot -wide, rocky ephemeral stream channel is located in the western portion of the project site (Photo 5). Approximately 68 linear feet of this channel is within the project boundary. 4.2.2 Classification The ephemeral stream is in the Riverine System, Intermittent Subsystem, Streambed Class. 11 4.2.3 Hydrology The ephemeral stream is fed by snowmelt runoff and likely seasonal groundwater discharge from the steep hillside above the parcel. The stream flows south across the site and into a 24 -inch culvert in the bottom of a depression, where the inlet is buried by rocks. The outfall is on the south side of 1-70, and it discharges into Gore Creek. 5.0 ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTIONAL STATUS Wetland A is a seep that does not connect to other waters of the U.S. and is likely a non - jurisdictional feature. In contrast, the ephemeral stream has a direct surface connection to Gore Creek via a 24 -inch culvert below I-70. Therefore, the ephemeral stream is likely jurisdictional. 3 6.0 FIGURES P. :. 106'1 9'0"W 106°18'0"W ' Booth Creek10 oZZZ Y Area 87 B Gore Creek ��.. _ Parcel Boundary _ " t 1-70 East Vail Exit 2' Pitkin Creek ti 10400 �. 011 106'1 9'0"W BASE: USGS 7.5' Vail East Quadrangle, Colorado COLORADO -.1oJ I 'Copyridht:© 2013 106'1 8'0"W Figure 1. Project Location Map East Vail Workforce Subdivision N A Prepared by. Birch Ecology LLC 1:24,000 5 BIRCII ECOLOGY —_�-- 429 Main Street P.O. Box 170 Lyons, C080540 (720)350-2530 www. birchecology.com P. co o co OF . ,� '�� ''�• ��r,, , ` ' . , ' �'`a>�jy�'„�ti x• - t tri"i - ~• ►.'' �.� . r y ^S f a.,, �A ': {. . • •fes • r'" • _ � w . + f r • •,lY... ' P Sp • '�► , ir,, -z• Boundary of ;` .•a,. ; .� w•.,r Wetland Delineation • 460— ��` ,.•� ,'. •. '�'�;., ,... Parcel Boundary .rt• �. ■ 44 46 . � �•: ' ~:� ti.� moi. h: • Ne— Gore Creek * 1-70 East Vail Exit r, COLORADO Nj Source: E-sri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEaye, Earthstar Geo'gr ics, ONES/Airbus . •, U• U• ��,A� �e�in•,Aer •ri•, ISN, I -P, swisst• an• th I = User ommunity ►`` Figure 2. Aerial Photograph East Vail Workforce Subdivision N A 1:6,000 R Prepared by: ••L . 1'mcii ECOLOGY 429 Main Street —_�--- P.O. Box 170 Lyons, CO COLORADO Nj Source: E-sri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEaye, Earthstar Geo'gr ics, ONES/Airbus . •, U• U• ��,A� �e�in•,Aer •ri•, ISN, I -P, swisst• an• th I = User ommunity ►`` Figure 2. Aerial Photograph East Vail Workforce Subdivision N A 1:6,000 R Prepared by: Birch Ecology LLC 1'mcii ECOLOGY 429 Main Street —_�--- P.O. Box 170 Lyons, CO (720)350-2530-2530 www. birchecology.com Legend: 0 Wetlands *pit I Soil Pits •��—��• Ephemeral Stream Channel Culverts Project Boundary Wetland Flagging O Surveyed by: Data February 2C19 Peak Lend Surveying Inc. Contour Interval=2H of Vail. CO Scale: 1 in = 75 ft 7 Figure 3. Wetland Map East Vail Workforce Housing a aPa�s v, I i 11-1 Ecology LLC ZQ:CHL'COLOGy i.2� ,m_� _. o� 7.0 TABLES TABLE 1 Potential Waters of the U.S. Summary East Vail Workforce Housing Project Potential Waters of the U.S. Size Location Wetlands Wetland A 377 ft2 39.645810 (<0.01 ac) -106.307616 Total Wetlands 377 ft2 Aquatic Habitats Ephemeral stream channel 68 LF 39.646449 -106.310683 Total Aquatic Habitats 68 LF Scientific Name Trees Picea engelmannii Populus tremuloides Shrubs Acer glabrum Amelanchier alnifolia Artemisia tridentate var. vaseyana Cercocarpus montanus Chrysothamnus parryi Corn us sericea (C. stolonifera) Distegia invol ucrata Juniperus communis ssp. alpina Prun us virginiana var. melanocarpa Ribes inerme Rosa woodsii Salix bebbiana Salix monticola Salix scouleriana Symphoricarpos rotundifoli us Perennial Graminoids Brom us inermis Carex utriculata Dactylis glomerate Elymus trachycaulus Phleum pretense Poo compresses Perennial Forbs Achillea Ianulosa Aconitum columbianum Agastache urticifolia Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Aster foliaceus Cirsium arvense Frasera speciosa Geranium richardsonii Heracleum sphondylium ssp. montanum Linaria vulgaris TABLE 2 Vascular Plant Species List East Vail Workforce Housing Project Common Name Engelmann spruce Aspen Mountain maple Serviceberry Mountain big sagebrush Mountain mahogany Parry's rabbitbrush Redosier dogwood Family Pinaceae Salicaceae Aceraceae Rosaceae Asteraceae Rosaceae Asteraceae Cornaceae Bush honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae Common juniper Cupressaceae Choke cherry Rosaceae Wetland Origin* Status** N FAC N FACU N FACU N FACU N NL N NL N NL N FACW N FAC N UPL N FACU Whitestem gooseberry Grossulariaceae N FAC Woods' rose Rosaceae N FACU Bebb willow Salicaceae N FACW Mountain willow Salicaceae N OBL Scouler willow Salicaceae N FAC Snowberry Caprifoliaceae N NL Smooth brome Poaceae I UPL Beaked sedge Cyperaceae N OBL Orchard grass Poaceae I FACU Slender wheatgrass Poaceae N FAC Timothy Poaceae I FAC Canada bluegrass Poaceae I FACU Yarrow Asteraceae N FACU Monkshood Helleboraceae N FACW Nettleleaf giant hyssop Lamiaceae N FACU Kinnickinnick Ericaceae N FACU Leafy bracted aster Asteraceae N FACU Canada thistle Asteraceae 1+ FAC Monument plant Gentianaceae N NL Richardson's Geranium Geraniaceae N FAC Cow parsnip Apiaceae N FAC Toadflax Scrophulariaceae 1+ NL Scientific Name Mahonia repens Maianthemum stellatum (Smilacina stellata) Paxistima myrsinites Pyrola rotundifolia ssp. asarifolia Rudbeckia ampla (R. laciniata var. ampla) Thalictrum fendleri Vicia americana * Origin TABLE 2 Vascular Plant Species List East Vail Workforce Housing Project Common Name Family Oregon grape Berberidaceae Starry false Solomon seal Convallariaceae Mountainlover Roundleaf wintergreen Goldenglow Fendler meadowrue American vetch N = Native I = Introduced I+ = Colorado State Noxious Weed Wetland Origin* Status** N NL N FAC Celastraceae N FACU Pyrolaceae N FACU Asteraceae N FAC Thalictraceae N FAC Fabaceae N FAC ** Wetland Status OBL = Obligate Wetland FACW = Facultative Wetland FAC = Facultative FACU = Facultative Upland UPL = Obligate Upland NO/NL = No Status in this Region 8.0 PHOTOS 12 Photo 1. View from the project site to the southeast, toward the 1-70 corridor and East Vail Exit. (10/18/17). Photo 2. The steep forested hillside above the project site is dominated by aspen. (10/24/17). 13 ,�'¢�p'�,Jr '�. c a b�° P'p/LCA^ '�/•fi � R V - i E � �� P 1- 1 ra��AF. !! N (� �. � � ti �_ y;�` 1 u _ IC�Cl .i „F w��_�r4Y�YQY�,��. 1� 5 ''lift V iA �7a Add �' t t►r 4 . t Nt fr I. a10 f�- 9.0 REFERENCES Ackerfield, J. 2015. The Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press, Ft. Worth, Texas. 818 p. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2003. Field Guide to the Wetland and Riparian Plant Associations of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pub. FWS/OBS- 79/31, Washington, D.C., 103 p. Culver, D.R. and J.M. Lemly. 2013. Field Guide to Colorado's Wetland Plants: Identification, Ecology and Conservation. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. Harrington, H.D. 1964. Manual of the Plants of Colorado. The Swallow Press, Inc. Chicago, Illinois 60605. Kartesz, J.T. 1994a. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Vol. 1 - Checklist. Second edition. Timber Press, Inc. Portland, Oregon. 622 p. Kartesz, J.T. 1994b. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Vol. 2 - Thesaurus. Second edition. Timber Press, Inc. Portland, Oregon. 816 p. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. ERDC/EC TR -10- 3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. USDA, NRCS. 2014. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 28 February 2014). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO). Specimen Database of Colorado Vascular Plants. http://cumuseum.colorado.edu/Research/Botany/Databases/search.php Weber, W. A. and R. C. Whitmann. 2012. Colorado Flora: Western Slope, Fourth edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado. 17 Weber, W.A. & R.C. Wittmann, 1992. Catalog of the Colorado Flora: a Biodiversity Baseline. University Press of Colorado. Niwot, Colorado. Including most recent addenda available from CU Herbarium (COLO), Boulder, Colorado. M] APPENDIX A. FIELD DATA FORMS 19 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Lgs-t vat' I UVVVy\1 +�►r ce, S V-7 City/County: I f— Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: jj l d 01 State: Sampling Point: , Investigator(s): I'lOs i i"i T I� l�bb Y �i'1/� Section, Township, Range: i' ,dam' Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): iC 8Local relie concave convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes XNo (If no, explain in Remarks.) / Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydric Soil Present? Yes No < Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks:1e, 3 €1 0Ar That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. �i Total Number of Dominant 3. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species / "� GO Sa lin /Shrub Stratum Plot size: ( [ 0X 1Or) = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) 1. a+ f 1 ' '�.- Y *qc V) � i/ 'ISI I, Prevalence Index worksheet: oL Total % over of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 4. Cff I C �S, 'r Ifrj I C) FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 0 UPL species x 5 = 1 • M t W . ' 40 FAC, Column Totals: (A) (B) `' 2• 11�A`v i � cl I i PwTir Ct 3• r `< *rrAs, i A' Q, (° 10 P . t 7 Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. C 5• al/0� 00, ( _!W 7i F&Jkl_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 7• _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting g. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g. _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation I Ile = Total Cover Present? Yes No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL las` )k2 l 111 � t Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) (moist) % (iin�chhe/s�)� Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks gColor — High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 413) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) — Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) — Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) — Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) — Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Field Observations: Type: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes - No Remarks: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (Al) — Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except — Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, — High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 413) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) — Dry -Season Water Table (C2) — Sediment Deposits (62) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation — Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ? l Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) — FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No lr' - Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No (_ ' Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: L-41"3fl ut oii��wUV Vx7T�,, lL&PHYk ity/Count, Applicant/Owner: i V 1 r dq Investigator(s): LlSection, Ti Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _51A. J42_, Local relic Subregion (LRR): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? LQ Q (_ Sampling Date: favy State: C Sampling Point: At Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No %� within a Wetland? Yes No i Remarks: 7f Uf.- SCOU 64 1 C,,"'S.... Number of Dominant Species VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. A " Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: io % Cover Species? Status 7t�i Number of Dominant Species 1. kX/ _ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4' = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, FAC: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plotsize: r ) or (A/B) 1, � �T �( T Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. r Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 3. u 4 1 p f• FACW species x 2= FAC species x 3 = 5. ° � =Total Cover FACU species x4= UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Plot size: ) ( 0 "rro 1 D (" e " Column Totals: (A) (B) 2• 6 . 14 { " ` _ ' s° I f't. N / J A " Prevalence Index = B/A = 3•L'tu I r Z Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4• 5. or,04 ,' '�� yy ��' t i„— _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0' 6•. 7• 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting $ _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes No %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: r, jrr US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 v SOIL�ty i Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the ab"se'nce of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) D' _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: (inches): Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Saturation Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: /� /Depth Surface Water Present? Yes No (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No (inches): / /pepth Saturation Present? Yes No Lf Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: '-'•'illO. VAj) WWKT- + �-��11t,Jl k1JCity/County: `~ TMY - Sampling Date: t/ Applicant/Owner: State: � Sampling Point: Investigator(s): t C Section, Township, Range: Ser-. -y , T�)-90 e' Landform (hillslope, terrace etc.):�j4 4 } _ Loc I retie conc convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly dist Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally proble NWI classification: Vo (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Absolute Hydric Soil Present? /X Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: _v I j1'+�f I S 1.1"ruy. sofUV rt, VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 5 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species, / Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 (d ) = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 1. (� �? a (�' y � c�� Prevalence Index worksheet: Total %Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = 2 I_ +r f ! ,P' 4.. AAC F FACU species x4– 4=Herb / Herb Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = ) 1 �,.'S `y�14 Z Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. t ( 1&. V `7 Hy rophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. F % 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6 _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7• g. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: g H t7 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL F&J- ()f,, Lo ( a_4 It -7 Sampling Point: -d— Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm lie absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 4— MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 46) 4A, and 413) Sigh aturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ' Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: q Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 7- Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 46) 4A, and 413) Sigh aturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (63) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes "No __,,_/'Depth (inches): ' Saturation Present? Yes t-' No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes t/ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: �lYio US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 5a HNiffl�SAR INC. Geotechnical Engineers & Causrrucrion iviaterials Consultants February 13, 2019 Mr. Michael O'Connor Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 Subject: Geologic Hazards Analysis Report East Vail Workforce Housing Vail, Colorado Project No. 18.5080 Dear Mr. O'Connor: A geologic hazards analysis was performed by Skyline Geoscience for the subject project. The purpose of this letter is to transmit the report prepared by Skyline Geoscience. If you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please contact our office. Sincerely, CESARE, INC. William H. Koechlein, P.E. Senior Consultant WHK/ksm Attachment 18.5080 East Vail Workforce Housing Letter 02.13.19 Corporate Office: 7108 South Alton Way, Building B Centennial, CO 80112 Locations: Centennial Frederick Silverthorne Salida/Crested Butte Phone 303-220-0300 www.cesareinc.com SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING February 12, 2019 Cesare, Inc. William Koechlein, P.E. 365 Warren Avenue, Suite #201 Silverthorne, Colorado 80497 Geologic Hazard Analysis East Vail Parcel Vail, Colorado Skyline Project No: 18105 Dear Mr. Koechlein: Skyline Geoscience (Skyline) is pleased to submit to Cesare, Inc. (Cesare) this geologic hazard analysis for the East Vail Parcel located near the 1-70 East Vail Exit in the Town of Vail, Colorado. Preliminary development plans for the EVP (not for construction; dated January 30, 2019) have been issued to Triumph Development, Inc. by Alpine Engineering, Inc. (Alpine), and were used in this study. This geologic hazard analysis addresses rockfall, debris flow and the existing , landslide, and the potential impacts these hazards may have on the proposed development. Skyline understands that a .�.4 rockfall impact barrier is planned for the upslope edge of the EVP. This barrier will serve as both a protective barrier for rockfall and debris flows and serve as a wildlife barrier separating human activity from existing wildlife habitats. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE I OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Table of Contents 1.0 Location SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Figure3.................................................................................................................................................................Topographic SITE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................................................3 Figure4.......................................................................................................................................................................Geologic 3.0 Figure 5....................................................................................................................................... GEOLOGIC SETTING....................................................................................................................................................5 Figure6......................................................................................................................................................................LiDAR Imagery 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.....................................................................................................................................................5 Figure8.................................................................................................................................................................... Study Section A 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY...............................................................................................................................................................5 Figure10................................................................................................................................................................. 4.0 Figure 11..................................................................................................................................Typical GEOLOGIC HAZARD CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................................7 4.1 ROCKFALL.......................................................................................................................................................................7 4.2 DEBRIS FLOWS...............................................................................................................................................................8 4.3 EXISTING LANDSLIDE.....................................................................................................................................................9 5.0 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.1 STUDY SECTION A........................................................................................................................................................11 5.2 STUDY SECTION B........................................................................................................................................................12 5.3 STUDY SECTION C........................................................................................................................................................13 5.4 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS....................................................................................................................................14 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................15 6.1 ROCKFALL AND DEBRIS FLOW MITIGATION..............................................................................................................15 6.2 EXISTING LANDSLIDE...................................................................................................................................................18 7.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................................................................18 8.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................19 List of Figures Figure1.........................................................................................................................................................................Site Location Figure2.......................................................................................................................................................Proposed Development Figure3.................................................................................................................................................................Topographic Map Figure4.......................................................................................................................................................................Geologic Map Figure 5....................................................................................................................................... Slope Map and Landslide Extents Figure6......................................................................................................................................................................LiDAR Imagery Figure7...................................................................................................................................................................... Landslide Map Figure8.................................................................................................................................................................... Study Section A Figure9..................................................................................................................................................................... Study Section B Figure10................................................................................................................................................................. Study Section C Figure 11..................................................................................................................................Typical Sections—Rockfall Barriers 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 2 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK The objectives of this geologic hazard analysis are to characterize the geologic hazard conditions and the potential impact those conditions may have on the intended development of the East Vail Parcel (EVP) located in the Town of Vail, Colorado (Figure 1). This analysis is based on proposed development plans made available at the time of this study (Alpine, January 30, 2019; Figure 2). Geologic hazards addressed in this analysis include rockfall, debris flows, and the existing landslide. Analysis of other geologic hazards including, but not limited to, snow avalanches, expansive soils and bedrock, and seismicity are not included in the scope of this study. Subsurface exploration or slope stability analysis for proposed cuts, fills, structural foundations, retaining wall structures, or other site improvements are not included in the scope of this study. Based on the documents available to us and our understanding of the project, the scope of work for the geologic hazard analysis included: 1. Review of available literature and published mapping related to geologic conditions in the site area. 2. Review of applicable Town of Vail codes and requirements related to geologically sensitive areas. 3. Analysis of rockfall hazard along three study sections using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP). 4. Meetings and collaboration with the EVP design team, Town of Vail, Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), and others. 5. Preparation of this report signed by a Colorado Professional Geologist summarizing findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The EVP is located on the northeast side of 1-70 near the 1-70 East Vail exit, in the Town of Vail, Colorado (Figure 1). The site is triangular, about 23.3 acres in size, and is currently undeveloped except for a buried utility easement traversing the west side of the site. The part of the site which will be developed is the western approximate 5.4 acres (Housing Zone District). The remaining 17.9 acres of the site will remain undeveloped and zoned Natural Area Preservation (NAP). Fall Line Drive and the 1-70 Frontage Road bound the site along the southwest edge. Pitkin Creek Townhomes is located immediately southeast of the EVP and Booth Falls Mountain Homes (Booth Falls) development is located west/northwest of the site. The land to the north, northeast, northwest, and west is undeveloped, National Forest Service Land. There is a Town of Vail shuttle stop near the intersection of Fall Line Drive 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 3 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING and 1-70 Frontage Road along the southwest edge of the site. Table 1 summarizes project site characteristics. Table 1. Project Site Characteristics Location: Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado Size: 23.3 acres total; 5.4 acres to be developed Shape: Triangular Undeveloped except for a buried utility easement that crosses through the Existing Condition: northwest part of the site. Vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grasses. Incised drainages with flowing water on the west side of the site. Multi-level residential buildings and surface parking on 5.4 acres zoned for Housing Proposed Development: on the west side of the site. The other 17.9 acres will remain undeveloped and zoned NAP. A rockfall/wildlife barrier will traverse the part of the site to be developed on the upslope side. Topographic Quadrangle: Vail East Township/Range: SE'/ of Section 2, Township 4 South, Range 80 West Latitude/Longitude: 39°38'46"N / -106°18'25"W 8380 to about 8940 from southwest to northeast across entire site. Elevation: 8380 to about 8530 from southwest to northeast corner of the part of the site to be developed. Elevation Change Across About 560 feet across entire site. Site: About 150 feet across part of site to be developed. Slope of Ground Surface: About 15 to 20 degrees down toward the south/southwest. Gore Creek located about 350 to 650 feet to the south. Nearby Drainage Features: Booth Creek located about 3,200 feet to the northwest. Pitkin Creek located immediately east of the property boundary. Surficial Geologic Units: Colluvium, landslide deposits, and glacial till. Bedrock: Minturn Formation The EVP is located in the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 4 South, Range 80 West, with a latitude and longitude of about 39°38'46"N and -106°18'25"W, respectively. Pitkin Creek is located immediately southeast of the entire site and Booth Creek is about 3,200 feet to the northwest. Both Pitkin and Booth Creek are deeply incised and active drainages that flow to confluence with Gore Creek, located about 350 to 650 feet south/southwest of the site. The site topography slopes down to the southwest. The slope of the ground surface on the western part of the property (the part to be developed) ranges from about 0 to 20 degrees. The slope of the 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 4 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING ground surface on the remainder of the EVP is steeper and exceeds 40 degrees in some places. Elevation ranges from about 8380 feet along the southwest side to about 8940 at the upper northeast corner. Elevation ranges from about 8380 to 8530 on the western part of the site to be developed, about 150 feet of elevation change. Refer to Figures 1 through 3 for site location, proposed development and topographic maps. 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The EVP is in the Southern Rocky Mountain physiographic province along the western flank of the Gore Range, in a region characterized by montane to subalpine settings. The Gore fault system is the western structural boundary of the Gore Range and was active during the Laramide mountain building event about 70 to 50 million years ago. The Gore Range is comprised of crystalline rock and is separated from the Front Range Mountains to the east by the Blue River Valley and the Williams Range thrust fault zone. Southwest of the Gore fault system are thick sequences of sedimentary units such as the Minturn and Maroon Formations. Sedimentary units underlie the EVP and are comprised of shale, claystone, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and marine limestone. Glacial till is also mapped in the region along Gore Creek Valley and associated tributaries. 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY Based on published geologic mapping (Kellogg and others, 2003; Kellogg and others, 2011), the EVP is underlain by surficial deposits comprised of artificial fill, colluvium, landslide deposits, and glacial till (Figure 4). Bedrock underlying the EVP is Minturn Formation (middle Pennsylvanian in age; about 315 to 307 million years before present) and is generally obscured by surficial deposits except for steep cliff outcrops upslope from the site. Geologic units are described below, from youngest to oldest in age: Artificial Fill — Artificial fill (af) is present and associated with modifications to the natural condition within and adjacent to the EVP, such as the buried utility easement in the western part and construction associated with Fall Line Drive, the shuttle stop, and the retaining wall in the southeast part of the site. Colluvium — Colluvial deposits (Qc) of Holocene and upper Pleistocene age (126,000 years ago to present) blanket most of the slope in the site area. Colluvium is described as unconsolidated, non- stratified deposits covering slopes less than 50 degrees. These deposits are typically less than 30 to 45 feet thick and comprised of pebble, cobble, and boulder sized rock and fine-grained material mixed together during movement downslope. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 5 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Landslide Deposits— Landslide deposits (Qls) of Holocene and upper Pleistocene age (126,000 years ago to present) are mapped on the eastern part of the EVP, on the approximate 18 acres that will not be developed. These deposits varyfrom chaotically arranged debris that has mobilized downslope to intact blocks of sedimentary bedrock. The middle and lower members of the Minturn Formation are particularly susceptible to landsliding (Kellogg and others, 2003). Pinedale Till— Glacial till (Qtp) of upper Pleistocene, Pinedale glaciation age (about 30,000 to 12,000 years ago) is mapped in the southeast area of the EVP. Glacial till is also mapped upslope from the site, above the prominent cliff exposures. Glacial till is mapped throughout the Gore Creek Valley and commonly forms well-preserved moraines. The Pinedale Till is unsorted, unstratified, bouldery glacial till, characterized by matrix -supported, subrounded to subangular clasts of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary (minor) composition. This unittends to form hummocky surface topography with common closed depressions and small ponds which have been modified by development in the Gore Creek Valley. The Pinedale Till has been mapped at variable elevations as high as 900 feet above the present elevation of Gore Creek, and may be up to about 90 feet thick in places (Kellogg and others, 2003; Kellogg and others 2011). Minturn Formation, Robinson Limestone Member — The Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation (Pmr) underlies the northeast part of the EVP. This unit also comprises the steep cliff outcrops upslope from the site. Pmr is thick -bedded, marine and dolomitic limestone, and is gray to yellow -gray, fine- to medium -grained, and locally fossiliferous. This unit can be divided into four distinct depositional sequences which are interbedded with pink -tan and light tan, cross -bedded, micaceous pebbly sandstone, gray -pink sandy siltstone, and shale. The sandstone, siltstone, and shale layers weather to rounded shapes, whereas the limestone and dolomitic layers weather to more angular forms. Based on published mapping (Kellogg and others, 2003), Pmr dips about 10 degrees south on the slope above the site. Pmr is about 360 feet thick in the project area, however, is about 660 feet thick at the type section. Minturn Formation, Individual limestone bed — This individual limestone bed of the Minturn Formation (Pmrl) is mapped within Pmr, is cliff -forming and generally greater than 15 feet thick. Pmrl is mapped on the east side of the EVP on the slopes of Pitkin Creek. Minturn Formation, Lower Member—The Lower Member of the Minturn Formation (Pml) underlies the EVP and is comprised of arkosic conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale. Pml is pink -gray, gray - brown, gray -green, and mottled maroon and gray -green. This unit is about 1,200 feet thick in the project area. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 6 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD CONSIDERATIONS The Town of Vail code 12-21-13 lists the maps that have been adopted as official maps of the town to identify geologically sensitive areas and guide site-specific studies. These maps show debris flow and debris avalanche hazards (Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., November 1984), rockfall hazards (Schmueser and Associates, Inc., November 29, 1984), and geologic hazard areas (Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists, August 16, 1982). Based on these maps, the EVP is within a rockfall hazard area and thus designated as a geologically sensitive area by the Town of Vail. The geologic hazard considerations included in this study include rockfall, debris flows, and an existing landslide (Figure 5). 4.1 ROCKFALL The EVP has been placed in a rockfall hazard area by the Town of Vail. The EVP is located directly below cliff exposures of the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation. Potential rockfall source zones include these cliff exposures, glacial till deposits present further upslope, and other bedrock outcrops and piles of accumulated boulders on the slope above the site. The glacial till produces subrounded, granitic boulders that pose a rockfall hazard as they dislodge from the matrix and cascade downslope. The Minturn Formation tends to break from the source as irregular blocks of various sizes. The primary rockfall trigger for the bedrock is likely alternating freeze -thaw cycles. Additionally, the Minturn Formation has a combination of internal characteristics that contribute to rockfall susceptibility, including: • thin, interbedded, weak shale layers within the thicker limestone and sandstone beds • joint patterns • bedrock dip of 10 to 15 degrees out -of -the slope (toward the valley) The neighboring development to the northwest (Booth Falls) experienced historic rockfall events in 1983, 1986, 1987, and 1997, when large boulders dislodged from the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation and damaged residences (Kellogg and others, 2003; Colorado Geological Survey, undated). The 1983 rockfall event prompted a rockfall study for the entire Town of Vail (Schmueser and Associates, 1984). The rockfall berm and catchment that was in place at the time of the 1997 rockfall event was 100% effective in containing rocks that intercepted the barrier, however, part of that rockfall mass skirted the edge of the berm and rolled downslope to damage structures in the development below. After the 1997 event, additional barriers (reinforced walls) were constructed to protect residences. Based on the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) study conducted soon after the 1997 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 7 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING rockfall event, the section of rock that detached from the upper cliff was about 20 x 8 x 8 feet in dimension and broke into smaller pieces as it tumbled down the slope. Two cliff exposures of the Robinson Limestone Member are present above Booth Falls, and the CGS identified the main rockfall source to be the upper cliff exposure (Figure 5). The upper cliff exposure at Booth Falls can be correlated to the main rockfall source for the EVP. The lower cliff exposure above the EVP is largely obscured by colluvial deposits and not considered a primary rockfall source. The slope below the cliff exposures at Booth Falls constitutes the acceleration and runout zones and is about 40 degrees. The slope below the rockfall source zone for the EVP is less extreme, varying from about 20 to 40 degrees. Joint spacing in the bedrock source zones may be an indicator for the potential size of rockfalls. Joints observed in the upper cliff exposure above the EVP were spaced about 10 feet apart. Other joint set orientations and spacing may exist but were not observable in the cliffside. Shale layers in the limestone and sandstone, spaced at irregular intervals, are also discontinuities along which blocks can be dislodged. Differential weathering of the shale layers also causing instability. For Booth Falls, the CGS states that: "Most rocks do not shatter, but remain as intact approximately 8 by 5 ft (2.5 by 1.5 m) limestone boulders which are capable of reaching the farthest limits of the runout zone." The CGS indicates that larger slabs tend to break from the lower source zone above Booth Falls, with diameters of 15 to 20 feet. 4.2 DEBRIS FLOWS The EVP is not within the limits of the Town of Vail debris flow hazard zone, however, there is the potential for debris flows at the site. Review of a detailed terrain surface derived from the LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and of aerial photographs of the EVP and surrounding area indicates the potential for debris flows. Incised channels with flowing water are present on the west side of the site (the part to be developed) and on the slopes above, evidence for active erosive processes. An intense, prolonged precipitation event or rapid snowmelt has the potential to trigger a fast-moving, hyper - concentrated debris flow. Modifications to the existing, natural condition may increase the debris flow susceptibility. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 8 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4.3 EXISTING LANDSLIDE Landslide deposits are mapped on either side of the Gore Creek Valley and are commonly associated with the middle and lower members of the Minturn Formation (the lower member underlies the EVP). Most of these landslides are considered by investigators to be ancient and inactive. One known exception is a large historic landslide about 1.5 miles to the west of the EVP which was re -activated by undercutting of the toe for construction of 1-70. That landslide involved Minturn Formation bedrock units, the same which underlie the EVP. Contributing factors for landslide susceptibility in the project area includes over -steepening or undercutting of slopes by natural processes or human activities, bedding in sedimentary rocks that is oriented out -of -the slope (dip -slope), deforestation and removal of vegetative cover, elevated water content by means of intense, prolonged rainfall or rapid snowmelt, and unit contacts with vastly contrasting material properties (Kellogg and others, 2003). An existing landslide occupies the eastern approximate 18 acres of the EVP, the area to remain undeveloped (NAP). The landslide is visible in the LiDAR collected for the area, shown on Figure 5. Figure 6 shows a slope map derived from the LiDAR, with marked landslide extents. Geomorphic features of landslide movement have been obscured by heavyvegetative cover and smoothed by natural processes over time. The LiDAR imagery assisted in delineating the extents of the landslide (Figure 7), which extend further upslope than previously identified in published geologic maps (Kellogg and others, 2003). The landslide extents delineated in this report are approximate. Historical landslides are complex, and characteristics vary even within a single landslide mass, including type of slope failure (may be a combination of various mobilization mechanisms), timing of slope failure events, causative factors, direction of sliding, and others. The mechanism of sliding for this landslide may be a combination of block sliding and deep rotational processes. The detachment location for the landslide is located further upslope and beyond the boundaries of the EVP. The steep toe of the landslide is abruptly cut off by Fall Line Drive (Figure 7). The western flank of the landslide in the area of the toe is also steep and forms a recognizable break in slope on the topography map. Based on LiDAR imagery, the approximate extent of the landslide is about 1,750 feet wide by about 2,500 feet long from head scarp to Fall Line Drive. 5.0 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS Skyline modeled rockfall along three representative study sections through the part of the EVP to be developed using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program version 4.0 (CRSP). Figure 6 shows the locations of the study sections. CRSP estimates maximum, average, and cumulative probability statistics 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 9 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING for rockfall impact kinetic energy, bounce height and velocity at analysis points along each slope profile. The slope geometry for each study section was derived from site-specific survey and from contours developed from LiDAR data. The current condition for each study section was analyzed and the model parameters calibrated to fit site observations of slope characteristics. Analysis points were chosen upslope from the property, at the upslope property line, and at the proposed rockfall barrier locations. Results are reported for the proposed rockfall barrier locations. Rockfall behavior is generally influenced by slope geometry, material properties of the slope, and the material properties and geometry of the falling rock. Each study section was divided into sections (cells) based on slope characteristics. Cell boundaries were based on slope angle, vegetative cover, and material comprising the slope surface. Parameters that were estimated include density of limestone (source rock composition), surface roughness of the slope (SR), tangential coefficient of frictional resistance (Rt), and the normal coefficient of restitution (Rn). SR is an estimation of the amount the slope angle varies within the radius of the rock being rolled. SR is a function of the size of the rock and the irregularity of the slope surface and will have greater influence on smaller rock sizes. The SR of the slope along each study section varied based on the size of the rock being modeled. A rock size of 3 to 4 feet is common for the slope and occurs with some frequency. Due to snow cover, it was not possible to directly measure SR along each study section. The SR was estimated based on previous site visits and observations made for the initial Cesare study in May and June 2017, and on aerial photographs and LiDAR data. Rt is the component of velocity parallel to the slope, which decreases during impact. The Rt was estimated for each cell based on the typical material comprising that section of the slope, and the amount of vegetative cover. Vegetation tends to increase the frictional resistance in the direction parallel to the slope, thus decreasing the tangential coefficient. Rn accounts for the change in velocity in a direction normal to the slope during an impact—a comparison of the normal velocity of the rock before and after impact of the rock with the ground surface. Skyline referred to the CRSP program manual for reasonable ranges of Rt and Rn for different surface material types along each study section. Table 2 is a summary of the model parameters used for each study section. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 10 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Table 2. Summary of Rockfall Study Section Parameters Parameter Study Section A Study Section B Study Section C Length of section analyzed (ft) 1410 1460 1440 Elevation difference across section (ft) 775 770 765 Total number of cells 8 6 7 Analysis Point 1 Property Line Property Line Property Line Analysis Point 2 Rockfall Barrier Rockfall Barrier Rockfall Barrier Top starting zone (y-coordinate) 9080 9080 9080 Bottom starting zone (y-coordinate) 9040 9040 9040 Number of rocks simulated 500 500 500 Starting velocity (x) 1 ft/sec 1 ft/sec 1 ft/sec Starting velocity (y) -1 ft/sec -1 ft/sec -1 ft/sec Lithology of modeled rock Limestone Limestone Limestone Material density of modeled rock 165 Ib/ft3 165 Ib/ft3 165 Ib/ft3 Rock shape Spherical, Discoidal Spherical, Discoidal Spherical, Discoidal Rock dimension (diameter) Varied (4, 6, 8, 10) Varied (4, 6, 8, 10) Varied (4, 6, 8, 10) The primary rockfall source zone for the EVP is located at a bedrock outcrop of the Robinson Limestone about 1,240 to 1,280 feet upslope from the property boundary at an elevation of about 9040 to 9080. Rocks deposited on the slope below this source zone are blocky, slab -shaped and primarily comprised of gray limestone interbedded with layers of sandstone, siltstone, and shale. Boulders comprised of sandstone and pebble conglomerate were also observed. A second source for rockfall is the glacial till which caps the slope above the Robinson Limestone cliff outcrop. Subrounded boulders of igneous and metamorphic composition are dislodged from the matrix of this deposit and roll downslope. The slope directly below the rockfall source zone is vegetated with aspen trees, tall shrubs, and grass. Further downslope from the source zone, the vegetation on the slope thins to aspen trees and grass. The material on the slope is soil, colluvial material that has been transported downslope, and scattered boulders and large slabs of bedrock which are slightly to deeply embedded in the soil. The slope is also incised by active drainages which were flowing water during the Cesare site visits in May 2017. 5.1 STUDY SECTION A Study Section A is located on the west side of the EVP (Figure 6). Study Section A spans a length of about 1,600 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8380 to 9150 (Figure 8). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 11 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended barrier system at this location is a reinforced, rigid wall with catchment area. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,300 feet. Table 3 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section A. Table 3. Study Section A — Slope Profile Parameters Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 5.2 STUDY SECTION B Study section B is located near the middle of the proposed development (Figure 6). Study Section B spans a length of about 1,650 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8380 to 9150 (Figure 9). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended type of barrier system at this location is an earthen berm with catchment area located upslope from the proposed buildings. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,260 feet. Table 4 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section B. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 12 OF 19 Approx. Slope Material Cell Begin (x,y) Rt Rn Slope Slope Surface Characteristics Designation Angle (°) 1 0,9150 0.70 0.15 35 Vegetated slope above rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Glacial Till) 2 100, 9080 0.90 0.25 80-90 Steep cliff face, rockfall source Bedrock zone (Limestone, jointed) 3 110, 9040 0.65 0.18 30-35 Vegetated slope below rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Colluvium) 4 209, 9000 0.65 0.18 40-45 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 5 500, 8750 0.65 0.18 30-35 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 6 645, 8650 0.65 0.16 20-30 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 7 1078, 8450 0.70 0.16 15-20 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 8 1310, 8376 0.90 0.60 FLAT Paved roadway (Fall Line Drive) Paving Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 5.2 STUDY SECTION B Study section B is located near the middle of the proposed development (Figure 6). Study Section B spans a length of about 1,650 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8380 to 9150 (Figure 9). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended type of barrier system at this location is an earthen berm with catchment area located upslope from the proposed buildings. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,260 feet. Table 4 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section B. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 12 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Table 4. Study Section B - Slope Profile Parameters Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 5.3 STUDY SECTION C Study section C is located near the east side of the proposed development (Figure 6). Study Section C spans a length of about 1,630 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8384 to 9150 (Figure 10). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended type of barrier system at this location is an earthen berm with catchment area located upslope from the proposed buildings. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,100 feet. Table 5 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section C. Table 5. Study Section C - Slope Profile Parameters Approx. Slope Material Cell Begin (x,y) Rt Rn Slope Slope Surface Characteristics Designation Angle (°) 1 0,9150 0.70 0.15 35 Vegetated slope above rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Glacial Till) 2 92, 9080 0.90 0.25 80-90 Steep cliff face, rockfall source Bedrock 2 89,9080 0.90 0.25 80-90 zone (Limestone, jointed) Bedrock 3 100, 9040 0.65 0.18 30-35 Vegetated slope below rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Colluvium) 4 868, 8550 0.65 0.16 20-25 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 5 1150, 8430 0.65 0.15 10-15 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 6 1356, 8382 0.90 0.60 FLAT Paved roadway (Fall Line Drive) Paving Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 5.3 STUDY SECTION C Study section C is located near the east side of the proposed development (Figure 6). Study Section C spans a length of about 1,630 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8384 to 9150 (Figure 10). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended type of barrier system at this location is an earthen berm with catchment area located upslope from the proposed buildings. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,100 feet. Table 5 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section C. Table 5. Study Section C - Slope Profile Parameters Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 13 OF 19 Approx. Slope Material Cell Begin (x,y) Rt Rn Slope Slope Surface Characteristics Designation Angle (°) 1 0,9150 0.70 0.15 35 Vegetated slope above rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Glacial Till) Steep cliff face, rockfall source 2 89,9080 0.90 0.25 80-90 zone (Limestone, jointed) Bedrock 3 96,9040 0.75 0.18 30-40 Vegetated slope below rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Colluvium) 4 1 600, 8700 0.75 0.18 1 20-30 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 5 873, 8550 0.65 0.17 15-20 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 6 1140, 8450 0.65 0.15 10-15 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 7 1386, 8384 0.90 0.60 FLAT Paved roadway (Fall Line Drive) Paving Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 13 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 5.4 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS Based on observations of the rockfall source zone and evidence on the ground surface along the slope, Skyline considers the design rock size for this site to be 8 to 10 feet in diameter. Two analysis points were analyzed for each study section: (AP1) located at the upslope property boundary and (AP2) located at the proposed barrier. For Study Sections A and B, the barrier is located at the upslope boundary. For Study Section C, the barrier is placed about 115 feet downslope from the property boundary (Figure 2). Estimates for the maximum, 98% and 95% cumulative probability statistical results are reported for velocity, kinetic energy (KE), and bounce height. Based on the CRSP results from the three study sections (summarized in Table 6), the maximum KE at the barrier locations should be considered 2,300 H (1,700,000 ft -Ib). The maximum bounce height should be considered 3.0 feet. A higher KE of about 3,160 H was estimated at AP1 for Study Section C, located at the property boundary about 115 feet upslope from where the barrier system is placed (AP2). This part of the slope along Study Section C ranges from 15 to 20 degrees and is a soil covered, vegetated slope with scattered boulders. The difference in estimated impact energies between AP1 and AP2 shows how the rockfall energy dissipates along this portion of the slope. Table 6. Rockfall Analysis Results SS AP Rock Size/Shape Rock Weight (lbs) Velocity (ft/see) max 98% 1 9S% Kinetic Energy (kJ) Bounce Height (ft) max 98% 9S% max 2 8' spherical 44,234 -no rocks past AP A 2 10' spherical 86,394 24.8 1 22.3 20.9 1,550 1,120 1,010 1.3 2 10'x4' discoidal 51,836 24.5 20.5 19.0 920 590 530 1.2 2 8' spherical 44,234 14.2 16.2 14.7 260 290 260 0.7 B 2 10' spherical 86,394 29.8 22.5 20.4 2,200 1,130 990 2.6 2 10'x4' discoidal 51,836 24.4 19.0 17.1 930 520 450 1.8 2 8' spherical 44,234 -no rocks past AP 1 10' spherical 86,394 37.0 30.2 27.8 3,160 1,980 1,750 3.3 C 2 10' spherical 86,394 31.8 23.6 21.3 2,300 1,230 1,070 2.4 2 10'x4' discoidal 51,836 32.7 27.1 24.8 1,690 1,000 890 3.0 SS -study section; kJ - kilojoules; AP -a nalys is point; Ibs -pounds; ft/sec -feet per second A 10 -foot high barrier placed at AP2 for each study section successfully stopped all 10 -foot spherical rocks in the CRSP model. A 10 -foot spherical rock will have higher estimated impact energies than a discoidal rock of similar dimension. Due to overtopping conditions that may occur and due to the size of boulders visible on the ground surface within the property limits (exceeding 10 feet in longest dimension), the recommended height of the barrier is 12 feet. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 14 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report addresses rockfall, debris flow, and existing landslide hazards for the EVP, and the potential impacts those geologic hazards have on the proposed development of the western 5.4 acres of the site. 6.1 ROCKFALL AND DEBRIS FLOW MITIGATION Rockfall and debris flow hazards can be mitigated at the site with a single barrier system. The mitigation system will reduce but not eliminate rockfall and debris flow hazards in the area of the proposed development. Considerations for each hazard will have to be incorporated into structural and civil design of the system. The system will also act as a wildlife barrier, limiting pedestrian access to the open space beyond and separating human activity from existing wildlife habitats. Skyline understands the barrier system under consideration is an earthen berm and catchment ditch. An impact barrier wall with a smaller spatial footprint is also being considered for the western part of the site where there is limited space between the property boundary and edge of development. Refer to Figure 11 for typical sections of each barrier type. Recommendations for the barrier system include: a) Height = 12 feet. b) Designed to withstand the maximum impact energy estimated = 2,300 U c) The impact face of the barrier should be as vertical as possible. A 1:1 slope is assumed for the earthen berm option, although a steeper grade is preferred. A vertical face with minimal to positive batter on the upslope side is recommended for the impact barrier wall option. d) Ideal orientation of the barrier is perpendicular to the fall line of the slope. If a perpendicular orientation is not possible, a staggered wall geometry may be considered. There shall be no gaps in the barrier system and staggered sections should have appropriate angles and lengths to accommodate coverage of site development. If the angle of the barrier diverges significantly from perpendicular to the fall line of the slope, the system must be designed to accommodate for containment of rocks within the property boundaries. The orientation of the proposed barrier system is perpendicular to the fall line of the slope, except at the western end where the wall deviates about 10 to 15 degrees from the preferred orientation. It is not recommended for the barrier system to deviate more than 20 degrees from perpendicular to the fall line of the slope. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 15 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING e) Adequate space uphill of the barrier for catchment and accumulation of rockfall, and for routine access of equipment for removal of accumulated debris. This area should be graded flat. The actual width of the catchment depends on the size of the equipment to be used to remove accumulated debris and the angle of the slope above. The use of explosives or expansion grout can be used to break up large boulders that accumulate in the catchment, creating smaller fragments that can be removed. f) The catchment area must be routinely maintained, and accumulated debris removed. Debris should not be allowed to pile up and thus diminishing the effectiveness of the catchment. g) Surface drainage within the catchment should be controlled with adequate slope of the ground surface. Based on proposed development plans available at the time of this study, the ground surface of the catchment slopes down from east to west with a grade of 2%. Water should not be allowed to accumulate or pond in the catchment. Surface drainage and erosion management related to the deeply incised drainages which were flowing water during the Cesare site visits in May and June 2017 must be considered. h) An access road to the catchment area must be designed and maintained. i) Routine inspection of the barrier system must be enforced and will assist in determining the maintenance and repair needs of the system. Inspections should be conducted on a regular basis and immediately following a rockfall or debris flow event. Other construction, maintenance and inspection recommendations may be provided by the wall manufacturer. j) Observation and inspection by a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer during construction and upon completion of the rockfall barrier system is recommended. For comparison, the CGS study completed after the 1997 rockfall event at Booth Falls and in support of the design of the additional MSE wall barriers constructed downslope from the initial rockfall earthen berm recommended a design impact energy of about 6,800 kJ (5,000,000 ft -lbs) at an AP about 30 feet upslope from existing structures. The design rock size used by the CGS was about 6 to 7 feet in diameter. CGS recommended a design height of no less than 12 feet, with a low capacity rockfall fence at the top of the wall. Photographs 1 and 2 show one part of this wall system, taken during the winter months of 2017. Although the height of the wall was not measured, it is apparent from the photographs that the wall is about 10 feet high (assuming each block is 6 inches high) with a chain link fence on top to stop smaller rocks. Photographs 3 and 4 show the earthen berm upslope from Booth Falls. The slopes of this berm are steep and between 10 to 15 feet high. The crest is narrow and about 1 foot wide. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 16 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Photograph 1. Existing rockfall impact barrier wall located about 50 feet upslope from existing Booth Falls residences. This system is about 10 feet high, with an additional low capacity, chain link fence at the top. (photo courtesy of Nathan Thompson, GSI) I Photograph 2. Sideview of the existing rockfall impact barrier wall located upslope from Booth Falls. (Photo courtesy of Nathan Thompson, GSI) Photograph 3. Existing rockfall berm upslope from Booth Falls. Photograph was taken while standing on the crest of the berm, looking east. Interstate 70 is visible in the background. Photograph 4. Existing rockfall berm and catchment system upslope from Booth Falls, looking west. Photograph was taken while standing in the catchment area near the east end. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 17 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 6.2 EXISTING LANDSLIDE The existing landslide exhibits geomorphic evidence of past movement. Features such as a detachment zone upslope, over -steepened toe and flank areas, and hummocky topography are visible on the ground surface and in the LiDAR imagery (Figures 5 through 7). Evidence of recent movement such as tension cracks, fresh scarp exposures, and other features were not observed. As noted by previous authors (Kellogg and others, 2003; 2011), large landslides in the Gore Creek Valley are generally ancient and inactive. Ground modifications and development around these ancient landslides will increase the potential for re -activation and re -mobilization of the landslide mass, as is the case on 1-70 about 1.5 miles west of the EVP. Based on the proposed development plan made available to Skyline at the time of this report, development and planned structures are limited to 5.4 acres on the west side of the EVP. Planned development extends up to the limits of the steep western flank of the landslide extents as delineated from LiDAR imagery and surface topography. Skyline recommends avoiding development within or near the mapped extents of the landslide. Site improvements and regrading near the toe of the landslide may re -activate slope movement and should be avoided. Landslide extents have not been verified with subsurface exploration and the geomorphic expression of the landslide has been smoothed with time and erosive processes. Thus, the landslide extents presented in this report are approximate. Skyline recommends implementing a slope monitoring program during construction or grading activities near the landslide. If development within the extents of the landslide is planned, additional geological and geotechnical analysis should be performed to further characterize the landslide and the potential impact the proposed development would have on slope stability. 7.0 LIMITATIONS The purpose of this report is to provide a geologic hazard analysis as it relates to rockfall, debris flows, and the existing landslide for the development of the western 5.4 acres of the East Vail Parcel located in Vail, Colorado. The professional judgments and conclusions presented in this report meet the standard of care for our profession. This geologic hazard analysis is based on review of available literature and published geologic and topographic maps, an understanding of geologic conditions and processes in the project area, and experience with similar conditions. Variations in geologic conditions can and do occur. Subsurface exploration was not included in the scope of this study and snow cover prevented field verification of ground surface conditions along study sections. There is a potential for variations in the geologic conditions presented in this report. These variations, if present, may be enough to necessitate modifications to this report. If unexpected, adverse, or differing conditions are 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 18 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING encountered during geotechnical investigations or construction, Skyline should be notified for additional review and potential modification to the conclusions and recommendations herein. 8.0 REFERENCES Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., 1984, Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard Analysis, prepared for the Town of Vail. Cesare, Inc., June 2017, Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel, Vail, Colorado, prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company. Colorado Geological Survey, Rockfall Hazard Assessment at Booth Falls Condominiums, and Proposed Mitigation, prepared for the Town of Vail, Colorado, undated. 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. 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. Schmueser and Associates, Inc., 1984, Rockfall Study—Town of Vail, prepared for Stan Berryman, Public Works Director, Town of Vail. Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists, August 16, 1982, Geologic Hazards Investigation and Subdivision Evaluation, Highland Park Subdivision, Highland Meadows Subdivisions, and Vail Village West, Filings 1 and 2, West Vail, Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this geologic hazard analysis for the East Vail Parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Please contact Skyline if you have any questions or comments regarding the information provided in this report. Sincerely, SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Report Prepared By: Golden, Colorado www.skylinegeoscience.com r c r�5_ Julia M. Frazier, P.G. I Owner 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 19 OF 19 East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel (+/- 23.3 acres) ❑ Area to be developed (+/- 5.4 acres) Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel Date: 01.25.2019 500 1000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N FIGURE 1 Site Location SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING C �• a. I I'lull 0 120 240 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 2 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Date: 01.30.2019 Proposed Development GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING � 11 I jt i 1 I I 1 � f. UST OF MAP UNITS �� I �' 11 -Wale Prs 1 i- P nl -PnUl Ur. -- r.--@rnl i P I �p� — T (1t 1 ager otb, d.Lo ao L •" �� _ A ��.'�, o v<�� w _ Of AU.. A�� om�m 1o�m �aR�ro DIP 1- 0 \A., O'nil / of) a -- Jxg✓�J ' A , F , of names Nh 1Ea., U-- q ��\ Di.r a a s Pie eo c. 1 ay C D SCALE 7'.24000 0 1 .5 0 (MILEel fl 11[y.'f1 1 KILOMETER -AORNvc�E nan_n �� aom c a Irvuexm<v eHonw.,s�nnaimwaeoua,wwoLen CONTOUF INTEPVAL40FEE NATIONAL GEOOEIICVEMICA_ DATUM CF 192] Map Source'.K lIo andoh—,2003 yren�maraPlt Q E Vail Workforce H—u Pa1(+/ 23 3acre) Project No: 28205 Project Name: East Vcil Parcel FIGURE SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Geologic Map GEOLOGICAL CNSULrwG Date: 01.2 2019 Slope Gradient Scale: GO -5 06- 10 [] 11 -20 ©21-30 031 -40 X41-86 y.. Basemap: Topoga hyand slope grad—t d --d from Li DAR. E- Va it Workforce Housing Parcel ---- Appro,—, landslide E-nt, 600 1200 A -dyS—ona APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 6 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Date: 01.25.2019 Slope Map and Landslide Extents GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING /. 4— 1 � 1i - _ J - - aw•. 11 r Creek - 4 � Pitkin Creek Townhomes B--, L,DARg.... d sur face. East Vail Workforce Hou sin g Parcel- part[, b, developed(+/-5.4acres) A lao dslld, header ,down d,,ppd, detaI—tarea. Areal down d,,pped area with l",, lar[opo phy. N �•G ---- Approximate landslide EMents Area3- dislocated,sem, t-blockchathas moveddownslope f,—they , ,f,rigin, h,—,ky-d uneven 0 rj00 1000 — ApproximateExtents, publish ed landslide deposit (Kelloggand oth ers, 2003) top phy. Area 4-Ianddhd, Flank, over -steepened slope. A-5-la,ddhdateepened l,p,. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 7 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Landslide Map GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Date: 01.31.2019 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 9100 33- ,, ----Steep cliff face 9050 Minturn Formation, Robinson Limestone Member Roclffall source zone Cell 1 9000 2 e 8950 Cell 3 •syr . _ ,3/' 4° 89001 8850 Cell 4 8800 Slope Angle =40-45-� 8750 8700 3° 8650 I 8600 2 ° Cell 5 8550 Slope Angle = 30-35 2 ° Buried utility easement 8500 Property Line 21 ° ELEV 8398 8450 Cell 6 Slope Angle =20-30 Fall Line Drive 1 ° [8400 Cell 7 8350 Slope Angle =15-20 Cell o Foo 200 APPROXIMATESCALE IN FEET ProjectNo: 18105 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE Study Section A GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Date: 01.25.2019 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 9100 ,,----Steep c Ift face 9050 Mlnturn Formation, Robinson Limestone Member Rockfall source one Cell 1 9000 2 _ 3I o / z 8950 8900 8850 Cell 3 Slope Angle = 30-35 8800 8750 8700 8650 ipo 8600 8550 2 Buried utility easement 8500 roperty Line 2I ELEV 8421 8450 Cell 4 Fall Line Drive 8400 Slope Angle = 20-25 1 8350 Cell 5 Slope Angle = 10-15 Cell 6 0 loo 20C APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ProjectNo: 18105 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Project Name East Vail Parcel FIGURE Study Section B GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Date: 01.25.2019 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 9100 Cell ,, -----Steep cliffface 9050 Minturn Formation, Robinson Limestone Member -- Rockfall source one 9000 2 f. 8950 z 8900 3 ° 8850 Cell 3 Slope Angle =30-40 8800 8750 8700 8650 8600 2 ° Property Line 8550 ELEV 8484 8500 Cell 4 Slope Angle =20-30 1 ° 8450 Fall Line Drive 8400 Cell 5 Slope Angle =l5-20 Cell 6 8350 Slope Angle =10-15 Ce -LEE 200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ProjectNo: 18105 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 10 Study Section C GEOLOGICAL CONSULT NG Date: 01.25.2019 Access and Existing ground surface accumulation area 3.0 Earthen berm approximate 1:1 slope 12.0 .0 A. Earthen Berm 40.0 Access and Existing ground surface accumulation area 12.0 Rockfall wall 12.0 I —I-6.0 15.0 B. Structural Wall Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel Date: 01.25.2019 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 11 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Typical Sections - Rockfall Barriers GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 5b SKYLINE GEOSCIFNCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Memorandurn Subject: East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis — Review of Updated Site Plan Date: May 24, 2019 To: Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development From: Julia Frazier, Skyline Geoscience Skyline Geoscience (Skyline) has reviewed the Grading and Drainage Plan (Plan) by Alpine Engineering, Inc. (Alpine) dated May 17, 2019. This Plan is an update from the Preliminary Grading Plan by Alpine dated January 25, 2019. The Plan shows a 12 -foot high earthen rockfall barrier with a IV: IH slope on either side of the crest, spanning a length of about 620 feet and located upslope from the proposed structures (Figure 1). The location of the berm on the east end of its length has been relocated upslope about 85 to 95 feet from the location previously analyzed for the Geologic Hazard Analysis (original report; February 12, 2019). The Plan also shows changes in the number and location of residential structures, and site grading and drainage. The Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) analysis for Study Section C has been updated to reflect the relocation of the barrier. Moving the barrier upslope is moving it closer to the rockfall source. The analysis point (AP) is associated with the location of the crest of the proposed barrier. Slope profile parameters were not changed from those stated in the original report. Study Section C was analyzed: 1) in the natural, current condition without a barrier, and 2) with the barrier placed at the location shown on the Plan. The results for the natural condition analysis are reported in Table 1. The maximum estimated values and the 95% and 98% statistical cumulative probability values are reported for velocity, impact energy, and bounce height. Table 1. Rockfall Analysis Results Study Section C Rock Size/Shape Rock Weight (Ibs) Velocity (ft/sec) Kinetic Energy (kJ) Bounce Height (ft) max 98% 95% max 98% 95% max 8' spherical 44,234 25.3 21.7 19.7 730 500 450 1.7 10' spherical 86,394 36.8 28.3 25.7 3,000 1,700 1,500 3.5 10'x4' discoidal 51,836 37.1 26.4 24.1 2,100 1 980 860 3.2 SS = study section; kJ = kilojoules; AP =analysis point; lbs =pounds; ft/sec =feet per second EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS —REVIEW OF UPDATED SITE PLAN I Page 1 of 2 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING A 10 -foot high barrier placed at the location shown on the Plan for Study Section C stopped all 10 -foot spherical rocks in the CRSP model. Due to overtopping conditions that may occur and due to the size of boulders observed on the ground surface within the property limits, the recommended height of the rockfall barrier is 12 feet (as shown on Figure 1). Based on the results of the CRSP analysis for a spherical, 10 -foot diameter limestone rock, the barrier should be designed and constructed to withstand the maximum estimated impact energy of 3,000 kJ (about 2,200,000 ft -lbs), velocity of 36.8 ft/sec, and bounce height of 3.5 ft. These values have increased from those reported in the original report for Study Section C at the location of the proposed berm. Refer to the original report for other recommendations related to rockfall berm system and catchment area construction, maintenance and access. Skyline and Cesare, Inc. (Cesare) should be contacted for additional consultation and review if other rockfall barrier systems are considered or if changes are made to the Plan after the date of this memorandum. Slope stability was not included in the scope of this study. Skyline understands that a geotechnical investigation by Cesare is planned for the summer of 2019 and that slope stability and other geotechnical considerations will be addressed at that time by that firm. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this review and update to the geologic hazard analysis for the East Vail Parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Please contact Skyline if you have any questions or comments regarding the information provided in this memorandum. Sincerely, SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Golden, Colorado www.skylinegeoscience.com Prepared By: Julia M. Frazier, P.G. I Owner EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS — REVIEW OF UPDATED SITE PLAN I Page 2 of 2 rest of Rockfall Berm — – -- _ – „- �1 z - v41 h A (Note: Study Section C extends upslope to the rockfall source area) 0 120 240 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 1 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Date: 05.23.2019 Proposed Development GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING EMS Development Application - Exhibit 5c CESARE, INC. Geolechnicaf Engineers & Cons[rncdon Afalerials Con.whann ROCKFALL HAZARD STUDY East Vail Parcel Vail, Colorado Y wry { �..:S .4 A 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 4F- � CESARE, INC. Geolechxicaf Engineers & Cous[ruc7inu Afaleriats Cansullaun 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. .; _ q •4. L AOL .Lir{ .... .....-�„� Vis.. A 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 Photograph 2. View of retaining wall located along edge of site that borders Fall Line Drive. Town of Vail shuttle stop is visible in the left side of the photograph. CESARE, INC. �Y- ���5 _ k- ` - •� SSV. -.a � u 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. Li v- _ 1 - j ! • - _ - 0 L N 0) s rt` �L�► Ol N To '.,0) 46 V L a = +J O, V (n - - > OL N _ O L go o 4U - U) L Q% _ _ L U L - U) 2 V N r� o41 O • -0 l-- > U * V V fo _ _ _ - '- •� _ +J a) (n L 0 At •s. i = V •0 i 1 _ U `0 Q N - O 46 Al > 0 co Q 4- N A CL 4- 0 O 0 4- 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. A' -:•W 12 ,4. ,. 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. Photograph 8. View of flowing water in the western part of the site. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 8 _ _ e:1••L+"• _ �` gra t` t'7 •� f-..� 444••• .ti .. Z 9a • i ; . dr • .. ile ..� ll r u s+ I`• 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. Photograph 8. View of flowing water in the western part of the site. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 8 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. ' �r %• y 4 � S - WW •'�-•T�''�. '�.i. �'���'.-- - - .i:•: y •rte • � _ ,.� .�°� -� •..: � �,�, _�;'t; .. � �_�;.}.,. , :�• 7 F, r •��°` . . G:;ter'i gyp.. N, i;e � !�.�.•:-_ :.. .�y .�:w•;,.:�` .i � .! C{...: � ' V.'. .t •'.tp- _.Siler. ' i- Nbi y,.• '�; `n"'fie 'a' � r ! - . .i 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. 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' fliF F£Er 12010 approximate downslope approximate upsbpe 12AD PPM extent of site extent of site 11.000 Gn Pf,i GORE FAUN SYSTEM 11.080 ..-....---------------' % 10.000 r _ _ _ _- Qtb 10 000 mwq Pmm 9=0 iprnr Ga ' --- 9.1.1108 9.(700 8.000 7=0 SonY�tfunwr[rG�l dapoart5 ifal Shown 7'000 OR I Alluvium (Holocene) :. Colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) Qtp Pinedale Till (upper Pleistocene) Qtb Bull Lake Till (middle Pleistocene) FiPu1 Manxm Formation (Lower Permian to Middle Pennsylvanian) �m Minlurn Forlr7atinn, smdi(feranlialed (MFddle Pennsylvanian) Pmf Jacque Mountain Limestone Member Lipper sandstone and conglomerate member �mwq While Quail Lim"lune Member AMM Middle member 1p01111 Individual limestone bed Prnr Robinson Limestone Member rl Individual limestone bed Lower member 4�mis Individual lirnestolle IMI Cross Creek Granite S. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 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. 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. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 17 `��n� '- --i; j �' - �� .. �.•.. .ata:'- F S■. -cam .- h:l.°"�� , , 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. - ._ - - tea. _ �� s-• ' J y 01 LL _ T .61 1 0. Y r t .} - IL ar F r q� at: 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. .1.4 ,c 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). _ ���; : � mow..• Nor Photograph 17. r a ` Close-up view of primary rock -fall R source zone p.: bedrock. Gray, hard limestone ^-. interbedded with 1 thin, weak shale layers. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 20 CESARE, INC. 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. • .{' Eli,'y'#' • A ' ' -moi 'r .. _ ".. ...__. }', y. '. .. ' - _ ISP r klti' :- "-ai: .. '� .'•i-'`'- . At . .. .. �. �.;. �°�„ Mfr - •- ` - 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 70 Fro[I a9e r -- 81 4 to � � J Own V ■ �uu a o N � ro `o a = o o Qr- QTown Boundary �� , Vail Debris Flow Hazard r-z g -High Hazard Debris Avalanche � -High Hazard Debris Flow N z z z z r Moderate Hazard Debris Flow o o q� � i mr�\ � � _ ,ice f •_ � .'�� ��,� ��� / ;, t°, Z Qt --- Pmis Pml 69 /. 17 Ot a 5 , J 6 QtP32 10 Pm r Y Q ! 20\ !` ~ J75 g I i ° Qa,� 76 1 �'� 0 a; 76 17 12 /[Pmr LL Of Of s / Qf � Qtp of —. Qtp 1� to Qa �� �:: �1�� ojj rri m � P , y LEGEND: /� SCFE BOUNDARY Of d U [P MaP Source. USCd ICellog9, Bryant and Red • • ' • • \� �1 i `'. \\\\\\ - a a LI a �' 41 w tj vu �4 e� �o W Y e di Ns IN aa Map Source: US Kellogg, Bry-tand Redo-, a a Q p 6s y 7 s y 9 � i ;y- -- I As LEGEND QSde Boundary '" Landslide B—d, L� — — . a� 9300 9200 9100 9000 8900 w 8800 8]00 8600 8500 8400 8300 0 Rockfall Study Section 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 9300 9200 9100 9000 8900 8800 8]00 8600 8500 8400 8300 0 Landslide Study Section 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Length of Profile Line (ft) LEGEND Q Site B—d.ry y Slope Angle �o p6-10 " F—I11-p .. O ©21-30 E41-86 0 0 CESARE, INC. Geoferhniral Engineers & C'nu.vtruction Meterittls 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 CESARE, INC. Geoferhniral Engineers & C'nu.vtr wdon Meterittls Consultants APPENDIX B Rockfall Hazard Assessment at Booth Falls Condominiums and Proposed Mitigation (Colorado Geological Survey) 1 1 w r 1 1 1 ROCKFALL HA UM ASSESSMENT AT BOOTH FALLS CONDO S AND PROPOSED MMGATION pmepared far 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 0 CONTENTS Introduction Marsh 26,1997 Rockfall Event Hamrd Assessment Rockfall Mitigation Options Rockfall Analysis and Design Criteria Recommendations Current and Future Actions Appendix A. Booth Creek RockNU Hazard Area by Bruce K. Stover Appendix B. Rockfall Mitigation by Jonathan L. White List of Figures and Photos: 6800th Creek Rock0d[ Report, Pale 1 Page 2 2 4 G 6 7 x Figure #Z Site map and location of March 26, 1997 rockfall. .1 Figure #2 Screen dump of CRSP slope profile 7 Photo 01 Booth Creek rockfall source area 4 Photo 42 Top Cliff rockfall source area 5 Photo #3 Close-up of top cliff source area 5 Photo #4 Location of pioposed mitigation at Condos 8 Photo #5 Lower cliff above district to be monitored 9 1 0 0 Booth Fails Roddall Report, Pse 2 1 INTRODUCTION The Colorado Geological Survey has assisted the Torn 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 Mintu m 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 CHAD and outside the protection envelope provided by the ditch and berm. Under the auspices of the Critical Geologic Hazards Response Prograrn and our concerns expressed in earlier involvement, the CGS can assist the Town of Vail in assessment of the hazard that the condominiums hear, 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 Rocld'all 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, Ruckfall Mitigation, is a short paper on types of rockfall mitigation systems that are available. THE MARCH 26, 1997 ROCKALL EVENT At 11:20 pm., a ledge of Minturn Formation limestone at the highest exposed outcrop of the upper cliff, just below the exposure of glacial till, failed sinmuilaarly to that shown in Figure 3 of Appendix A_ The ledge dimensions that detached and toppled is roughly. 20'x 8'x 8'. As it fell, it impacted and broke additional rock blocks from outcrops below. The rock mass broke apart as it tumbled down the cliff As it fell down the slope, the rock fragments randomly fanned out such that the path of the rockfall formed a swath more than 500 feet across where they came to rest. See Figure #1 of this report. The location of the rockfall source is shown by arrow in Photo ## I 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 #l. 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 fume, small wooden deck and chairs, wood wallcway). 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 westemmost condo structure. The rock came to rest, ominously so, next to a large boulder from an earlier rockfall. A major impact, also about 3-4 feet in diameter at high velocity, had just missed the ditch and berm catchment. The rock impacted and smashed the corner of the easternmost condo, snapped offthe 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. Lucldly the resident, whose bedroom this rock smashed through, was not home at the time of the rockfall. 1 1 • Booth Creek Rockfall Hazard Area - Vail, Colorado 1 Areal extent of rockfall impacts from 11:20 pm, 3/26/97 event. { 2.764.OLC Ir igure #X. Booth Creek Rockfall Report, Par Rockfall Source; Limestone bed at highest point of pepper cliff. See companion photos in report. Location not shown on town GIS map. i one inch = 200 feet 4 The berm was 100% effective for that portion of the 3/26M event that fell into it. X ti k 0 Booth Falls RockfalI 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 reiativeiy 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 Jkeantinue 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. to .Wrar I - .-,r,=w-r*WUEEErEEE&L,;W- _�-_ _-- , - - 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 extent of the upper cliff f J /S - where it is not soil covered. They reveal a benchy cliff of r beds of limestone, thin shales, - - and minor sandstone. It is the -- - ;t dense, hard, gray limestone that creates the largest y rockfall boulders in the Booth *' Creek area. The report by B. Photo #1. Booth Creek rockfall source area. Note enlargement of upper cliff Stover in Appendix A exposure and corresponding rockfall source area, northwest of the ditch and provides further in-depth berm terminus. discussion on the source areas. Photos #1 and 92 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 43, reveals limestone blocks, pedestals, and Iedges, defined by the crisscrossing joint pattern, being undermined by the quicker- 0 0 Bouth Fails Rockfall Report, Page 5 eroding interbedded shale partings. Also in photo #3 are several slumped and isolated limestone blocks on the rock slope that have not yet fallen. The history of reported rockfall events at Booth Creek and the physical nature of the slope merits our assessment that. Booth Falls Condominiums is in a severe rockfall hazardous area. Photo #2. Top cliff rockfall source area. White arrow marks location of March 26, 1997 rockfall, Photo #3. Close-up aerial view of source area. New ledgy appearance with joint defined blocks undennined bv eroding shale partings. 'LXrhite arrow A marks scar from March 26. 1497 rockfall. White arrow B marks rock pedestal that was hit by rockfall and may be destablized. Note loose blocks, marked by black arrows. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Booth Falls Rockfall Report Page 6 ROCKFALL MITIGATION OPTIONS Appendix B contains most of the recognized forms of rockfall mitigation and protection devices commonly used. Rockfall mitigation is divided into two types: stabilization of the rock mass at the source 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. Rockfall protection systems that will be considered at this site are ditch and berm configurations and impact barrier wall systems. Fences will not be considered because they can have high maintenance cost and generally cannot withstand high impact forces without being destroyed. ROCKFALL ANALYSIS and DESIGN CRITERIA Proper analysis of the hazard for design purposes requires accurate slope geometry and a determination of appropriate rockfall sires. For the slope geometry we used information gained from our earlier investigation for the special district mitigation, the Town of Vail GIS 1:2440 scale maps, photos, and the USGS 1:24,000 scale reap. For the rockfall size using the maximum sine 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 bounce heights, impact kinetic energies (K.E), and velocities at this analysis point. Rock Rock Bounce K.E (max.) K.E.(avg) Wel.(rnax-) Vel.(avg.) Size weight t, ft -U. - ft -lbs fusee fusee 4' sphere 5458 3.0 1,000,000 800,440 98 83 5' sphere 9878 2,1 1,900,000 1,440,000 95 81 6 sphere 17069 2.0 3,000,400 2,300,000 96 78 7' sphere 27106 1.7 4,600,000 3,300,000 89 74 4'x7' cyl. 13272 1.7 2,500,000 1,700,000 93 74 5'x6' cyl. 17775 1.9 3,600,000 2,400,ODO 94 76 6'x6' cyl. 25640 1.9 4,900,000 3,500,000 89 74 60' cyl. 30000 1.8 5,700,000 3,700,000 90 72 Booth Falls Roekfall RepaM Page 7 Figure Z. 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 rockfalI, and earlier research done by Stover and Cannon for work the CGS did in 1989 seems to confirm this scenario. That translates to a rolling rock with an impact force of 5,000,000 ft -lbs at the analysis point. Besides withstanding the impact force the mitigation system would need to prevent any rock that encounters it from climbing and overtopping, or bouncing over. The impact face should be vertical and have an effective height that prevents overtopping. Design height will be specific to siting of the structure. At the analysis point it should be no less than 12. These design 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 rockfail fence at the top of the berm or wall. 0 0 Booth Palls Rockfall Repon, Page 8 Only a stout protection system can be designed at the _ criteria stated above. Both ditch and berm systems and inertial impact barriers, or a - combination of both, can be f' i - -. V, designed for the site and be cost - - effective. No rockfall fence on the market can probably `-may �L . _ - -i; c iO x withstand the impact forces thato end art � .Y are being contemplated, The rockfall protection must be 3& `1 designed to begin at the road and extend to the southeast to au , - point where sufficient overlap = exists with the existing berm above, a length no less than 350 •- ;: feet. Rocks that skint the edge 1 of the top berm must be caught Photo 44. Location of proposed impact barrier or berm site. Note by the lower. See Photo 44, 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 $-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 vohune 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 roiling when they reach the condos. The safest area in these condos presently is the top floor on the side facinu downhill. The worst case rockfall impact can put a big hole through a 1 0 9 1 Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Page 4 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. I 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. Ll 1 J 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 0 Brace R. Stover Colorado Geological Survey,1313 Sherman Street, Room 715, Deaver, C4 WM Rcsiodmm *m ted at the base of the w kywal at the ttaonth of Bao& Creek it Va il. Valky are exposed to verft degrees of rwidan hazard (Figure * The l wmd ranges h om low to moderata for structacs near the limits of the rumatrt mae on the valley fluor, to vmy high for some rcmdeaees consUuatcd in the lower part -of the acacleration zone at the base of the diRL The area yr s developed prior to the time when Vat had adequate geo14r, hazard mapping or zDmng completed. The rocldall _hazard was thus not identdod prior to developmeaL Tlac problem was iavrs6pted i a decal after a major rocklail evert in May 1483, caused scoops damage t o several sumcn s. In the. years since the original hazard investi4gadoe was con- ducted, several mare significant raclrfsll events have occurred; boulders have destroyed timber patios and log retaining walls, damagcad 4:7aerior walls, and smashed cotupletely through struc- tures causing coasidcrabk damage to ioteriors and furnishings. The town of Vail and affected property owners are Current- lypmmulpSa means andframework for administermgdessgn and oDnaructio n of protective rod&E slrrtctures and barriers in an attempt to safeguard tho reddoctial area Geology of Roddail Soo= Mats The grol4c make-up of the cliffs above Val VWW Filing 12 is shown yin Figura 2 Sedimentarystrata ex- poscd in the cliffs are part of the Minturn Formation of Wddla Pennsylvanian age, and include beds of mndstour, shale, gait, conglo=ratc, and liar► one. The bade strike N85OW and dip 151 to IV into the valley axis. The lawer cliff remises of shaley sandstone beds about 12 m thick resting on a weal-, fissile, rapid- ly eroding black to gray abate. The sandstone uail taxa two prominent joint sets striking NRS'W and N55"W. These joints combine to separate large slag and de#'ine the cliff face angle visible from the valley belaw Above the sandstone is a soft, fri- able coarse sandy coiW)omcratic bed 1 m thick which weathers to a smooth rounded ledge and continually undercuts a 0.6 to 1 m thick deme, bard grab lumestotic unit mating above it. The limestoneis so "subangular blocks (S x,bx 1 m) con- tinuoarsly detack bar the bed and fall off the sloping diff edge - Thew li mestone bkxft aro commonly iinvoly ed in the more fire- gmdly recurring events that can often cause damage to strut tures in the nmout zdne- A thick shale unit between 6e upper and lower digs has weaftred back to a 68 pdreent slope. The shale is soft, clayey, andsbowerxk=ofk da.edslippageandmaaallelopefgum wWch probably occim during intense rainstorms or heavy mow- mtb- Very small mudflows appear to start on this steep slope and spill ops the lower d fl`r-dM They ase capable of&turb- lognt initiw*rwJ6Ilsifboulders happen to be is their paths, or are resting near Poirot of mixt Ems. Above this soft eroding shale is a thidotr cliff forming unit of the Robinson LamasW= This bed of dense, hard, gray li m - stone varies fi-om 13 to 10 m #hick in the study arta and is the source for the largest rodtfall boadders encountered in the runout war- The limestone boulders that detach front the diff are quite resistant and tend not to break up or sbatter on their way dowralope- The largest boulders faamd in the runout zone appear to be derived from this upper diff forming limestone. The shale.ww upon which the upper iimcsto= d$s rest is weak and by erosion umiercnts the massive lirnesione. lodges, creating pcde:M&M= blacks which eventnaUy topple off their pardaeLThe limedoneis jocntod snc&thatblocim approximate- ly 3 m x L2 m x 13 m are separated from the cEff and tilt out- ward hard the cls edge. Tbinner beds within the limtstoue dig produce mare slabby blocks that, if net turned onto their edgrs by cbancc during the initial fall, remain flat -side down on the steep s{opm An eroding slope in pia" till rests directly above the cliff - forming upper Enwstone 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 fartba east aloogthe cliff appear relative- R 5* W F%WV 1. L a md= map of study area, scale, ItZ4PW ly Stable, and are not actively di Aft large rocks to the slopes Ahme this til, slopes flatten dramatically to grades afO to 35 percrmL Iarge stand of mamr, aspen indicate that these gentle upper till slopes are reh±ivtly stable. No other rnckfall sources exist. ab Qw these gentle slopes, which start at an clevatiOn of V- proodmately 9,450 ft. Physical Configuration Tkmsteep soothwrst-fadugslope and rocky cfifftowcr 1,000 ft (305 m) above Vail Vi age Filing 12 on its northexu boundary. nese heists are attained within a horizontal distance of VD0 h (520 m) resulting in an average slope of 58 percent. The slope can be divided into several tones (Ffgurc 2) A) Runout pane - slopes of 2.8 to 45 percent along the foot of the valley wall. This arca is moderately wooden with Fairly young aspen and has been developed as a residual subdivision- 'l o majority of rocks falling from the cliffs came to rest in this xnnc. 0) Acceleration tope - dupes of 55 perCM to 65 PU- ccnt and steeper immediately below source area_ No boulders of Apific ut size Mn remain at rest as Chase. slopm due to the stctpue s- Sparse, stunted aspen occur in small stands, but gen really the slopes do not support much vegetation- Rods traversing this portion of the slope will continue to pin Momen- tum as they rag and skitter downslopr- G) l,..oww vertical cliff source area- A 50 ft high (16 M) cliff of jointed sandstone andlimestone rmpouts 560 vortical ft (175 m) abm the runout zone. Largo slabs 15 to 20 ft (4-5 to 6 m) in diameter, peti"cally detach from Ihr,cWface and tilt outwards until they topple over and shatter, showering boulders onto the accekration-zone slopes below. (Figure 3) D) Upper shale -slope acceleration zone - A steep (68 percent) shalt s]apo above the lower Vertical cliff b- lows boulders from a higbcr cliff to gain Momntum before becoming airborne at the cliff edge. E) Lipper vertical cliff source arca - Minted slabs and boulders 1,000 vertical ft (305 m) above the runout zone periodically detach from the diff and free fall and bound downslope and o8 the kmer CM Most rocks do not shatter, but remain as intact ap- proximately 8 by 5 ft (23 by L5 m) limestone boulders which are capable of reaching the iaribost Emits of the runout zona (figure 4) 11) Eroding upper till stupe - Glacial till resting on top of the upper cliff sheds rounded granitic boulders er"IG GLACIAL .0a UPPER L OMMIONE CLIFF ROCKFALL SOURCE AREA UPPER SHALE A+CCFLER►4MN SLOPE f LOWER SANDSTOM � LEDGE LOWER SANDSTONE •� *��—� CLIFFS ACCELEFtATtON SHALE BEDS CC&LUVM ON RtIHO�l T ZONE SLOPES STRUCTURES 9Ol1LDERS H RI MOUT ZONE ¢ r POOr�rrrr F>pre a. Gednoc diapam of a mpmad rvdt-tali mopes in siadx mace. Drawn to scale with so vel CmgpratLoo. Nola dip of Strata tgNard vaUq- downslope which roll and fall off the cliffs. This till slope is considered to be a part of the upper soum area. Rodkbil Meebaoisms Several natural gwlogie and topographic factors combinc ttk cause racldaits frons the cliffs exposed on the north valley wall of C arc Crctk in the study area. These factors include joint Pat- terns, atteras, dim' i weed ring of various rack type-, dip of straSta, and the slope of cliBs and acceleration names. Jointing and Differmtiai weathering of CHH Faces joint patterns in the cliff forming racks are caused by stress relief and physical properties of the rock. 7 he joints so formed define planar, c+ertical cliff faces and act to separate large scc- tio>ns of the cliff intoslabs alcngjointssubparaBel to I he cliff lace. Once a slab has detached from the sedimentary bed, it bepns 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 farmed by the joints. (Figure 3) Dff,-rw#al weathering of shafts has midarcat the mode resis- tant Mcrlymg sandstones or limega= acaiang a 130=atal gropm or overhang at the base of the diff which removes sap- pixrt for the Locks above. Eventually, the am-han g ledge be- comes incapable. of Supporting its own weighL and falls or top- p1m from Lbc cla tram overhanging slab has already detached form the cliff along joints and is resting precarioudly on the sbalc, undercutting and diffemntial weathcring a=k4-04, the PracO.s which fina y results in inevitable toppling of the slab. As the lugeslabs topple tmto the acceleration slopes flaw, theyusual- ly shatter into many smaller boulder sized rhuahs which ac- celcraie downslope to the runout woe. The toPPEDg maY big- ger adjacent unstable parts of the Cfiff to fall as well. Dip ofStrata and Topography The dip of the rock ledges making up the source area also contributes to rockfall along dds in the study area- ne strata is the two cliffs dip approAnwely 13 degrees into the valley, ca"4 any to= stones, cabbies., or boulders on the ledges to inevitably move down to the edge of the 16 m vertical CI'iil•. Limestone blacks separated from their beds by jointing and weathering creep down toward the valley slang these dipping bedrock surfaces (Figure 5)• Rounded glacial cobbles and gravel 1. 03. Fpm 3. Tagpll■g Smb4Wilsa Segoes w L Inldd diff aayaeatio�. Z. Dit l weatherLg of shale beglas to natderca! naasi� did iaeaehrg aWre. �dms open � widen daw to slope creep said trust & Spriaga issae iroen contact beneath � 3=Undw= t awditu .jaiotswidenandmm -IS derby=&lhrrocks.causlagshlbMiltooiwards.4.Slab lhllsb mdW face woto moa slopes, lrrl dawn a� nets• & Slab bppks sad shatters, shoRerlpg runout zme below wild bouldaa,andcak aftsearc>if&ce tosredm TLL MERT 1411,11 ■M. milii FOre 4. I3mestane slabs resting on weak shale pedestals, upper da source arra. LJMESTO"E o EMGE Fignme S. Slope aup causing limestaae blocks to mare down bedding planes and off lower diff edger Modcs are Vnerailly a !t x 3 R Ws mccim m is responsible for bequot rock tllls In the study ores. 11 r � � r _ Fpm 3. Tagpll■g Smb4Wilsa Segoes w L Inldd diff aayaeatio�. Z. Dit l weatherLg of shale beglas to natderca! naasi� did iaeaehrg aWre. �dms open � widen daw to slope creep said trust & Spriaga issae iroen contact beneath � 3=Undw= t awditu .jaiotswidenandmm -IS derby=&lhrrocks.causlagshlbMiltooiwards.4.Slab lhllsb mdW face woto moa slopes, lrrl dawn a� nets• & Slab bppks sad shatters, shoRerlpg runout zme below wild bouldaa,andcak aftsearc>if&ce tosredm TLL MERT 1411,11 ■M. milii FOre 4. I3mestane slabs resting on weak shale pedestals, upper da source arra. LJMESTO"E o EMGE Fignme S. Slope aup causing limestaae blocks to mare down bedding planes and off lower diff edger Modcs are Vnerailly a !t x 3 R Ws mccim m is responsible for bequot rock tllls In the study ores. 11 1 OLDER ROCKFALL BOULDER GRANITIC BOULDERS IN TILL {. SOIL PROFILE DEPRESSION IN SOIL Pn1M WEATHERED SURFACE 0 FRESH ROCKFALL BOULDER INCONSISTENT NO DEPRESSION DISCOLORATIONS EDGES EX POSED t- . ,.,.4 .......-. 4 COLLUVKM rZIN -I ILL •� 47 1 • O + K 6. PhyAmI diliereawes between r0efdall sad &dally dgmd ed b=141ers In =90 acute. Rm*M betters am all KwMae or samldoto ne, while p,IilW boolders are mostly roanded graalte our mdamor'phic N&dOgk& Note that soil =lM bekw reciftil bookers, while It is abw mt beneath gfactel beiddera. skmO down along the dip slopes and atutually fall, into open direction radiating foam be. point of initial fall. The. pallernt air cracks famed bye wedging slabs fanthez apart trajectory a given boulder owld follow is so u ctabia that The glaciated valleysof GoreandBooth CmAs both possess it is imprac&W to ddineato individual hazard zta= based on reladvelyflatbottoatsanddeep nearlyvadcalsideL7Udopes the physicaloa damsavarious swamt, of the cofaces.is are so stip that once a boulder or slab topples from the offs, the present situation- hazard mones arc mare practically:dated kumallyamwtoomnctaVes VBdtreacbestbckm koWopes to ba bontal.dism=Irraindie xwce areas. woes fardwaway ofthe valleywali. An mon of the runout zone 9wws that experieacing a smallmkaW 9 of Being cacompowd. by a large boulders and slabs have travelled onto and am= parts of gim event. This approach yields an appraAm&dyradW aeries the valley Saar due to the tremendous momentum they acquire of zones radiating out fi om the source arca; the mea acme in the aomleratiaou zone, hazards are dkkmslyr doscst to the difis. It dK mid be pointed out, ho w+cm, that any area within the extent of the tvtroot zone Factors ming Rod&lls is snbyeet to same degree of rodM hasard. Mast of the rociddis repotted in this area appear to be re- lated to alternating ficeme-thaw coadkKws. Events have oc- cuurcd at might is wino, spring, and fall, after warm days of mckioghave. introduced runoff into joints and fmacturrs, Upon freezing, the ice expands in the cracks sufficiently to topple an unstable block. Some events have also occurred an the other side of the cycle, as sunshine thaws the from cliffs, releasing a precariously perched block or boulder. Hazard Classification and Zonation The rockfall hazard associated with geologic and topographic conditions and the proximity of dwellings as descn'bcd above is considered to be severe. Tho majority of large boulders found amongstructurm in the runout zone have fallen from the cliffs. i�icld study indicates that the question is not, "Will skmitcant rockfall occur?", but rather, "Whatis the rc=- rence interval between ftffwm rockfall events?". Acceleration slopes are so steep and smooth that rocks traversing them are free to deflect and skitter laterally is any Hazwd Zorn Delineatioa Varying degrees of rockfall hazy scvwity can be ap- proximated by emunh ation of the :nature and positions of boulders and slabs in the ranoat zone. Each large boulder was examined to debmine several factors which ware used to ap- prammat,e the emu of the runout zome, and estimate the time spans since each rockfall boulder came to rest. These factors are: 1) Whether or not a bo"r was of rocck M orWn or 2j Whether or rat a rockfall boulderwas resdggundis- turbed in its original position or had been mored by human activities. i} The physical nature of undisturbed rockfallboulders with respect to basal contact, (resting on surface+ cme bedded, partially covered, etc.) and fichen, moss, and weatbenog patterns on exposed surface& 4) The comparative size distributions of boulders within the nwout zone. 0 RockfaR Versus Glacial Origin of Boalders In order to detmainc the extent of the rodtfail 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 theyw+ere transported in and deposited by icy or autwasb dureug Pleistocene gbda- tions. This &tinttioa can be made by cmparing the character of boulders found embedded in undisturbed glacial deposits with the limestone and sandstone boulders derived from the cliffs (Figure S). Glacially deposited boulders are mostly rounded to subrou nded smooth granite or metamorphic rocks which are imbedded in the snrrotmd:agglaasl dCPOSkL The ex- posed. surfaces of &se boulders are almost totally wvered with lichens and moss. The Leavy lichen cover and other wall dcveloped surface rock w6atherimg feantres such as pits and etched reef of indiviidual mineral grains, mWea that these boulders have been in plays for 20 to 4t] thousand yearL m gla- cially deposited oobbles and bouldrrs act- 15 to 40 percent granitic and metamorphic ruck types, and very few limestone or sandstcmr- cobbles or boulders r -an ax found in the till. 'i'hi, is due to the fad that elm only source area where valley glaciers could smiur and irtuurpor ate lirucstonc blocs is u narrow hand of rock ant axile upstream from the runout zone. The extensive ripper basin which spawned the glaciers is composed of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic lithologies, which make-up ibc vast majority of the rod type -s encountered in Q depots found in the rockfall runout woe. in contrast* targe boulders and slabs of rockfall origin aro angtrfar nr poorly rounded, rest directly on the ground surface, do not show an equal amount ofwcaihc6ng oa all exposed surfaces, and are al- mtsst txehtsivcly limestone or sandstone. A fowgraaitic rockfalI boulders are also present, and arc dc= v d From till in the upper source area. `l hese difl;ereirion were used to map the it m6uas of hose boulders of rockW origin and dtstermine the ap- prttximate limits of the MOM zona Dbtu rood vmw undiatarbed Rodthll Ream= OUCC a Specific boulder was identified as being of probable rockfall ongjsx, its position ou the foot slopes could be used to predict (he nature.and Mout of the runoutaoaa. Apmblem with using the positions of rorldA boulders in the sabdivision and adjamm areas to delineate the rtwout zones is that many have beca disturW and mored from their anginal positions duri4 devclopmcnt and construction activities_ Many of the bou.ldcrs are too large (some weigh up to 15 torus) to be moved rally, eveuby heavyequiprnent, and it is assumed thattheyttre tuovW only a few feet to several tens of feet from their or4in.11 position in order to carry out constni tion of roads and buildinr, fotmda- uoa& The accuracy of this amumption is not easily determined, and the present positions of the disturbrri boulders as indicAtors of nwaut zone and hq?ard zone cha_n4cteristics arc not entirety reliable. Disturbed or transpf)marl rockfall boulders always shwa' fresh gongm :md abrasions caused by 4cavy earth muting cquiptnenL Additionally, the9 and lichen growth patterns, if any, arc in- consistent wisie the present orientations of the boulders, indicat- ing that they have been rmued after the pauterns were cstab- tL,,,hed_ DiscalOrafi0ns of tbF- disturbed boulders cause+l by soil CiWWL mon be observed on the sides or top of those which have been pushed aver and moved. The boulders often leave trails or M arks where they bane bees pvshcd along the ground, creating a small berm of scraped up soil along one of their basal edges. Undisturbed roddall boulders do not shove fresh gouges or pe,% havecon silent hep and moss growth pawns, do not show soil disoalmdous on their sides or tops, and are often Sur- rounded by young busbes, aspen trees, or natural verAation, which has obviously poi been disturbed. The positions of these boulders can be used to more aomiratcly project the nii num limits of the run oot. 700 since [lacy can be inferred to have crime to rest in their present ptzitioas after falling From Lbe cliffs. Factors Used to Approximate _#gam and Recarrence Intervals W of Major Rod&H Events Certain diaracteristks exhibited by undisttttbed rocldall boulders and slabs in the ranovt some, suggest approat Mate or relative Elm spans since they eame to rest after falling, and give a rocto estimate of the recurrence =weal$ between large slab - failure evemtL The contact made by a boulder with the surface suggests how hong the rock has lean resting in its present posi- tion. As the length of tient: in.Lmascs, the rock will tend to press into the gra and slope wash, soil cxocp, and frost wedging will net to fall in amm d the bwe of the rock with soil. matorialS. knclrs which have been sitfi[ig for lung periods tend to be some - what embedded in the sci� and if mower, would reveal as inden. talion in the ground. RoW which have rceeatty fallen icer ae tly on tlta ground surface, and may lit ars brush or small trees they have clushe d beneath them. One can push a stick beneath the edps of such a rock in some places` ❑lldesrocimalsohavemoreoons gmAHebertgrowthpatterns than me eently moored rocks which have trached fkrm the mufti. Reoeotly 3numd rock mq possess differendally weatbcrcd stu- faces, as a result of their former positions on the cliff- IF " bonfder acquired a surEam weathering and color pattern mobile on the cliffs, it is unlikely to rofl to a stop in the same pasitiotJ and the sulfa= which we Tr previously a inst the ground or faring joints may still possess a characteristic coloration coa- trastitrg with ok r, exposed weathered surfaces. Con_sidcrabie� bane is necessary for natural weathering processes to remove. ihis discoloration and create a new uniform surface color on tate rock. I Distribution of Recktall Emmts Examination of the svurm area and runout tone revealsthat two basic types of rockW events take place in the 0*siva. The first and most commom involves Smaller individual boulders generally m the (0.5 x 1 m) size ram, which detach froug sedimentary beds and eventually fall from the cliffs. These faM commonlyinvoinseveralbouldexs, many of which are set in mo- tion after being struck by the initial falling rock. Ibis type o� 11 1 [l 11 1 1 1 minor roddall is common, and based on examination of the runout zone and cliffs above, can be expected to occur everyone to three years -'This is the type of rockfall which occurred in the Mid events of May 1953, January 1984, and September 1997, damaging several structures. Many rockfall events go un- reported unless significant damage to structwes oocars. The second type of rockM is much less frequent, but of far greaterdanger and destructive potential. It involves massif cslab failures of the cliff faces, along joints which liberate large (45 x 6 m) slabs and (25 x 15 m) limestone boulders, showering them outothe acaelen6mslopesbelow:Tbe next rockfall ofthismag- nitude will ahnost certainly result in extensive damage or destruction to structures in the runout zone below. Animprease prefimnwyesbmateof rc,==noaintcm&for these large slab -failure events, based ou etaminatiaa of the source area and undisturbed rorkfall boulders in the runout zone, is on the order of 40 to 100 years. Large boulders set in mubm during these ewers can travel through the runout zone as far as the maximum probable limit. An estimate of the last 00- currence of this type ofewnt, based on the freshes4 undisturbed rockfall boulder in the nmout zone, and weathering patterns on the cliffs, is on the order of 40 to 60 years ago. Pokabai Solutions to Recideli Ekmnls The feasibility of protective sructures and other wevendme measures w= evaluated during the study. Smaller boulders commonly falling off the levier diff oonld probably be arrested by pr+otechn atnxWes buk no the lower aceelerabon zone on property within the platted sub- division.l7te structures must be capable of absorbing the ener- gies of one ton b x&lus traveling at 50 mplt, and vvould probab- ly umAve energy absorbing metcrials held within timber or ro& aU tug.Maintcaanoeofthesuatchmesworldbt:aoocssaulyeach time a boulder is stopped, since the eneW disdpation will damage or deform that puri of the structure involved. It is probably not fcauVe to build an armoring wall or other type of structure which attempts to arrest the boulders through rigid strength, due to the extremely high momentum rocks gain througltthe acceleration zone. The unpredictable paths and pat- terns foilowed by roc1m skktaing 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 carchAy designed and con- structed to be free draining and to prevent adverse snow or ice acctumuladws from fwmmgabove the prommve barrier. Siting a conmmmuty typo protector structure appears to be feasible if based on the detailed siting studies which woouldbc necessary to determine the most suitable location. In either case, oasts for theca structures are estimated to be on the order of 0.75 to one million dollars, and could be higher. Unfostumatdely, these strue- tures would do little to prevent larger boulders or slabs derived through toppling failures from destroying structwcs in the runout zone. The energies possessed by such subs or boulders are simply too great to contain within the restricted space avail- able between the souroc areas and emstmg residences. I IS M 4 51 R Maii-K Mears, A.I., 1479, Colorado snow avalanche area studies and guidelines for avalanche -hazard planning: Colorado GeoWwW Survey Special PuMl cation 7,124 p. RobW on, C.S., and AwodatM C,eologicai Consultants, 1975, Geologic hazard maps for emarammental and land -use plan - mg, Eagle Catmty, Colorado. Rogers, w.P-, ct al., ]974, Guidelines and c riwk for kkzdfi- cation and land -use controls of gedo& hazard and mineral resource areas: Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication 6,146 p. Sheltoan, D.C, 1974, Rockfall: variables which determine the hazard Unpublished repeat, Colorado Geological Survey Geologic hazard files, Deaver, Colorado. Twct% Ogden, and Lovering, T,S-,1977, Geology of the Wm- nun mturn U -minute Quadrangle, Eagle and Summit Counties. Cdorado: U.S_ GooWmml Survey Professional Paper 956, 96 p. 1 1 i 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ROCHFALL MITIGATICO Jonathan L. White Colorado GeologleW Survty 1WRGDUCTIDN 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, andlor 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 frorn the threat. There have been important technological advancements in rockfall analysis and mitigation techniques m 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 facto)s that influence a selection and design of a mitigation system to reduce or elindnate a rockfall hazard. They include: 1. The rock source (lithology, 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 run -out zone; 5. bevel of required rockfall protection (the acceptable degree of risk); 6. Cost of the various mitigation options (con- struction, project management, and design); 7. Constntctability (mobilization difficulties, equipment access, and other constraints); 8. 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 thea a detailed rock - fall hazard analysis is warranted. The conclusion of such analyses, in addition to the determina- 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. ROCKEALL M MGATION 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 aid 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, artdlor increasing the resisting forces (friction or shear strength). I. Scaling (hand scaling, mechanical seal- 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 the dowel occurs only if the rock moves (slides) along the joint plane. (See Figure 1.) 5. Ro&bolts. Rockbolts are installed mucin 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 ro-vents movement, reinforcing the exposed rock mass. There are wide varieties of rock- bolts, ockbolts, 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 beariDg 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 8.5hotcrete. Shotcrete is the sprayed applica tion by compressed air of concrete on rock or rocky soil slopes for reinforcement and containment_ Shoterete 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.) Yrj �... t3� fi?- a��•�•�-ayy�� c�r �a'x 'tib••. ��:;, �xx .H _ •� �_}"' 1..�: rhe ��y�k,-«., �• Sir: _.:''. {•Lit' ,,.,pt'a*G'.�:',c:.. ?ice -'•f, '�;.� mare 3. Shot"ete. 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 enesally installed into stimmriding competent rock to anchor the buttress in place, (See Figure 4.) 10.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.) U.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 ached to large load -tag panels and then stressed (pulled) to a desired WWonal load and locked off. Figure 4. Anchored concrete buttress. ftm"s S. cable lashing. Rodcfall 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. I. 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 C.) F m G. Rock&U fence. 2. Ditches. Ditches excavated into slopes can provide excellent rockfail protection. Care is needed in analysis and design to insure that bounding rocks cannot span the ditch width. (See Figure 7.) 3. impart barriers and walls. Impact barrier and walls can be made from many types of material, from fill mechanically stabilized by geowAtiles, rock gabion baskets, timber, steel, concrete, or even haybales. Highway departments commonly use Jersey barriers on roadsides to contain smaller failing rock in the ditch. The inertial systems, able to absorb the forces of momentum of the mov- ing rock, have nigher capacities, without costly impact damage, compared to more rigid systems. (See Figure 8.) 4. Eartben 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 Figura 7.) 5. Hanging fences, nets, and other attenua- tion device$. In well-defined gall chutes in steeper rock slope area 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.) r CMNnTW aARRER ' anr� yALWAV x Figure 8. M.rhmically stabilized baelrlI barrier. FgWn 7. Rockfall ditch and berm 1 1 1 1 ROCK oLTrCR�P it0[3GpALL CHUM STACKED t au ros�na mom CABU i 1 P -figure 9. Ttm 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*,=t ditch or accumulate as small detrital fans. (See Figure 10.) Figar+e 14. Draped mesb- 7. Rock sheds and tuusels. Rock sheds and tunnels are mentioned here only because they are used mostly for transportation corri- dors. They have little or no application in most types of land use. AYaIDANCE— THE 100 PERCENT SOLU17ON There is one more mitigation method that is nei- ther a stabRizadonfreinforcement system nor pro- tection system_ It is strongly recommended at locations where rockfall hazards are very severe, andlor 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 tines, inform developers, plan- ners, and the public that a proposed Iand 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, fended by the Federal Highway Adminis- tration, U.S. Depwtment of Transportation: McLean, Virginia, Research, Development, and Technology, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 1373] p. Federal Highway Adruinistration, 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 (NHF Course 13219), (357] p. Hambley, D.F., ed., 1991, Association of Engineering Geologists, 34th annual meet- ing, Chicago, Minois, Sept. 29-W. 4, 1991, Proceedings, national symposium, highway and railroad slope maintenance: Association of Engineering Geologists, ISO 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, TJ., et al., 1995, Colorado rockfall simu- lation program, version 3.0a: Colorado Department of Transportation Publication CDUT DTD ED3-CSM-89-2B. Available from: Colorado Geological Survey Miscell- aneous Information Series 39, diskette, 50 p. 0 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Roam 715 Denver, Colorado 80243 Phone: (303)866-2611 FAX. (103) 866-2461 March 12, 2002 Mr. Russell Forrest Senior Environmental Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 0 STATE OF COLORADO - SM-98-OC04 RE: Review of Rockfall Mitigation for Booth Falls Condominiums. Dear Russ: P F p7t, 7 W, i0A NATOr- URAL RESOURCES Bill 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,l inspected the rockfall mitigation structures on October 22, 20011 after construction was completed last fall and sent comments to you in a letter dated November g, 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 1 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 hearing failure of the native soils that the impact barrier wall is ftaunded 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 (343) 866-3551 or e-mail: jonathan.white a@state.co.us Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Engineering Geologist EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 6 Transportation Impact Study for Triumph Development's East Vail Residential oh l �p FdSt6oG�b Rte, n F/OrQ R fps Ory February 14, 2019 Revised May 21, 0219 PREPARED FOR: Triumph Development Attn. Michael O'Connor 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 PREPARED BY: McDowell Engineering, LLC PO Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 970.623.0788 Contact: Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Project Number: 1379 Statement of Engineering Qualifications Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE is a Transportation and Traffic Engineer for McDowell Engineering, LLC. Ms. McDowell Schroeder has over twenty-two years of extensive traffic and transportation engineering experience. She has completed numerous transportation studies and roadway design projects throughout the State of Colorado. Ms. McDowell Schroeder is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado and has her certification as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 2 Transportation Impact Study for East Vail Residential Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM................................................................................................7 2.2 TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION..................................................................................................................................7 3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS............................................................................................................... 9 3.1 EXISTING & COMMITTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.......................................................................................9 3.2 PLANNED OR EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS..............................................................................................9 3.3 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR...........................................................................................................................9 3.4 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH...........................................................................................................................9 3.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FORECASTS........................................................................................................................9 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC...................................................................................................................................12 4.1 EXISTING SITE TRAFFIC.......................................................................................................................................12 4.2 PROPOSED LAND USE........................................................................................................................................12 4.3 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................12 4.4 MULTIMODAL REDUCTION.................................................................................................................................12 4.5 SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC..................................................................................................................................12 4.6 SITE -GENERATED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................................14 4.7 SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT................................................................................................................14 4.8 TOTALTRAFFIC.................................................................................................................................................14 5.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS....................................................................................................19 5.1 SITE DESIGN AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION EVALUATION.............................................................................................19 5.2 MULTI MODAL CONNECTIVITY............................................................................................................................19 5.3 AUXILIARYTURN LANE REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................................19 5.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................20 5.5 SITE ACCESS SIGHT DISTANCE..............................................................................................................................20 5.6 STATE HIGHWAYACCESS PERMIT.........................................................................................................................20 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................21 7.0 APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................22 East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 3 Tables and Figures FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP.................................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN..................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 3: YEAR 2017 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES............................................................................................. 8 FIGURE 4: YEAR 2019 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES....................................................................................10 FIGURE 5: YEAR 2040 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES....................................................................................11 TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION................................................................................................................13 TABLE 2: PROPOSED EAST VAIL RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS........................................................13 FIGURE 6: PROJECT -GENERATED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION...........................................................................15 FIGURE 7: PROJECT -GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT.....................................................................................16 FIGURE 8: YEAR 2019 TOTAL TRAFFIC................................................................................................................17 FIGURE 9: YEAR 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC................................................................................................................18 TABLE 3: AUXILIARY TURN LANE REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................................20 East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 4 1.0 Project Description The East Vail Residential project is proposing a new residential apartment complex. The development will provide both market rate housing and affordable housing to the local workforce. The purpose of this CDOT Level 2 study is to forecast and analyze the impacts of the site's additional traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network. This traffic analysis was scoped with both the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to completion. The proposed site is located north and west of the existing 1-70 and East Vail interchange. The site is proposing to take access directly from the north 1-70 Frontage Road. The project location is shown in Figure 1. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. Figure 1: Vicinity Map East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 5 Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan m _ a Oul - A X2019 TRIUMPH Sh..t pace, 5/m2/2BI9 Stamp Sheet title Revisions: Y�1�77 T� �(pU p CITEPLAN EAST VAIL OOl Il fUNIT`I' - E5OOTN LATe 1l I.UIIbel Jill Projecc No. � Al � Drawn ey MEF VAI L, OOLOFAF-)O alro57 'Re'aeeo Checked dy, MEF 2.0 Existing Conditions 2.1 Description of Existing Transportation System North 1-70 Frontage Road: The North 1-70 Frontage Road is a two-lane, paved roadway that parallels the north side of 1-70. This Frontage Road connects East Vail to Main Vail and West Vail, sometimes crossing under 1-70 as a South Frontage Road. In the vicinity of the site, the North 1-70 Frontage Road has a posted speed limit of 25mph eastbound and 45mph westbound. Big Horn Road: Big Horn Road is a paved, two-lane road that connects the residential homes in East Vail to the East Vail 1-70 interchange. The posted speed limit on Big Horn Road is 40mph. 2.2 Traffic Data Collection Existing Traffic Volumes: Existing turning movement counts were collected by McDowell Engineering. Traffic data was collected on Saturday, December 30, 2017 per direction of the Town of Vail Engineer. Turning movement counts were collected from 7:00 — 9:00am and 4:00 — 6:00pm. This count date and time are considered a seasonal peak for the Town of Vail. The resulting Year 2017 traffic volumes for the weekday morning peak hour and weekday afternoon peak hour are shown in Figure 3. The raw traffic data is also included in the Appendix. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 7 Figure 3: Year 2017 Existing Traffic lj o o LO/0 2 O L0/0 00 0 0 71/92 0 O O 411111111111111112/1 41 Lo 411 Lo r 3/5 0/0j 0/0=J41 1 �' 53/128 2/0 ==� rn � O N 51/128 � m J ro o L5/26 n v o 4�0/1 41 Lor 11/65 0/0 =j 1 �' 0/0 y O 0/0 En m m L O/O \ o � N �0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 7,18 MJ I r O 56/146 m ' LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO 3.0 Future Traffic Projections 3.1 Existing & Committed Capital Improvement Projects There are no existing or committed capital improvement projects that will impact this analysis. 3.2 Planned or Existing Land Development Projects There are no planned or existing land development projects in the immediate vicinity. 3.3 Seasonal Adjustment Factor The data collection date and times are considered a seasonal peak for the Town of Vail. Therefore, no seasonal adjustment factor is required for this analysis. 3.4 Background Traffic Growth Long-term background growth was based upon the Town of Vail's historic 1.5% annual growth rate. This is consistent with the Town's latest Vail Master Plan forecast methods. 3.5 Background Traffic Forecasts The resulting peak hour forecasted Year 2019 and forecasted Year 2040 background traffic volumes can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 9 Figure 4: Year 2019 Background Traffic ljOO LO/0 0 0 73/95 41 Lo 0/0 55/132 J O O O L O,O 1 o 0 0 2/1 41 � r 3/5 2,0 ° O N 53/132 E J N o L5/27 N o 4�0/1 41 Lor 11/67 0/0 =j t �' 0/0 y N o O 0/0 m a rn LO/O \ M O � � � N �0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 7/19 t r 1/2 ro N O 58/150 o m . N LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO Figure 5: Year 2040 Background Traffic ljOO L0/0 0 0 100/130 41 Lo 0/0 75/180 J O O O L �,0 I 0 0 0 40M 3/1 �1 Lor4/7 0/0=j t �' 3/0 ==� O 72/180 EM% J N O L7/37 m O 4�0/1 41 Lor 15/92 0/0 =j t �' 0,0 y o O 0,0 N N LO \ O � m � 0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 10/26 r 1/2 N O 79/205 v ' N LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO 4.0 Project Traffic 4.1 Existing Site Traffic The project site is currently vacant and is not producing any significant traffic. 4.2 Proposed Land Use The proposed development will include up to 73 dwelling units. This includes 31 market rate townhomes and 42 affordable housing apartments. The proposed townhomes will serve a mix of local residents and second homeowners. The apartment units are intended to be affordable for Vail's ski resort and hospitality employees. 4.3 Trip Generation Analysis These dwelling units fall under two separate land use definitions. The market rate townhomes are included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual a land use #221 Multifamily Dwelling Unit. This land use applies whether the units are occupied as primary dwelling units or as second homes. ITE's trip generation rates were utilized for this analysis. The Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments in Vail have similar characteristics to the proposed affordable housing apartments. They primarily serve work force housing, have similar amenities, and have direct access to Vail's transit system. The site is located within walking and bus proximity to recreation and amenities. Both CDOT and the Town agreed that the trip generation data from the Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge accesses could be applied to the anticipated trip generation calculations for this development. 4.4 Multimodal Reduction A 10% multimodal trip reduction was used when calculating the total number of vehicular trips from the market rate townhomes. This reduction was used to accommodate the projected number of transit trips from the site's bus stop to the resort and local businesses. The multimodal reduction for the affordable apartments was intrinsically included in the Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments observations. Many residents were observed using the adjacent transit stop. 4.5 Site -Generated Traffic The buildout of the site is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. Refer to Table land Table 2 for trip generation calculations and further breakdown of these trips. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 12 PROJECT NUMBER PREPARED BY: CDOWELL DATE: ENG INLERING«< REVISED: Table 1: Existing Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Trip Generation Analysis Vail, Colorado Estimated Site -Generated Traffic' M1379 KJ S 2019-05-21 Average Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Trin Generatinn Rate -1 WeekdaV3 Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound ITE Code Units z Avg. AM PM Weekd Peak Peak ay Hour Hour Trips (VPD) o Trips Trips % Trips Trips % Trips Trips % Trips Trips Existing Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartments 210 DU 3.29 0.21 0.33 690 32% 14 68% 30 54% 37 46% 32 Observed Trip Generation 690 14 30 37 32 Table 2: Proposed East Vail Residential Trip Generation Analysis Vail, Colorado Estimated Site -Generated Traffic' Average Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Trin Ganarntinn Rntac1 WaakdaV3 Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Notes: 1 Values obtained from field counts at the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartment Accesses during ski season on December 1, 2018. z kSF = 1,000 Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units 3 Assumes a dhv of 10% of ADT. ° Values obtained from Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. 5 Multimodal reductions are intrinsically included in the Timbar Ridge and Lions Ridge trip generation rates. Avg. AM PM z Trips o % % % ITE Code Units Weekd Peak Peak Trips Trips Trips Trips (VPD) Trips Trips Trips Trips ay Hour Hour Proposed East Vail Apartments - Workforce 42 DU 3.29 0.21 0.33 138 32% 3 68% 6 54% 7 46% 6 Housing1,s Subtotal 138 3 6 7 6 Proposed East Vail Townhomess - Second Homes ° (ITE Land Use 221) 31 DU 5.44 0.32 0.41 169 27% 3 73% 7 60% 8 40% 5 Multimodal Reduction -10% -17 0 -1 -1 -1 Subtotal 152 3 6 7 4 !Anticipated Trip Generation 290 5 1 12 1 14 1 10 Notes: 1 Values obtained from field counts at the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartment Accesses during ski season on December 1, 2018. z kSF = 1,000 Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units 3 Assumes a dhv of 10% of ADT. ° Values obtained from Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. 5 Multimodal reductions are intrinsically included in the Timbar Ridge and Lions Ridge trip generation rates. 4.6 Site -Generated Directional Distribution The directional distribution of site -generated traffic on adjacent roadways is influenced by several factors, including the following: • The location of the site relative to other facilities and the roadway network, • The configuration of the existing and proposed adjacent roadway network, • Relative location of neighboring population centers. Within the Town of Vail, it is often easier for residents and employees to take local transit than to drive a personal vehicle and find parking. Google Maps driving directions were used to compare travel times between the site and the closest grocery store, post office, Vail Village, etc. This analysis supported the following project -generated directional distribution: • Eighty percent (80%) of site -generated traffic will originate to/from the 1-70 interchange. Of this traffic, sixty percent (60%) was assumed to originate from the west. Twenty percent (20%) was assumed to come from the east on 1-70. • Twenty percent (20%) of site -generated traffic will originate to/from the west on the North 1-70 Frontage Road. Figure shows the project generated directional distribution. Per CDOT's request a sensitivity analysis of alternate distribution assumptions were also reviewed assuming a 30%/70% split and 10%/90% split. Refer to Section 5.4. 4.7 Site -Generated Traffic Assignment When the trip generation expected for this site is applied to the estimated trip distribution, the result is the anticipated assignment of trips on the roadway system. Figure depicts the traffic assignment. 4.8 Total Traffic For the short term forecasted Year 2019, the background traffic (Figure 4) added to the site -generated traffic (Figure 7) yields the total Year 2019 traffic in Figure . Similarly, for Year 2040, background traffic (Error! Reference source not found.) is added to the site -generated traffic (Figure ) to yield the total Year 2040 traffic in Figure . East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 14 Figure 6: Site -Generated Directional Distribution 1 0 0 L80%(or) 0 0 �o 41 Lo. 20%(0%) j Ell 3 0 0 L 20 %(0%) 00 0 0 Lr Ell0 o L 41 60% (0%) -j "I I r Intersections: 1. Cooley Mesa Road / Site Access 2. Cooley Mesa Road / Spring Creek Road / Eldon Wilson Road (West Airport Access) 3. Cooley Mesa Road / Buckhorn Valley Blvd. / Eldon Wilson Road (East Airport Access) LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound%(Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn Ren RTAT-N EN—EERINu GUNNULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO Figure 7: Site -Generated TrGffic Assignment lj t.4 /12 N m 4�0/0 41 Lo 1/3 0/0 \ J. o O L 0/0 O O O 0/ 0 «.� i �-► r 0/0 0/0=J41 t �' 0/0 ==� � 0 0 11/9 4 0 0 J N O L 1/3 \ 0 4� 0 / 0 «.� 1 �-► r 0/0 0,0 =j t �' 0,0 y ° O M O 0,0 Molk LO/O O O N O �0,0 1 0,0 *r I 3,9 MJI r 0/0 O O o 00 0 0/0 , LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO Figure 8: Year 2019 Total Traffic lj rn t.4 /12 N m 73/95 41 Lo 1/3 55/132 J O O O L O/0 I 8 8 8 2/1 411 Lo r 3/5 0/0=j 1 �' 2/0 0 o o ro O N 64/141 3 \ N o L6/30 N O 4�0/1 4l Lor 11/67 0/0 =j 1 �' 0/0 y N o _ O 0/0 v LO,O O � � � N �0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 10,28 I r 1/2 O ro N O 58/150 o m . N LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO Figure 9: Year 2040 Total Traffic lj rn t.4 /12 N m 100/130 41 Lo 1/3 75/180 J O O O L O/0 I 0 0 0 40M 3/1 �1 Lor4/7 0/0=j t �' 3/0 O 83 / 3 \ ° o L8/40 � o X0/1 41 Lor 15/92 0/0 = If* 0/0 y m 0 0/0 N N LO \ O � rn � 0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 13/35 MJ 41 t r 1/207 o N V O 79/205 v ' N LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO 5.0 Transportation Impact Analysis 5.1 Site Design and Traffic Circulation Evaluation The conceptual site plan (Figure ) depicts the site's proposed access to the North 1-70 Frontage Road. The proposed site access is located on the northwest corner of the site and meets the minimum access spacing distance of 400 feet per Section 4.4 and Table 4-1 of the Access Code. Internal circulation has been designed to accommodate two-way traffic and backing motions from parking stalls. 5.2 Multi Modal Connectivity The applicant is currently working with the Town of Vail staff to determine a new bus stop location and layout at the northwest corner of the site on the frontage road. Multimodal connection details such as paths and sidewalks will be determined with Town of Vail staff as the project develops. 5.3 Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements Turn lane storage is determined by CDOT'S State Highway Access Code. Based upon each roadway's posted speed limits and projected Year 2040 traffic volumes, additional auxiliary turn lanes will not be required. Refer to Table 3. North 1-70 Frontage Road & Site Access: The anticipated traffic volumes at the site access do not warrant the need for construction of auxiliary turn lanes at the site access. North 1-70 Frontage Road & Big Horn Road: No additional auxiliary turn lanes are required at this intersection. 1-70 Westbound Ramps & Big Horn Road: No additional auxiliary turn lanes are required at this intersection. 1-70 Eastbound Ramps & Big Horn Road: No additional auxiliaryturn lanes are required at this intersection. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 19 Table 3: Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements 'Based upon State Highway Access Code requirements for an R -A roadway with posted speed of 45mph. EBL = Eastbound left, EBR = Eastbound right, WBL = Westbound left, WBR = Westbound right, NBL = Northbound left, NBR = Northbound right, SBL = Southbound left, SBR = Southbound right Triggered by State Highway Access Code Volumes 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was performed for directional distribution shift of 10% in either direction of the original analysis. Based upon this analysis, there is no change in the turn lane recommendations. 5.5 Site Access Sight Distance The proposed site access to the North Frontage Road has sight distance in either direction that exceeds the 450' requirement per Table 4-2 of the Access Code. 5.6 State Highway Access Permit The proposed development will require a new State Highway Access Permit for the site access onto CDOT's North 1-70 Frontage Road. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 20 Posted SHAC Year2017 Year2019 Year204O Year2019 Year204O Access Existing BG BG Total Total Existing Code Speed Trigger Trigger # Intersection Mvmt Turn Required Limit Volume Condition Lane Turn (MPH) (VPH) AMFPM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM pM Lane North 1-70 EBL 25 >25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 3 1 3 None None Frontage WBR 45 >25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 11 4 11 None None EBR is major EBR 25 >50 51 128 53 132 72 180 63 140 82 188 None None movement. WBL 25 >25 3 5 3 5 4 7 3 5 4 7 None None North 1-70 Frontage Existing 60' NBL is 2 Road & Big maximum available NBL 40 >25 69 91 71 94 97 129 75 105 101 140 None Yes Horn Road distance between intersections. NBR 40 >50 2 8 2 8 3 11 2 1 8 3 11 None None Existing 125' NBL is 1-70 maximum available 3 Westbound NBL 40 >25 139 125 143 129 195 176 143 129 195 176 None Yes distance with back to Ramps & Big back turn lanes to Horn Road ramps. SBR 40 > 50 5 1 15 5 15 7 21 12 1 21 14 1 27 None None NBR 40 >50 35 28 36 29 49 40 36 29 49 40 None None 1-70 Existing 125' SBL is 4 Eastbound maximum available Ramps & Big SBL 40 >25 12 38 12 39 16 53 14 41 18 55 None Yes distance with back to Horn Road back turn lanes to ramps. 'Based upon State Highway Access Code requirements for an R -A roadway with posted speed of 45mph. EBL = Eastbound left, EBR = Eastbound right, WBL = Westbound left, WBR = Westbound right, NBL = Northbound left, NBR = Northbound right, SBL = Southbound left, SBR = Southbound right Triggered by State Highway Access Code Volumes 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was performed for directional distribution shift of 10% in either direction of the original analysis. Based upon this analysis, there is no change in the turn lane recommendations. 5.5 Site Access Sight Distance The proposed site access to the North Frontage Road has sight distance in either direction that exceeds the 450' requirement per Table 4-2 of the Access Code. 5.6 State Highway Access Permit The proposed development will require a new State Highway Access Permit for the site access onto CDOT's North 1-70 Frontage Road. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 20 6.0 Recommendations and Conclusions The East Vail Residential project is proposing a new residential apartment complex. The development will provide both market rate housing and affordable housing to the local workforce. The purpose of this CDOT Level 2 study is to forecast and analyze the impacts of the site's additional traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network. This traffic analysis was scoped with both the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to completion. Site Access and Circulation: The site is proposing to take access directly from the north 1-70 Frontage Road. Sight distance meets the minimum spacing sight distance requirements per CDOT's State Highway Access Code. Trip Generation: The buildout of the site is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements: No additional auxiliary turn lane construction is required. State Highway Access Permit: The project will require a new State Highway Access Permit for the proposed North 1-70 Frontage Road access. Transportation Recommendations: Based upon the analysis and recommendations presented in this report, the East Vail Residential Apartments are anticipated to be successfully incorporated into the Town of Vail's roadway network. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 21 7.0 Appendix Reference Documents 1. State Highway Access Code. State of Colorado, 2002. 2. CDOT OTIS Data. http://dtdapps.coloradodot.inf%tis Included Documents 1. Scoping Form 2. 2017 Existing Traffic Counts East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 22 Traffic Study Scoping Form CDOWELL y ENGINEER_ING.«C TRwnero rtiwi�ory EwCirvccR............ s Contact Information Consultant Name: McDowell Engineering Tele: 970-623-0788 E-mail: kari@mcdowelleng.com Developer/Owner Name: Triumph Development Project Information (Attach proposed site plan. ) Project Name: East Vail Residential Project Location: 3700 North Frontage Road West, Vail. Parcel # 2101-024-03-001 Project Description: Application type (rezoning, subdivision), acreage, new or re- development, etc. North: North Frontage Road Existing/ Proposed ITE Code Land Uses #units or Existing/ Proposed ITE Code #units or Existing/ Proposed ITE Code #units or Size Land Uses Size Land Uses Size Apartments #221 143 Intersections to be Evaluated 1. All site entrances 6. (Attach map if needed.) Please attach Trip Generation Summary table for large or mixed use projects. Assumptions Study Horizons Current Year: 2018 Buildout Year: 2019 Long Term Year: 2040 Study Area Boundaries North: North Frontage Road South: I-70 Eastbound Ramps (Attach map if needed.) East: Big Horn Road West: Site Access Intersections to be Evaluated 1. All site entrances 6. (Attach map if needed.) 2. North Frontage Rd &Big Horn 7. 3. Big Horn & I-70 Westbound Ramps 8. 4. Big Horn & I-70 Eastbound Ramps 9. 5. 10. Trip Distribution See attached sketch. Trip Reductions* Internal Capture Use: % Pass By Use: Multi - Modal Use: % Use: *Include in Trip Generation table if provided. Submit calculations based upon ITE's Trip Generation Handbook Page 1 of 2 McDowell Engineering Traffic Study Scoping Form Assumptions (continued) Anticipated Future Study Time Periods ❑ AM (7-9) Traffic Growth Rates Based upon historic data... (Describe (Check all that ❑ methodology.) apply) PM (4 6) ❑ SAT (noon) ❑ Other: Other Factors (Proposed/assumed transportation Counts were collected in December 2017 with direction from the Town of Vail and CDOT. improvements, other studies, nearby proposed developments, etc.) Analysis Methods & ® Synchro Issues ❑ HCS (Check all that apply.) ❑ aaSidra or Rodel ❑ Intersections ❑ Roadway Sections ❑ Signal Warrants Safety/Sight Distance ® Queuing & Storage CDOT (Access Permit, etc.) ❑ Identify Bicycle, Pedestrian & Transit Accommodations ❑ TDM ❑ Neighborhood Impacts ❑ Other: Attachments, Notes, & Other Assumptions: Signed: Ales Review Agency: (Applicant or Consultant) Department: Print Name: Kari McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE (Signed: (Applicant or Consultant) Date: 11/13/2018 Print Name: Date: Page 2 of 2 10-20% on N. Frontage Rd. 70-80% on I-70 FrgMeg.Noad ©Retry Ford IO% Alpine ,d— �M°atlC n- f 1 � l �. Go,gle CDOWELL ENGINEEIi]NG��� I/A l o : lidg. Apl Left Thru Right Left Thru Right o of oo of of of o oo o of oo of of of o ao ®®®® ®®® ®®® ®®® ®®®® ®®® ®®® ®®® ®®®® ®®® ®®® ®®® ®®®® ®®® ®®® ®®® LO 5 0 11 4m 129 0 «J 1 L► r° 0 1 '"1 t ri tLo t180 0 0 0 4 00 05 0 I..kHo.,oI.(C—&—k:) PeakH... ae:„a..I. PeakH... . 1. IIIGI 1111 oMPt we11 sow ate sA&R aNSRotINa111J o1a kcDOWELL Lt�lGINEER]NG..� R 1 B M R r,oI.g. a R/A li B. Apl C..pl.. Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2'.00 PM NEMo 2'.30 PM 3 o 245 PM o( o o( o f o f o o o o o o o o 3'.00 PM a 3'.15 PM a o 3'.30 PM o f o o( o f o f o o o o o D o o 345 PM f f f 4'.00 PM o( 1 4'.15 PM o o o o f f o o o o 3 o o z o I o( 4'.30 PM I I Io( o o oI I II I I I I o o o o 445 PM 5 -MM a o( 1 5'.15 PM o f o f o f o o o o o z o o o Overall 1-111dion: (IDD -4:UUPM( Acres Movements Only: (3:15-4:15PM( etls/9lkes at ln[erseRion RIc (All -)al L 9 ° �1 L1 6 ° 1° � 495 ° ° ° ° ° 2 *J1 L» r° 1 1 4J1�► r° 11 � ~1 t ■'' � TL000-w ° ° T° ° ° 9 ° ° 1—H..,oI.(C—R„«:, PeakH... Data PeakH... n Data Overall ln[erseRion: (8:00-9:99AM( Access Movements Only: (8:00 - 9:99AM( eas/alkes at intersection nclAll tlesl at L L 11 0 3 4m131 o 0 0 0 0 4- 0 «JlL► r° 1 1 4 IL. r 174 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 1 0 p I—H...oI.(C—�. «:I PeakH... ..I. PeakH... . CDOWELL ENGINEEIi]NG��� r,7A ,mee, lidg. Apl Left Thru Right Left Thru Right o of oo of of of o oo o of oo of of of o oo IIIGI A-111 C011 - len Tnlu Right len Tnlu Right 2'.15 PM 2'.45 PM 3'.00 PM 3'.15 PM o f o a z o o 110 a( z( o 3'.30 PM 3'.45 PM 3 o o 0 0 35 3 z o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 D o o a5 z a o 4'.00 PM o z o o -MT. it 0-11111-11Rion: (3:15-4:15PM( Acres Movements Only: (3:15-4:15PM( -M,- at ln[erseRion hc(All -)al L IL 5 0 11 *= 479 R R R R 0 2 *J1 L► r° 1 1 4j1 ro J «1tr i t D J 1 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 � PeakHo.,oI.(C—&—k:) PeakH... ae:„a..I. PeakH... y Town of Vail Attn: Tom Kassmel 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 August 7, 2019 Re: North 1-70 Frontage Road Traffic Capacity, VMS Impacts, and Crash History Vail, Colorado Purpose: This memorandum was developed to update the Town of Vail on recent findings related to the traffic analysis for the East Vail Residential project. North 1-70 Frontage Road Traffic Capacity: The Town requested an analysis of the available traffic capacity on the North 1-70 Frontage Road compared to the existing, forecasted, and proposed project traffic volumes. The calculations are based upon the Highway Capacity Manual's (HCM) methodology for determining the capacity of a roadway segment. The analysis area is the North 1-70 Frontage Road from the East Vail interchange to the 1-70 underpass located one mile west of the interchange. Based upon the roadway segment capacity calculations, the North 1-70 Frontage Road is anticipated to maintain an acceptable HCM Level of Service D or better with up to 1,800vph (vehicles per hour) on the roadway. A volume of over 1,800vph would result in significant delays to vehicles traveling on the current roadway section. Calculations are attached. The current volume of traffic on the North 1-70 Frontage Road is 227vph during the afternoon peak hour. By Year 2040, background growth on the North 1-70 Frontage Road is anticipated to increase the traffic volume on this roadway segment to 310vph. Volume West of Site Access (vph) Volume East of Site Access (vph) 227 227 ■ Background Traffic 3 5 li01RV ■ Future Background Growth Site Traffic ■ Background Traffic 21 1469 ■ Future Background Growth Site Traffic ■ Available Capacity ■ Available Capacity cDOWELLvi 1 ENGINEERING.« r 7� ( �] n/] [� Qj� TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTIS EAGLE • BROOMFIELD a GRAND JUNCTION 70.623,0788 • MCDOWELLENG.COM The Proposed East Vail Residential project is anticipated to add 5vph to the North 1-70 Frontage Road west of the project site access. It is anticipated to add 21vph to the North 1-70 Frontage Road east of the project site access. The North 1-70 Frontage Road from the East Vail interchange to the 1-70 Underpass located one mile west of the interchange has sufficient capacity to carry the anticipated future traffic on the corridor. Vail Mountain School Impacts: The proposed site access is located 3,000 feet east of the Vail Mountain School entrance. It would take a westbound backup from the school of 120 vehicles on the North 1-70 Frontage Road to impact the proposed residential site access. The State Highway Access Code requires the construction of auxiliary right turn lanes at 25vph. If operational concerns occur from the school site, CDOT would require the school to construct a westbound right deceleration lane on the frontage road to accommodate traffic. East Vail Interchange Crash History: CDOT and the Town of Vail queried crash data for the East Vail interchange. Neither Vail's Police Department nor CDOT has accident history showing a fatality at the East Vail interchange within the last five years. There was one fatality that occurred in 2002 at the Aspen Lane underpass curves, located one mile to the west. Conclusion: The North 1-70 Frontage Road from the East Vail interchange to the 1-70 Underpass located one mile west of the interchange has sufficient capacity to carry the anticipated future traffic on the corridor. Traffic from the Vail Mountain School is unlikely to back up 3,000 feet and impact the proposed site access. Based upon the Town of Vail and CDOT's crash data, there have been no recorded fatalities at the East Vail interchange. Please call if you would like any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, McDowell Engineering, LLC Kar�/JM cDowell S hroeder, PE, PTOE Traffic Engineer Enclosed: HCM Roadway Segment Capacity Calculations vicDOWELL ENGINEERING.« TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTIS EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 2 970.623.0788 . MCDOWELLENG.COM HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange Year 2019 Background - PM Peak Hour (Westbound) Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange Year 2019 Background - PM Peak Hour (Eastbound) Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange Year 2040 Background - PM Peak Hour (Westbound) Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange Year 2040 Background - PM Peak Hour (Eastbound) Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange Year 2019 Total - PM Peak Hour (Westbound) Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange Year 2019 Total - PM Peak Hour (Eastbound) Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange Year 2040 Total - PM Peak Hour (Westbound) Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange Year 2040 Total - PM Peak Hour (Eastbound) Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Project Number: M1379 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Prepared By: KJS ACfi­ DOWELL East Vail Residential Date: 2019-08-07NGINEERING...tc Revised: ............,.,,,,... Location: 1-70 North Frontage Road, Northwest of East Vail Interchange LOS D or Better Capacity Calculation Item Value Unit Name Description Ref Al 0.96 unitless fHV,ATS Heavy Vehicle Adjustment factor for ATS estimation HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-4 A2 0.08 unitless PT A3 0.00 unitless PR A4 1.50 unitless ET A5 1.00 unitless ER A6 0.00 unitless PTC A7 0.00 unitless ETc A8 59.54 mph FFS A9 45.00 mph SFM A10 1800 vph v All 45.00 mph BFFS Al2 0.00 fps A13 1.50 fA A14 43.50 mph FFS A15 900.00 pch Vi A16 0.86 PHF A17 1.00 f.ATS A18 1089.42 pch v;,ATS A19 900.00 pch Va A20 0.86 PHF A21 1.00 f.ATS A22 1089.42 pch vo,ATS A23 1.15 fnp,ATS A24 45.00 mph FFS A25 26.94 mph ATScl proportion of trucks in thetraffic stream (decimal) proportion of RVs in the traffic stream (decimal) PCE for trucks from Ex 15-11, 15-12 PCE for RVs from Ex 15-11, 15-13 proportion of trucks operating at crawl speed pce's for trucks operating at crawl speed Free Flow Speed (from Field Measurements at v>200vph) mean speed of sample (v>200vph) total demand flow rate Base Free Flow Speed (estimated) adjustment for lane and shoulder width adjustment for access point density Free Flow Speed (trom estimation) demand volume for direction i Peak Hour factor for direction i grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation demand volume for direction o Peak Hour factor for direction o grade adjustment factor, from 15-9 or 15-10 demand flow rate i for ATS estimation adjustment factor for ATS determination for the % of no - passing zones in the analysis direction Free flow speed (engineer discretion from above between A8 and A14) Average Travel Speed A26 0.60 PFFS Percent of FFS A27 II Road Class A28 74 % BPTS Fd Base Percent Time -Spent -Following for direction i A29 -0.0047 a Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A30 0.8310 b Opposing Demand Flow Coefficient A31 900 pch vd demand volume for direction I (copied from above) A32 85 % PTSF Percent of Time Spent Following A33 22.1 f Adjustment to PTSF for the percentage of no -passing np,PTSF zones in direction i A34 50% Dir. Split Directional Split A35 LOS Level of Service (Class 11) A36 E LOS Level of Service (Class III) HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-1 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-7 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-8 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-2 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-15 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-6 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-11, Used For Road Class III HCM 2010 Pg. 15-3 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-10 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-20 HCM 2010 Eqn. 15-9, Used For Road Class II HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-21 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 HCM 2010 Ex. 15-3 i !4k+ r •J b ,n �� } 1 1_ .... � .:: -. y .. ... _ ,� ,. 9 k qi., *� 4 " X.*4 Io 01 I 1 1 �I� a 1 � - gyp.' _. _-,• � - � I I , ;.!' � i ' � I �'./.. e:.. P 1 y.4 1� I�; Y kliY I I tl L :lk "�`4' �' .u:.?%J .. ., x�..� _✓x i - .. 4 i` �r�'i 3']�4,ru.kf\�/..'K R���1M [L���� .'i25�� ......... 07C _lk 14 -b .." " -1 ice., i !4k+ r •J b ,n �� } 1 1_ .... � .:: -. y .. ... _ ,� ,. 9 k qi., *� 4 " X.*4 Io 01 I 1 1 �I� a 1 � - gyp.' _. _-,• � - � I I , ;.!' � i ' � I �'./.. e:.. P 1 y.4 1� I�; Y kliY I I tl L :lk "�`4' �' .u:.?%J .. ., x�..� _✓x i - .. 4 i` �r�'i 3']�4,ru.kf\�/..'K R���1M [L���� .'i25�� ......... 07C _lk 14 -b .." " -1 ice., RE: FORMULATION OF PEC DECISION, AUG.12t",2019 To: the Members of the Planning & Environmental Commission I am impressed by the amount of time, effort, and dedication this commission devotes to its daunting tasks, particularly when so many major projects are in the pipeline for Town of Vail. Thank you! Your decisions will leave our town and community changed forever. I urge you to keep your eyes on the mission on the Council wall and the Priority Statements in the 2019 Community Report. A big decision lies ahead today. The joint report of Aug. 5t" by the Town's 3 Consulting Wildlife Biologists Byrne, Kahn, and Woolever, clearly states that given "the already limited winter and transitional range for bighorn sheep and the relatively small number of sheep in this herd,... that finding another location for this development would offer the best mitigation for this sheep herd." They go on to state that "most wildlife mitigation efforts do not provide the intended... result." They cannot say with certainty "that even with these measures, that this herd will be able to sustain itself considering the human disturbance -associated impacts related to this development." In other words, mitigation and development will not preserve this herd--- for you it is an either/or choice. If you permit this development, only the most wishful thinking can do so believing the herd will survive this disturbance and constriction at the east side of the critical habitat for ewes and Iambs. But given what most of the public has discovered in the past week, namely the Town's Public Works Phase 1 Plan for even larger development and encroachment in and below the Bighorn rams' wintering habitat on the west side of their historic critical range, already green -lighted preliminarily by PEC April 22nd this year, the threat to the herd is much greater than most of us realized. The wildlife biologists and common sense tell us that their survival depends as much on the health of the males as of the females! Before this redevelopment planned to start this fall and continue through the winter goes any farther, an Environmental Impact Study must be undertaken, not just of wildlife impacts which include the likely death -knell of our Bighorns but also for our obligation to preserve the natural values of the area in which we live. What is the environmental impact of a 7acre installation of utilility-grade solar panels on the steep hillside above the Yards and of rooftop panels wherever they can be supported there? What is the impact of up to 140 employee rental units crammed into that area wherever they can be attached, behind existing housing, above the administration building to be built? First, say a loud "No" to Triumph, then delay implementation of Public Works Phasel redevelopment until further studies are completed, especially an E.I.S., and the public has adequate time to review the massive plan. Next, ask Council and staff identify other sites where workforce housing can be expanded or constructed. Urge them to bring the same level of talent and creativity to this task as to these two development projects I cite today. Please! Anne Esson Chris Neubecker From: Shelley Bellm Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:58 PM To: PEC Subject: FW: Eagle County Workforce Housing in East Vail From: Jennifer Abramson [mailto:JAbramson@vailresorts.com] Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:06 PM To: CommDev; Council Dist List Subject: Eagle County Workforce Housing in East Vail August 1, 2019 Sent on behalf of the Beaver Creek Economic Advisory Council Submitted via email: commdev@vailgov.com towncouncil@vaiIgov.com Dear Members of the Vail Planning & Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council: The Beaver Creek Economic Advisory Council is comprised of mountain resort, residential property, lodging and commercial owners/operators within the Beaver Creek community. As you will note from the names below, several of us operate local businesses in both Beaver Creek and the Town of Vail. With economic development our obvious focus, several years ago we decided to incorporate a dialogue within our monthly meetings around the severe workforce housing shortage we are undergoing throughout Eagle County. We have stayed informed with presentations from Eagle County and the Vail Valley Partnership. In reviewing the plans currently before you for Triumph Development's proposed locals' housing project in East Vail, we would like to lend our support and emphasize that in light of the severe shortage of housing for our workforce, the East Vail development offers a pragmatic, locals' housing solution in offering rental units as well as deed -restricted for -sale townhomes. We have discussed our alarming disappointment to the "not in my backyard" protest to this project. Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch have for many years included workforce housing as part of our neighborhood with buildings (about 800 beds) at our entry point. We're proud that many of our employees are able to live adjacent to their employment. Living at this location allows employees to utilize village transportation both to and from theirjobs and minimizes their commute time. The units are affordable and have transit options. We also all co -exist with our valued wildlife. There is zero awareness of any negative effect to property values in Beaver Creek or Bachelor Gulch due to embracing workforce housing in our neighborhood. According to the Vail Valley Partnership's 2017-18 Workforce Survey Report, 78 percent of businesses said in 2017-18 that housing had a negative effect on the ability to attract, hire and retain employees, declining substantially from the previous year and was also at an all-time low. Specific comments from the survey include: This is a problem for new employees. Many times we are able to retain them when they are in our employee housing but then we lose them if they need to move out. It is a desire of many employees to live closer to where they work and to live in the community they work. For those who have lived here long enough to have stable housing, it is not an easy. For those who have recently moved here, rent, or have changes in housing circumstances, housing is a major source of frustration that ultimately forces employees to ask if they really belong here and want to belong here. We are losing one person that experienced housing frustrations and may be losing a second because the options aren't great and what people are asking for rentals is ridiculous. Current housing prices are difficult for young associates to purchase. Rentals were difficult for associates to find in the middle of peak season. The short answer is no, they can't. Most can usually find it (often couch surfing or room sharing), but it diminishes their quality of life because of the cost and environment. We do lose some employees due to lack of decent available housing. Moving way out side of work areas to find affordable. Or living with multiple people to survive. The conditions that some people are renting out are hidden and inexcusable. Causes other major costs with vehicle expenses. We offer a very progressive and comprehensive housing program to help employees find long term solutions for housing. That being said, it is still very difficult for employees to find affordable housing on the free market if they are looking to own. We have a very young workforce that are primarily renters. They need to find multiple roommates that they potentially have never met just to stay in this area. Thus, in this time of great need for housing, please approve the very thorough and carefully planned Booth Heights project, as well as the reasonable wildlife mitigation plan. Beaver Creek values our workforce, and we know Vail does, too. Sincerely, The Beaver Creek Economic Advisory Council: Bob Boselli, Brian Nolan, Jeff Luker, Nadia Guerriero, Jen Brown, John Shipp, Phil Metz, Peter Dann, Bill MacFarlane, Don Bird, Jeff Forbes, Mike Friery, Steven Janicek, Jim Fraser, Duncan Horner, Mike Trueblood, Herb Rackliff The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail. Thank you. Chris Neubecker From: Chris Romer<cromer@vailvalleypartnership.com> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:15 PM To: PEC Cc: George Ruther; Matt Gennett Subject: Business community feedback re: the need for housing Attachments: BRE_SummaryReport_v3.pdf, 2019 Workforce Survey Report_Final.pdf We encourage you to take a brief moment to review the attached research projects. Specifically: 1. Business Retention & Expansion Study a. When considering the weaknesses, barriers to growth, and reasons the community might not be considered for future expansion, several common themes emerged. The lack of affordable housing, high cost of living and the impact this has on local workforce quality and worker availability were discussed relatively frequently. b. 82% indicate housing has a negative impact on ability to attract, hire, and retail employees c. Top weakness for our community as a place to do business: workforce housing d. Top barriers to business growth in the community: transient workforce and workforce housing e. Reasons business will not expand here: limited workforce 2. Workforce Study a. 39% of businesses have unfilled jobs, up 25% from last year b. 69% of businesses plan to add new jobs this year c. 72% of businesses indicate housing has a negative impact on hiring and retaining employees d. Please read the open-ended comments regarding barriers to business growth in Eagle County e. Frustration with housing continues to be a major issue. Negative opinions continue to run at an all-time high. Nearly 3 out 4 businesses feel that the housing situation negatively impacts their ability to hire and retain employees and this issue was mentioned frequently when asked about barriers to growing their business in the community. Please utilize this data — and underlying zoning — and not emotional arguments when considering the Booth Heights decision. f, tt}' Vail SULLEN PP4JJ!lRSHt P' Chris Romer, IOM President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership [D] 970.477.4016 1 [0] 970.476.1000 97 Main Street, Ste. E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 Support. Unite. Lead. VoilValleyPortnership.com • VisitVoil Volley. com • VoilOnSale.com • VoilValleyMeonseusiness.com A4i walla vaLMV PATI TASRSKIP' Vail Planning and Environmental Commission c/o Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear PEC members, "There goes our small town..." It's a yarn that has been spun for years in towns across America and is currently percolating (again) in Eagle County. Consider: • Highway engineer Charles Vail routed Highway 6 through the Eagle Valley over what is now Vail Pass in 1940. Inhabitants at the time surely cried "there goes our small town." • Pete Siebert and Earl Eaton, along with others from the 10th Mountain Division, returned to Colorado after World War II and bought the ranch that existed at what is now the base of Vail Mountain. They opened Vail Mountain in December 1962. Valley residents and other ranchers at the time surely felt as if their small-town life was threatened. • Vail Village quickly grew and housing expanded to East Vail and West Vail; lodging and base operations spread into Lionshead Village. By the late 60's and early 70's, Vail was the most popular ski resort in Colorado. Also by this point in time, some who had been here from the beginning surely felt their small town life was over. • In November 1972, the state's voters weighed in on whether they would authorize a $5 million bond issue to help finance the Olympic Games. Residents at the time overwhelmingly rejected this by at 60-40 margin, in fear that hosting the Olympics would surely lead to growth and crowds, and citizens around the state celebrated that they most certainly did their part to save small town life in rustic Colorado. • Beaver Creek Resort opened for business in 1981 and purchased neighboring Arrowhead four years later. Critics claimed that Colorado and Eagle County didn't need another ski resort; what might this unfettered growth do to our small-town lifestyle? • The World Alpine Ski Championships were recruited to Eagle County and hosted in 1989, as Vail and Beaver Creek were squarely on the world map and among the most popular and recognized ski resorts in the world. This event — hosted again in 1999 and 2015 — surely led to nostalgia among those who missed small town life that existed earlier. • Eagle County Regional Airport began receiving mainline jet service by early 1994 with service from American, Delta, Northwest, and United Airlines from cities around the country. 36 jet flights a week being operated by these airlines into the airport during the 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 Voi1Vo11eyPortnership. com A4i walla vaLMV PATI TASRSKIP' winter ski season early in 1994. Air service into Eagle County led some residents to decry the noise from planes and feeling as though our small-town life would never be the same. Yet thanks to the foresight and leadership of our community leaders throughout the years, Eagle County has grown into a modern, successful community. We enjoy access to Denver via I-70, powder days on Vail and Beaver Creek mountains, mountain resort villages that are vibrant and lively, world-class events throughout the summer and winter seasons, air service from 15 markets, a vibrant college system, and medical facilities that are best in class for any community our size. We never did land the Olympic Games, but that hasn't stopped Colorado from growing into a cosmopolitan state with a vibrant mix of communities. We've come a long way, yet at each step there are those who mourned the death of our small- town lifestyle. Today, opposition to housing projects such as Reserve at Hockett Gulch in Eagle and Booth Heights in East Vail is led by voices claiming that we are losing our small-town charm. To that we say nonsense. Our small-town charm isn't based on building heights, in-fill density, or allowable zoning use on private lands. Our small-town charm is based on friendly people enjoying our recreational amenities and lifestyle; it is based on locals taking care of each other; it is based on community. It certainly isn't based on having workforce housing at the entry to the community (Beaver Creek and Aspen both have large scale workforce and employee housing at their entry points which are additive to their communities). Community is driven by the sense of belonging. What is "killing" out small-town atmosphere and our community is the inability to retain those who want to stay in this place. Providing housing for those who desire to make a life here supports our small-town atmosphere and is additive to our community. You have the data and the facts; you know the allowable zoning; we encourage you to support Booth Heights to help maintain Vail and Eagle County's small-town charm by investing in Vail's people. Sincerely, Chris Romer President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 Voi1Vo11eyPortnership. com Chris Neubecker From: cbartmd@aol.com Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 6:48 PM To: PEC; bfinley@denverpost.com Subject: Booth Heights sustainability To All PEC members, I am writing to take issue with Triumph's comment under the heading of Economic Sustainability that says their development will reduce driving trips to Vail. In fact, this location (3700 N Frontage Rd) has a walkability score so low that it deems all errands by residents will need to be done by car (please see www.walkability.com). The development of this property will absolutely increase the number of errands by car, as underscored by the facts corroborated by the lowest walkability score. Why is Triumph, yet again trying to mislead the town, the PEC and the residents? Today I read a real estate ad from a prominent Vail company who is selling a house in East Vail. The ad started by saying.... East Vail has the unique characteristic of being the first glimpse of Vail... Booth Heights threatens the viability of this statement by becoming the first glimpse of Vail, for those coming to town, and the last image, before leaving our otherwise beautiful valley. Take a drive up or down Vail pass and see for yourself. As you already know, the Denver Post has written an article concerning the potential Booth Heights proposal. They will certainly be interested in the sad fact that Vail associates, who should be a guardian of sustainability, and a protector of our unique wildlife heritage, is preparing to sell this property to Triumph for financial gain. The facts surrounding the discovery that they were unwitting owners of a property long thought to be under conservation easement, and are willingly selling it for financial gain, will unmask a poorly formulated business decision and one which has long term repercussions, for our community and certainly for the sheep. For a company as large as Vail Associates, why not do the right thing and place the property under a conservation easement? It would be a win/win for all involved. The sheep win, east vail is not saddled with a development out of character with the neighborhood, the traffic generated by the development would be avoided, reworking the underpass might be avoided (which I guess would be very costly), and Vail Associates would reap huge dividends in national and local public opinion. If they are truly compelled to improve the housing options for potential employees, they could donate the proceeds of the sale of the conservation easement, and reap yet additional accolades! Christopher Bartlett Vail P.S. I have also forwarded this email to the author of the article in the Denver Post, who wrote about the proposed Booth Heights development. Chris Neubecker From: JAMES LIPPERT <conlip@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 12:29 PM To: PEC Subject: Booth Heights To the Planning and Environmental Commission: This letter is written to add my voice to those opposing the Booth Heights development in East Vail. For many years East Vail has been a mix of low end condos and high end homes in a peaceful Alpine setting. The proposed development goes against this tradition, destroying habitat for wild life and threatening future erosion, mud slides and long term damage to the area. I envision traffic increases, parking problems, barking dogs chasing sheep—and it will be ugly! Is this the first step toward continuous development along 1-70 from East Vail to Vail? Once it is done, it can't be undone. The beautification of the East Vail entrance and the thoughtful, careful restoration work on Gore Creek are examples of positive environmental impact. Ironically, across the highway plans are underway to scrape the mountainside, building "cliff dwellings" which will have a negative effect on the environment. Let's retain the beauty of our mountains by placing needed employee housing in the areas of the valley that are already developed and are appropriate to this usage. There are many negative a aspects to this proposal and I can't find a single positive aspect. Please consider the long-term negative effects and vote no. Most sincerely, Connie Lippert East Vail and St. Louis -Connie Chris Neubecker From: Suzanne Silverthorn Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 7:24 PM To: PEC Subject: Fwd: Bighorn sheep Public comment Suzanne Silverthorn, APR Director of Communications Town of Vail 970-479-2115 970-471-1361 (cell) Begin forwarded message: From: <inf69vailgov.com> Date: July 30, 2019 at 6:00:23 PM MDT To: <inf69vailgov.com> Subject: Bighorn sheep Reply -To: <anndehartgicloud.com> Save the bighorn sheep by giving them a habitat so they can thrive. Developers in Vail should take into consideration these wonderful animals, and not destroy their habitat. Submitted By: Name:: Ann DeHart Telephone:: 3034267521 Email:: anndehartgicloud.com Submitted From: https://www.vailgov.com/contact 1 Chris Neubecker From: cbartmd@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 7:00 AM To: PEC Subject: Fwd: Monday's meeting -----Original Message ----- From: cbartmd <cbartmd(a�aol.com> To: pec <pecgaol.com> Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2019 08:57 AM Subject: Monday's meeting Unfortunately, I was not able to make Monday's meeting and therefore unable to ask the questions that I have regarding Booth Heights. I am not sure how to get them answered but here are the questions: 1. Why is the East Vail underpass different than the others (West Vail, Simba Run, Vail village and the under passes at Vail Valley drive and near Bald mountain bus stop )? All of those underpasses have pedestrian safety features such as the most basic— SEPARATION of people and vehicles. Now, a very large high density proposed development puts "work force" young people at risk- Will preventative measures be considered? This is NOT a NIMBY issue!!!! 2. Who bears the liability consequences for any pedestrian/ vehicle encounters if the underpass is not up to the standards set by the other underpasses in town? Is it the town or the developer who should be liable for any untoward events? 3. On July 8, Mr. O'Connor made a comment about wanting this development approved in August. Is that the fast track time frame? If so, why so soon? This is a huge decision on s000 many levels— wildlife extinction, safety, increased green house gas emission and the first look at our town as seen by travellers coming down Vail pass. Just to name a few concerns! Donna Mumma MD " r .i 1 fir', ikq� ► _ '�ol .. _ M `ft' rs.�i4'- ♦'- s r , `1i'f ,f' -:, . J+ :. � �� � .•,art � ' - � �� '�;} ��'�',- �. �' � •y�i- its � 2 .�',:�lysA' t Air c a• Ir I + Ellen Colrick <ecolrick a yahoo.com> To: letters@vaildaily.com letters@vaiIdaily.com East Vail Parcel Vail has numerous employee housing, Pitkin Creek, Meadow Creek, Timber Ridge, Solar Vail, Chamonix, and others, and NEARLY EVERY OLDER COMPLEX IN EAST AND WEST VAIL ARE RENTED OR OWNED BY EMPLOYEES, NOT TO MENTION THE ADJACENT AREAS OF AVON, MINTURN, EAGLE- VAIL AND OTHER SURROUNDING TOWNS. The money and power of Vail Resorts has influenced or intimidated people from running for office and their decisions once in office. Vail Resorts did not pay taxes on the property for approximately 50 years despite claiming they owned it. Now they were given a variance to build a huge complex regardless of the impact on neighbors and the last herd of bighorn sheep and other wild life, elk, bears, mountain lions, coyotes, foxes etc. remaining in the area. Ellen Colrick _ .( Recorded 0 A Jan. Jan. 26, 1962 ? 7/03 Reception No 9,5bg0_, Thomes_.F., 13cBreen ,,,__ 7 ,.•Recorder. . THIS DEED, Made this. 15th day of JUklY in the year of our Lord, -one thousand nine hundred and I Sixty one t o between711tTRANSMONTANE COMPANY', a ,general partnekahip- KjnqxaaM=duiy organized and existing onderanil'hy virtue of thu.Iaws Of the State, of - COlOraaO 's a of the first part, and VAIL _ASSOC,2ATPES-, LTD. g a limited .partnership 0 0 �'�s rya ! '� dilly organized and existing under anti: by virtue of the, laws'ofthe State of Colorado , of the aecondpartl ' - .- •. ' +-WITNESSETH, That the sRtd party of the first port for andin cpnsidlratton of the_ gum of Ten 411d: n0,4(56 .($10:0)- --��- -^-^;-------------- ----- DOI:LARB 0 to+the said pasty of the first part in Viand pmd tiy'the Said peity of thesecond part, •Lhe zeesipt whereof ie hereby "grant, �`.. f rind acknowledged, hath grgnted, bargained, sold and conveyed, an l by these presents does bsrgsin - y gonfessod, forever, all tLe following vt`-'� sell, coa'vey and confirm; unto the said party of -the second part, its :auceesors an Be] County.of Eagle described.. tracts br parcek= of land, eituatei lying avid tieing in the i and State of Cuioradu to4vit: - „= TRACT -2 ` Township 5' South Rancie 89 .Wes£ 6th P.. M._ i 6'That ,part of—the SEaSE lying north of U: S. Highway 6; r 1 SW y$EId; ESW 4'; Lots .1 and; '2 , but . excepting from. such. .; Lots']`and 2'the tracts conveyed to The'Fleming--Lumbe dad Mercantile Company by,V?arranty Deed recorded in - 6�`.. Book 126 at. Page 583. for 4`.4410 acres, more or less, .and by warianty Deed recorded 'in Book 126 at Page 486 for pml 6 3688, acres, more 'or, less. Sec 7. : Trot 1;: NE' Nn Nw%NEid tl 1 nd, water togetr7ie4With all water, diich andI ;re ervoir rights 'a'nd' a, easements, beloitging'ao or in any manner connected with. or apper taihing:to th�e'aboye;described lands which are noi✓ or may be here- after used -.on -`lands for irrigation or domestic uses,,excepting subject to: the optron . �.: all.:easements:and'rights-of-way.of..record-and to purchase,describ.od.below; containing 300 'acres, more Or less. i •rSR� TRACT II Township 5 South Range 60 west, ,6th P. M. Sec. 2:. SWk and 'the SAZS]t31 C!xcept 'a parcel of land described as _ �' follOcas. - z - commencsn .at'the.a�outheast corner of SE4, o.2Sectiori.2, �, g.: _ -- _ '. 04u0 thence nurtlr:along,the east line of Section 2 a diatance of 400 feet, -more or less, to a point;:thence north 60° west a dis west'420;.feet, more'or•less,'.to a point, thence less, to a,point on the north >� tance o£ 1050 feet, more.or 'the right-of-way of* U-. S. Highway No. 6 thane boundary of northvresterly direction along -Elie north boundaz'y Of u in a rigiit-°f-ivay of U.: S. ••Highway No'. 6 a. distance of 660 feet, thence south a:distance unknown to a point on the south line Section 2, thence east along:'the south line 'of :of Section 2 to.ahe point of beginning. Sec.,3.: SE a; E ySW% 'SW3d`,W No. 994A. \YARRANTY'PRR➢—farpot.��en-t¢ Co p r¢t,ao.—p n��ra.nopin on Pl6. Cu.; Njr-RnD?neoR'a Le¢n1 UIauYs. DenveqCofo. EAGLE COUNTY to Chelsea Horn <chelsea.horn@eaglecounty.us> Response to your inquiry East Vail Parcel owned by Vail Resorts 23 plus acres north of East Vail interchange contracted to Triumph Development 2 messages 'Ellen Colrick' via #www Treasurer <treasurer@eaglecounty.us> Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:08 PM Reply -To: "ecolrick@yahoo.com" <ecolrick@yahoo.com> To: "treasurer@eaglecounty.us" <treasurer@eaglecounty.us> Please tell me who has paid the taxes on this parcel since the 1960's. I need this information asap. Thank you. Ellen Colrick Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Chelsea Horn <chelsea.horn@eaglecounty.us> Draft To: "ecolrick@yahoo.com" <ecolrick@yahoo.com> Cc: treasurer@eaglecounty.us Bcc: Elaine Wolf <Elaine.Wolf@eaglecounty.us> Good Afternoon Ellen, Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:41 PM Thank you for your email. Based on the information you have provided, I am including tax information for accounts R066589, R066786, and R066787 which are known as East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Lot: 1 and East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Tract: A. Our records show that we received a payment from Vail Resorts on 10/6/17 in the amount of $33,097.64 for omitted 2015 and 2016 property taxes. Of that, $15,561.47 was for the 2015 taxes and $17,536.17 was for the 2016 taxes. This account was then deactivated and split into R066786 and R066787 for 2017 and forward. Let me know if you have any questions or if there was something else you were looking for. [Quoted text hidden] Chelsea Horn Fiscal Technician 970-328-8860 (o) 970-328-8865 (d) 970-328-8879 (f) www.eaglecounty.us EAGLE COUNTY Treasurer Public T, -- "Pay your property taxes online by visiting eaglecounty.us/treasurer and clicking on "property tax search - pay". With this option you'll be able to print a receipt immediately after payment" Chris Neubecker From: Grace Poganski <pogansg@bellsouth.net> Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 12:04 PM To: PEC; Council Dist List; Nate Peterson; letters@vaildaily.com Subject: Who are we? Attachments: Proposed East Vail entrance to the Vail Valley.png; East Vail entrance Aug 5 2019jpg If Aspen can set designate a beautiful nature reserve at the east entrance to their town, why can't Vail? Northstar Reserve at the east entrance to Aspen. What you see as you enter from Independence Pass. https://goo.g I/maps/XumgPZ3wPkn6TKK86 Aft. 1 - Proposed East Vail entrance to the Vail Valley (subtract all those aspens and add the huge berm scar that will exist behind the development). Aft. 2 -The East Vail entrance now. What do you want our guests to see as they enter the Vail Valley from Vail Pass? 4`-► � � • ,�a, _ '47'x• �r_. • r _ ~ ice; � ►�� - ., - .. •.i � ,Y .. V�. i _T��_ °--•:� L :l - r�` rte; Ar k 4N ' ♦,: r % _ �- .: t _ �4 f v� ,� 1:' Ivy! 4 � 6i { •1 �" ' � � + • ; .a 7 Ri, Y r_ IF 97- : - ''KS`,ap `^.a :ate,- ,,,� I t .�'.,ir-•,r -'fjI _ --L $, �� �s� r � -!09. f� k .$ . �. . . �..�■ �. , Chris Neubecker From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear PEC Commissioners, Greg Kissler <gkissler@summitnet.com> Monday, July 22, 2019 6:28 PM PEC East Vail Development Plan At first glance I thought that development in East Vail was positive for the community. We desperately need more housing for those that work in Vail and the site is on the bus route after all. However upon further investigation this site has some enormous problems. First and foremost is the sheep heard for which knowledgeable experts have clearly stated that the development is likely to destroy the heard. I don't subscribe to the developer's so called expert with a ridiculous 7 month observation and subsequent assertions that the sheep will adapt. I put my trust and faith in unbiased experts with years of experience and knowledge of the sheep heard over someone paid by the developer. Secondary issues that make this site less than ideal include the lack of pedestrian access to the recreation trail and Sims Market. I've walked the underpass at East Vail in the winter and it's very unsafe. The small shoulder gets buried under the snowbank and traffic is sight limited. At the very least there should be a study and subsequent plan to allow safe pedestrian passage as is the case in the other three Vail underpasses. I applaud the TOV for the emphasis on workforce housing and making it more feasible to live here in particular with the deed restriction program. This project however goes against The Town of Vail core values, first the trust and integrity of experts regarding the future of the sheep and second the Environmental Stewardship to protect our environment from undue harm. I'm certainly not opposed to building workforce housing in Vail, quite the contrary. I would welcome workforce housing in my neighborhood of West Vail which I believe is a much better location with excellent bus service, nearby grocery shopping, restaurants and other businesses as well as easy access to trails and parks. I envision a future Vail where the old Roost hotel, a redeveloped Timber Ridge and other properties are examples of innovative and collaborative developments that are consistent with the TOV core values. This project seems to be contrary to the TOV mission, especially in preserving our surrounding natural environment. There are other sites that would be better suited for development to grow our community that are consistent with both the TOV mission and core values. Greg Kissler and Annegret Kessler 2653 Cortina Ln, 5A, Vail CO Chris Neubecker From: STEVE J CLARK <sjclark81657@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:55 AM To: PEC Subject: Booth Heights Dear Members of the Vail PEC, Please decide not to go forward with the Booth Heights development. In our future, driving past the beautiful parcel of land in East Vail and watching Bighorn Sheep in their environment will still be a welcome pleasure, as it has been for my 30 plus years of living in East Vail. A NO decision will create no regrets. Thank you. Sincerely, Jackie Clark East Vail Chris Neubecker From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi PEC Members, J Joyce <ppljpj@msn.com> Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:28 PM PEC Booth Heights Housing I would like to add my name in support of the Booth Heights housing project. I am aware that the neighbors opposed to this project are very vocal and have disparaged this project from the start. I would like to address some of their points. 1. They have said there is not enough parking. I find the parking situation more than adequate. The vast majority of students coming to work for a season do not own a car and in fact most do not even have a driver's license. There is no question that if the choice was housing and no car or car and no housing, the students will choose housing everytime. 2. They have said it is too far to travel to citymarket without a car. Maybe they don't remember what it is like to be 19. Very few will be having dinner parties. 3. They say the housing will impact wildlife. Every single home in that neighborhood is in wildlife habitat. Every single home in that neighborhood impacts the wildlife. Yet even knowing that their home impacts the wildlife I have heard of not one homeowner willing to tear their house down for the sake of the wildlife. No they just want to stop someone else form building their propertyjust as they did. I can't think of anything less fair. 4. They say it will impact our bus system. That is laughable, if we have to many bus riders we can increase bus service. 5. They say there are other sites that can be built. Well that may or may not be true. I sure hope it is true as we need thousands more beds than this project will provide. We need this and many more. 6. They say the TOV did not do all they could to maximize the available building on the Timber Ridge site. Frankly this one is baffling. I do not understand how a developer is held responsible for something a government entity does. 7. They say it should be left open space. Yet for some reason they don't think their home should be returned to open space. 8. They say the project will be ugly and presents a bad image for guests entering Vail. How arrogant can someone be. Maybe this person thinks that only mansion's should be seen and all other housing should be hidden from public view. Frankly I think this person is misguided. This is not Palm Beach, we value every citizen and every person's contribution to our society. The citizens against this housing have thrown every piece of mud they could muster. I think we need some compassion for the students who come here to work in our resorts. As it is now we have students living four and five to a hotel room in Eagle, commuting to Vail for work. The impact of that commute everyday has more effect on the environment than the housing. Please show compassion and allow these students the dignity of a place to sleep at night. Sincerely, Joseph Joyce Vail Chris Neubecker From: kbenysh@vail.net Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 8:44 AM To: PEC Subject: Booth Heights input for PEC To the members of the Planning and Environmental Commission, In a recent Vail Daily article, I found it surprising that the representatives of the Eagle County Land Trust and the Town of Vail were lamenting the lack of available land to purchase and dedicate as protected open space in the upper valley when a large parcel is right on our front doorstep, in plain sight. I am referring to the Booth Heights parcel. The Trust and the Town have a unique opportunity to positively impact our community by partnering to purchase this large, irreplaceable parcel. I would like to see the Town and the Eagle Valley Land Trust purchase the Booth Heights property from Vail Resorts and zone it as permanent open space. Ideally, the money from the sale would be used to construct employee housing at other less vulnerable sites such as the abandoned Roost property, the Ever Vail property, the yard and warehouse land, the mountain employee parking lot, the Val das Schon rebuild, etc. Some of the units in the new development could be offered to local small businesses for purchase, perhaps subsidized or at a very low interest rate, similar to what was done for residents at the Chamonix and Vail Commons projects. Local small businesses must shoulder some responsibility for housing their employees. Constructing a large project like Booth Heights on such a visible and vulnerable site is not in the best interests of our community, and I urge you to reject the project. Thank you, Kathryn Benysh, 44 -year East Vail resident Chris Neubecker From: Patty McKenny Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2019 7:35 PM To: Chris Neubecker Cc: Tammy Nagel Subject: FW: East Vail Housing Project I didn't see anywhere this email was sent to you guys! Patty McKenny Interim Town Manager Town of Vail omckennvOvailaov.com 970-479-2113 From: Kit Wimmiams [mailto:kitcwmsCa)aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:00 PM To: Council Dist List; Kit Wimmiams Subject: East Vail Housing Project Stop this!! Never allow any project of this scale to ever be built here. The damage to the environment The size and scope Taxing bus service Lack of parking The greed I'll repeat: Stop this now!! Kit Williams 2925 Booth Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 970-376-0909 Resident September 1977 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 To: Planning & Environmental Commission, Town Council Date: 7/28/19 Re: Additional comments from July 22nd meeting I want to apologize for my nervous speech and not having my thoughts written down, so here they are: As an environmental commission should you be concerned with unhealthy noise levels. As I stated in the meeting, after living 7 years just a little west of the development site, the traffic noise was terrible. That was 20 years ago and with the increase in traffic, I am sure the noise level is worse. A majority of the neighborhood has earthen berms built as sound barriers located on both the north and south sides of 170. That is a good indication that the noise levels in that area are extreme. When the revised traffic study is done, should you also do a noise study for the development site. If a sound barrier is required would that prohibit the height of the project and who would be responsible for building a sound barrier? Would the developer, the Town of Vail, or CDOT be responsible for building the sound barrier? Also my comments that a wildlife fence should be built around the entire property to keep the people and dogs just on the site still would not help. Dogs barking on the site would scare the bighorn sheep from the area even if they are hidden. This project should not allow any animals. Thank you for your time, Liz Schramm East Vail Owner Chris Neubecker From: Louise Hoversten <Ibhoversten@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 8:15 PM To: PEC Subject: "Booth Heights" Development Dear Brian, Ludwig, Rollie, Pam, Karen, John and Brian, Thank you all for serving on this board and for facing this big decision I attended the PEC meeting today, July 22, 2019 and strongly object to the location of the project. Environmental and Traffic studies have not been thorough enough to assess the project's impact on the town and the environment. I support the need to have affordable housing but I urge you to carefully study the damage to the herd of Bighorn Sheep, the possible traffic congestion, rockfall and avalanche danger, lack of parking, safety issues and lack of adequate facilities in East Vail to support this project. For the first time, today I saw a rendering of the project. It is large, unattractive and does not fit in the neighborhood. Not the first thing visitors to Vail getting off 1-70 at the East Vail exit want to see! I have been in Vail for 18 years and live on Booth Creek Drive so am very aware of the traffic congestion that already exists when students at the Mountain School are being dropped off and picked up. I previously lived in Aspen in affordable housing and know how important garages, guest parking and adequate storage are to the residents and to anyone who sees the housing. Does this project offer these?? If not the parking lot can become pretty unsightly. Especially one so visible from 1-70 and the frontage road. I recognize the need for housing but please, please work with the developer and town to find a more suitable location. Sincerely, Louise Hoversten 970-948-9111 Chris Neubecker From: Shelley Bellm Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 9:31 AM To: PEC Subject: FW: East Vail Housing From: mica lynch[mailto:Ivnch.valdez(c�amail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 9:27 AM To: CommDev Subject: East Vail Housing Dear Town of Vail, As a Vail Resort Employee, I understand how desperately we need more housing. Please let this project happen. Kindly, Mica Chris Neubecker From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Commissioners: pamelas <pamelas@vail.net> Monday, July 29, 2019 2:22 PM PEC Chris Neubecker; Matt Gennett East Vail / Triumph Application At the July 22 PEC meeting Triumph Development presented renderings of the proposed project. During the presentation Michael O'Connor mentioned that the renderings were not to scale. It was also pointed out that the proposed berm was not shown in the renderings. Further, some of the renderings were created from a vantage point somewhere east on I-70 through large evergreen trees, hinting that these trees will shelter the project from view. As a result of these omissions, no one gets a clear picture of the mass and scale of the project. We know that architects and engineers create accurate renderings to scale every day; can the PEC insist that Triumph submit drawings to scale showing the berm before going any further? As one of the people who spoke during Public Comment stated, accurate renderings of the project should have been presented at the start of the process, not delayed as if Triumph was attempting to downplay the scope of what they are proposing to build. Thank you, Pam Stenmark ramela 5tenmarL pamelasC-'�vail.net (c) 970-376-1 12-4 Chris Neubecker From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Commissioners: pamelas <pamelas@vail.net> Monday, July 29, 2019 2:22 PM PEC Chris Neubecker; Matt Gennett East Vail / Triumph Application At the July 22 PEC meeting Triumph Development presented renderings of the proposed project. During the presentation Michael O'Connor mentioned that the renderings were not to scale. It was also pointed out that the proposed berm was not shown in the renderings. Further, some of the renderings were created from a vantage point somewhere east on I-70 through large evergreen trees, hinting that these trees will shelter the project from view. As a result of these omissions, no one gets a clear picture of the mass and scale of the project. We know that architects and engineers create accurate renderings to scale every day; can the PEC insist that Triumph submit drawings to scale showing the berm before going any further? As one of the people who spoke during Public Comment stated, accurate renderings of the project should have been presented at the start of the process, not delayed as if Triumph was attempting to downplay the scope of what they are proposing to build. Thank you, Pam Stenmark ramela 5tenmarL pamelasC-'�vail.net (c) 970-376-1 12-4 Chris Neubecker From: Pati Marsh <captpati@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 9:55 AM To: PEC Subject: East Vail Housing Project I'm writing to you about the proposed East Vail housing project. As a homeowner since 1991, I've become aware of the pressing need for affordable housing for Vail's employees. I fully support efforts to remedy this growing problem our community faces. That being said, after careful review of the current East Vail proposal, as well as independent biologist reports, It's s clearly apparent this project incurs risks that will likely be devastating for Vail's only herd of Bighorn Sheep. In the absence of truly testing mitigation efforts to prove they will be successful in advance of construction, you risk wiping these creatures off the landscape. The most recent independent round table report from biologists includes the following statement: "Due to the already limited winter and transitional range for bighorn sheep and the relatively small number of sheep in this herd, our collective view is that finding another location for this development would offer the best mitigation for this sheep herd." Do you really want your legacy as servers of the community to include the demise of these iconic animals? I certainly hope not. Rest assured, the citizens you serve will not forget who was at the helm if this happens. Again, I wholeheartedly support efforts to solve the employee housing crisis Vail faces, but real solutions to the problem should not cause irreversible harm to our treasured wildlife. As you know, there are other location options that can help solve this dilemma and ensure your legacy as faithful stewards of our beautiful town. Patricia Marsh 3011 Booth Falls Rd Chris Neubecker From: Patricia Langmaid <patti.langmaid@gmaiI.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:21 AM To: PEC Subject: One more thing Dear PEC members, In the Denver Post front page article, (July 27) George Reuther says "Without worker housing we aren't nearly as competitive as we are with it". I think having Bighorn sheep in a beautiful environment makes Vail more competitive. It's about the money, isn't it? Patti Langmaid Sent from my iPad Chris Neubecker From: Patricia Langmaid <patti.langmaid@gmaiI.com> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:38 PM To: PEC Subject: July 12th meeting Dear Members if the PEC, Charlie and I live in Hood River, OR from June to October so we will not be at the July 12th meeting. We have been fiercely in favor of NO development because we believe it will lead to the demise of the sheep. On Monday, count us in, please, with all the advocates for the sheep. Thank you, Patti and Charlie Langmaid Sent from my iPad Chris Neubecker From: Patricia Langmaid <patti.langmaid@gmaiI.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 9:42 AM To: PEC Cc: Council Dist List Subject: Your legacy Dear Chairman Stockmar and members of the PEC, Please consider the fact that when the sun sets on your term as Commissioner and they are writing your story of the good and bad decisions you made, the thing you will be remembered for is whether in this moment, you had the courage to stand up and vote NO (a complete and resounding NO) to the East Vail housing development that will most certainly destroy a sheep herd and a beautiful landscape. (Words paraphrased from Pete Buttigieg's remarks last night in Presidential debate) Respectfully, Patti Langmaid Sent from my iPad $, �� �s� r � -!09. f� k .$ . �. . . �..�■ �. , Chris Neubecker From: Rebecca Horst <rahorst23@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 7:54 PM To: PEC Subject: Booth Heights comment Hello, Thank you for asking for comments in the Vail Daily. I hope that I have submitted this in time to be considered. I am very busy with two businesses, and family, but want to enter a comment as a lifelong resident of Colorado and a person who loves the mountains and wildlife. I have watched the progress and discussion of the Booth Heights proposal with interest and hope the process will reach a decision based on long term interests as well as short term housing needs. I can't help but think that the project as presented is severely underestimating the reality of interaction of the human population (and their pets) with the bighorn sheep. How, exactly, will you keep people from hiking, or letting a pet out and running in this area? A big fence would surely be a negative impact on the sheep. Signage and Rules will be largely ineffective, especially with a transient population that may care less about this particular environment and as evidenced by many visitors at popular National Parks. As a property manager for 20+ years, I know tenants ignore rules, sneak pets out to relieve themselves in the dark and don't pick up, not to mention the common party attitude and noise of some people. Inadequate parking is also a glaring problem with this project. I doubt the plan is for 1.33 people per unit, so how can it only allow 1.33 spaces per unit? If this is supposed to be employee housing, it is more likely that each person will have arrived with their own vehicle than come without a vehicle. Where are those vehicles going to be parked in a town that already has parking issues? Housing is certainly a problem in the valley, but this is not a good solution in this scale, in this area. Perhaps if the total number of units were greatly reduced and clustered, but it will still affect the bighorn sheep. Another huge issue that is not being discussed is the pay scale! Why is there so little, if any, discussion about paying local employees enough to afford to live here? Why don't Vail Resorts, Vail Health and other major employers pay better starting wages?!? I see articles about large shortages of employees, but little about the fact people can't afford to live on the average service industry wage. Please open discussion about raising wages so more employees can afford to stay here year round and provide a more stable employee base and year round tax base. Raise wages through natural business consequences, aka capitalism, not through legislation. If they can't attract employees at a feeble wage, they will have to raise the incentive! Many more issues, but regardless, this particular development is very likely to be the end of the bighorn sheep in Vail if completed as stated. Please consider alternatives. Thank you! Rebecca Horst Eagle, CO VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION August 8, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Booth Heights proposed development Wildlife Mitigation/Parking and Related Matters. Dear Chairman and Commission Members: We write to comment on certain aspects of the mitigation suggestions of the independent wildlife experts (dated Aug. 5th). While generally the VHA supports all of the suggested measures, especially the first suggestion that the best mitigation would be for the project to be rejected, the situation is direr than the experts realize. That is because the area of concern is not just a winter foraging area but is used by the sheep year-round. It is understandable that the experts did not address the critical summer months, since they did not independently study this herd and were only reviewing Triumph's plan which was based on the assumption that the sheep only use the area during the "winter." What is not understandable is why Triumph's biologist proceeded on that assumption and did not survey the herd for at least an entire year. (Triumph's biologist's "study" was only from 10/13/17 to 6/14/18; it did not include the summer months). That may reflect a basic misunderstanding of the sheep and their activities (he was, after all, the proponent of the erroneous foraging "under the cover of darkness' theory), but had he consulted the CPW he would have learned that the CPW considers the area as year-round sheep habitat. Resident observations over this summer validate the CPW conclusion. On July 10, July 27, August 1 and August 2, bighorn sheep were observed foraging in the smooth brome to the east of the project site (on one occasion in the area just above the smooth brome). Since these were serendipitous observations, it's probable that the sheep used the area more frequently. And, while these were not scientifically documented observations, they are the same kind of observations that Triumph's biologist used in his study. 1 Therefore, using the same "observational methodology," these observations support the CPW conclusion that the area is a year-round range for the sheep. That conclusion has huge implications for the proposed project. No longer is the impact of this project just a matter of the "winter period" but rather a matter of year-round concern. That means 1 Triumph's biologist has admitted, his "study" was not a "research study" and was based on an observational methodology that drew conclusions from limited trail camera locations and personal observations from only 15 days (just 16% of the study period). 1 restricting heavy construction to the summer months, as the experts recommend, may not provide sufficient protection for the sheep (with only minor exception, Triumph's plans is for full-scale building during the winter months when disruption of the sheep could be catastrophic), and it underscores the need for the comprehensive scientifically -based sheep use and movement study, the experts recommend, to understand how the entire herd uses the area. (Such a study should also include the ram population which would inform needed mitigation for the bus maintenance facility project which will shortly be before the PEC for approval of Phase I construction).2 Beyond those matters, the experts' suggestions undermine Triumph's mitigation plan. That plan relies on (1) improving the NAP property (the experts state that might help elk and deer but not the sheep since they won't move there because it is too forested and too far from the sheep's escape routes), (2) the false claim that even if scared away the sheep will return "under cover of darkness" to forage (sheep are not nocturnal animals, and Triumph's biologist finally admitted that he was wrong about that) and (3) housing policies and area closures that the testimony at prior meetings shows have never worked before. As the experts' report makes clear, it is only habitat enhancement in the right locations that can save the bighorn sheep. That is not part of Triumph's mitigation plan and, even if it were a last-minute addition, the experts make clear that mitigation of the sheep's habitat requires continual maintenance. That is also not part of Triumph's plan. It should now be clear that Triumph's entire EIS needs to be rewritten. The experts' report also underscores the uncertainty of success from any mitigation attempts. That makes it even more important that before any project approval is considered, mitigation should first take place and be demonstrated effective. That such work might delay this project should not be a consideration; Triumph and VR had over two years to address that issue but instead tried to skate through by relying on a now discredited pseudo -scientific plan. The VHA concurs with the experts' recommendations that if the project is to be built, protection of the sheep should be maximized by moving the bus stop and pedestrian access to the east end of the project and that year-round area closure of the adjacent property should be mandated. In the end, those steps may not save the sheep (due to the overall impact of the project), but they would at least be a step in the right direction. The VHA also concurs with the experts' recommendation that if the project were to be built, with the exception of ADA service dogs, all other dogs should be ban from the project. In that respect, it is important to distinguish between true service dogs and emotional support dogs. Service dogs are specially trained to perform work or assist persons with a disability. On the other hand, emotional support animals receive no training and can be "certified" for a relatively few dollars through a multiple of internet sites. Everyday thousands of completely well people board airlines in the U.S. with certified comfort animals. The ban on dogs should include so- called "emotional support" or "comfort" dogs. z Triumph's biologist's study is also of questionable value since it was done in a mild winter. Winter is a time of starvation for bighorn sheep, and a study of habitat use in a mild winter is not predictable of how the sheep might have to use the area in harsh winters when the snow is deeper and foraging is more difficult. K Beyond these environmental concerns, there are many other reasons to deny the current proposal. For example: (1) The mass of this project, including large four-story elements, is incompatible with East Vail. The buildings and the rock fall berm, which cannot be screened or blended into the surrounding landscape, would stand out like a sore thumb at the gateway to Vail. (2) The scale of this project is way too much for the site. Trying to squeeze 270 to 350 people into this site, without any services for them (except for one small store), is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. There is nothing in East Vail even remotely similar. (3) There has not been a legitimate traffic impact study (Triumph's study was done on December 30th when VMS was not in session and ski passes were blacked out), but it seems clear that the project would overwhelm the transportation infrastructure and create a potentially deadly situation at the I-70 East Vail underpass. (4) There has not been a proper evaluation of whether the planned massive excavation on the site could trigger a land or mud slide nor is the proposed rock fall berm adequate. (5) And having only 60 parking spaces for the 168 to 254 apartment residents, 30 % less than required, is woefully inadequate. Finally, and separately, if this project is to be built, the VHA urges the PEC to pass a resolution asking the Town Council to approve the installation of a raised sidewalk under the I-70 East Vail interchange and to direct the Public Works department to immediate begin the process to construct such a sidewalk. 'cry truly yours J , Lamont ecutive Director Vail Homeowners Association Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vha(a vail.net Web Site: www.vailhomeowners.com 3 Chris Neubecker From: Jim Lamont <JFLamont@vail.net> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 1:14 PM To: PEC Cc: Chris Neubecker; Shelley Bellm Subject: VHA/JFL/TOV/PEC: Please review - Updates On: The East Vail Booth Heights Housing Project and The Secret Golf Course Housing Project If you are unable, please let us know. Thank you. Jim Lamont Vail Homeowners Association a V. 0i i 7' IwS •�At '. ri. .VMXW— _ Updates On The East Vail Booth Heights Housing Project The Secret Golf Course Housing Project August 1, 2019 The East Vail Booth Heights Housing Project Latest PEC hearing results. On July 22nd, the PEC held another hearing on the Booth Heights housing project, this time mainly to hear public comments. Kudos to the PEC and Chairman Stockmar for scheduling this hearing (it was not on the original schedule) and for not imposing any time limits on the public comments. Many viewpoints were presented with all of the speakers being opposed to the project, no one spoke in favor of it. There was even a petition in opposition presented which had over a 1000 signatures. Renderings shocking. At the beginning of the hearing, Triumph presented renderings of how the project would appear. Even though the renderings didn't show the large rock fall berm that would have to be constructed on the up -hill side of the project, the massiveness of the project was shocking. r ,!fir r__i, � • y��aY—c fum�_YL1ny .a r./�� Is this the future of East Vail? This rendering, as well as the other ones, should have been part of the original application. They only came about because of questions raised by the PEC. The renderings, nonetheless, make it clear that it will be impossible to screen this project or make it blend into the surrounding landscape. Even worse, the renderings do not show the large rock fall berm that will have to be built uphill of the project. We are told it will be similar to the Booth Falls berm. That berm was built in 1989/90 (and modified in 1997), and this is what it looks like today. = � l ic3 F;�_ L ■ L _ S �� t1 • r ~ 1Mmfe • 1• 4 Iv�. YT'L'ti a • _ L ,� 11 x■� r• r � S As is apparent, despite over two decades of growing seasons, that berm still has been unable to generate any screening or softening landscape cover, and it remains a huge scar on the land. If the Booth Heights project is built, both the buildings and the uphill rock tall berm will stand out like a sore thumb on the landscape, forever marring the view, especially for those descending from Vail Pass. Several speakers eloquently described the feeling on descending the pass and making the turn into the valley and being greeted by a pristine landscape which would be lost forever if this project were to be built. The renderings also make it clear that this project is way too big for the site; that they are only now being made available speaks volumes about the incompatibility of this project in East Vail. There is nothing in East Vail that is even remotely as big as this project and trying to squeeze 270 to 350 people into this site, without any services for them (except for one small store), is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Furthermore, notwithstanding the inadequacy of Triumph's traffic study which was done on December 30, 2017, when VMS was not in session and ski passes were blacked out, it is clear that the project would overwhelm the transportation infrastructure and create a potentially deadly situation at the I-70 East Vail underpass. And providing only 60 parking spaces for the 168 to 254 apartment residents is woefully inadequate. That is why the VHA has been calling for a substantial downsizing of the project. Downsizing would not only lower the visual impact, eliminate the four-story elements and probably allow for more landscape screening, but it would have the additional beneficial effects of reducing the potential impact on the bighorn sheep, reducing the traffic infrastructure impacts and allow more on-site parking. Very few revisions. Despite two long hearings and hundreds of pages of comments, Triumph has so far made very few changes in the project. It has added 15 parking spaces to bring the total for the apartment units up to 60 (still short of the Town required 84), and it has agreed to retain the few trees on the south side that are outside the property boundaries, but no other specific changes have yet been agreed to. Wildlife mitigation. Wildlife mitigation remains the big issue. As Bill Andre, the leading local expert with decades of experience with bighorn sheep, noted at the July 22nd hearing, housing has the greatest impact (two times more than any other activity or factor) on bighorn sheep. The TOV's independent experts have continued to work on the environmental impacts and more reports are due, but one thing is already clear; Triumph's proposed mitigation on the NAP site will do nothing to help the sheep. The proposal will require mitigation work on the north and west sides of the project and that such work might delay this project should not be a consideration. Triumph and VR had over two years to address that issue but instead tried to skate through by relying on a pseudo -scientific plan that has now been thoroughly discredited (as has been its author). 3 It is also futile to try to mitigate human impacts with housing policies or trail or area closures. As Bill Andre also stated at the hearing, the valley is littered with unenforced, tailed housing policies and closures which only deter a small percentage of people. In the end, if this project is to be built, it is only habitat enhancement in the right locations that can save the bighorn sheep. So far, that is not part of the mitigation plan for this project. And the only way to ensure a positive outcome is to complete the mitigation work and see it demonstrated effective before approving any construction. As one Commissioner noted, "this is a potential extinction event for the bighorn sheep" and the PEC can't afford to guess on the outcome. Many questions remain. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission made it clear that many questions still remain to be resolved. The Commissioners raised questions about the inadequacy of the parking [Triumph has tried to gloss over that issue by combining the Town House parking into a single ratio and pointing to core town properties], the adequacy of the geological studies, allowing dogs on the site, short-term rentals [some suggested that the allowance of short-term rentals in the TOV, whereby owners can make more by renting to tourists than employees, has greatly exacerbated the employee housing situation], the inadequacy of the traffic study and the ability to prevent residents from using the sheep winter range. Several suggested that wildlife mitigation should be completed before any construction begins, that there should be no winter construction on the west end of the project and that the bus stops should be at the east end of the project. How these issues will be resolved remains to be seen. Which do you prefer? Here is a comparison of what's at stake with the Booth Heights project—leave the site as is, as shown below, 1 or bulldoze it and replace it with this housing project? -oi l� A - •--_.- "„"� =tit r- _ ! L Concept for the Booth Heights development. If this is an issue that concerns you, mark your calendar for August 12 at 1 pm and make your views known to the PEC. This will be one of the most consequential decisions that the PEC ever makes and it should have the benefit of your views before it makes that decision. Even more problems for the bighorn sheep. As though the problems for the bighorn sheep raised by the Booth heights project were not enough, the TOV is moving forward with plans to redevelop and expand the public works/bus maintenance facility and Buzzard Park. The project includes not only expanded maintenance facilities but a proposal to take seven acres of hillside for a solar panel farm (the staff preferred alternative to roof -top installations) and building 144 housing units on the site. This will squeeze the bighorn sheep's range from the west at the same time as the Booth Height's project squeezes it from the east; the bighorn rams' winter habitat is directly uphill from that facility. Bighorn sheep herds are generally only together during mating season. The rest of the year rams and ewes and their lambs live separately. In East Vail, during the winter periods, the ewes and lambs use the range that involves the Booth Heights project site and adjacent land to the north and west. The rams use the land further west that is uphill from the bus maintenance facility. The survival of the herd depends not only on the health of the ewes and lambs but also on the health of the rams. The solar panel farm and workforce housing components of the planned redevelopment in particular raise serious issues for the bighorn rams, issues that have not yet received any public airing. That does not have to be the case for the solar panel farm. It does not need to be sited on the hillside above the project where it will directly impact the bighorns and cause a massive amount of reflective light impact on residences across the valley. The Town could achieve the same green environmental credits by locating that facility in a remote area or by purchasing solar power from other providers (similar to what VR is doing). The timetable for bus maintenance facility project will begin as soon as the next few months when the Phase I application is filed with the PEC. The plan for Phase I envisions construction this coming fall of a large retaining wall along the north side of the property with building construction to start in March 2020. That timetable may also include construction of the solar panel farm and employee housing units, leaving little time for public comment and input concerning the impact of this project on the environment and the bighorn sheep. Where is the Environmental Impact Study? Although this project will potentially cause a massive disruption to the bighorn rams' winter foraging habitat—it raises all the issues involved in the Booth Height's project—it appears that, so far, no steps have been taken by the TOV to prepare an EIS for the project. The only reference to an EIS has been in connection with the proposed solar panel farm, even though the zone of influence of the rest of the project will clearly impact the rams. Even just the construction of the north side retaining wall, with related excavation and heavy equipment activity over the coming winter months, will potentially have a negative impact on the rams. Why no EIS is being prepared is unknown. Even though the TOV is the owner/developer of this project, it is subject to the same requirements as any other developer which in this case should require an EIS. The TOV has already retained three wildlife experts for the Booth Heights project, and they could be readily tasked with preparing an EIS for the public works/bus maintenance facility and Buzzard Park expansion and developing appropriate mitigation measures to offset the negative impacts from the project. It would seem that this is a necessary perquisite to any approvals for any construction for that project. This shouldn't be done piecemeal. Because of the impact on the rams' winter habitat, the CPW and local experts are urging that the cumulative impacts on the overall sheep herd of the Booth Heights and bus maintenance redevelopment projects be considered through a "comprehensive impact lens." As the CPW noted, that type of comprehensive consideration would serve to better inform decisions on each of the projects so that the impacts are not piecemeal and the PEC has the whole picture before it as it considers these projects. The VHA, therefore, urges the TOV to immediately begin an EIS for this project and to instruct its wildlife experts to include a comprehensive assessment of the overall impact on the herd of both of these projects. The VHA further urges that, in so far as the bighorn sheep are concerned, the PEC consider these two projects in tandem and that doing so might cause some delay should be beside the point. As more than one Commissioner noted, from an environmental perspective, the Booth Heights project (and by extension the TOV bus maintenance facility expansion) is one of the biggest decisions that the PEC has ever faced, and they should take all the time necessary to get it right; i.e., there should be no rush to a decision. Responsibility of the PEC. In approving or rejecting proposed projects, the PEC has the responsibility to fulfill the stewardship role for the TOV mission to "preserve our surrounding natural environment." That was a foundational principle of the Town and it has remained a key element of the Town's mission ever since. It would seem that insofar as the Booth Heights and bus maintenance facility projects are concerned that means no project approvals are warranted unless the developer can assure that all environmental impacts will be completely mitigated, no lingering doubts and no guessing. Stated another way, disturbing the natural environment (and by extension, endangering the bighorn sheep) is a matter that should only be considered if there is no other alternative course of action. Fortunately, that should not be a decision the PEC has to face on the Booth Heights project because there are other workforce housing alternatives, both within the TOV and down valley. And, while it is still too early to assess impacts from the redevelopment and expansion of the bus maintenance facility (an application has not yet been filed), the PEC should be cognizant of the upcoming issues that project will most likely raise. What's next? The next (and currently, last scheduled) PEC meeting on the Booth Heights project is set for August 12th at 1 p.m. We have been told that prior to that meeting a revised wildlife mitigation plan will be submitted. There has also been some reference to the possibility of some revisions to the development plan. It is unclear, in that regard, what Triumph will do to respond to the PEC's questions or whether it will simply ask for an up/down vote on the current proposal. If the latter, the VHA urges that the PEC vote "No" on the current proposal. If there are substantial changes or revisions to either the wildlife mitigation or development plan, the PEC and the public will have scant notice of them before the next meeting since PEC agendas are not usually published until the Friday before the meeting. And if there are substantial changes, the public should have a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on those changes. Therefore, if changes are forthcoming, it does not seem feasible that the PEC would be in a position to vote on this project at the August 12th meeting and at least one more meeting will be necessary. That also raises the possibility that an application for the bus maintenance facility will have been filed so the two projects could be considered in tandem. Because the August 12th meeting could be the last meeting on the Booth Heights project, the VHA urges that you make plans to attend. This could be the most consequential environmental meeting in the history of Vail, one that will set the course for years to come. The Secret Golf Course Housing Project It now appears that the secret efforts to convert the 12th fairway and hole of the Vail Golf Course into a housing project, first brought to light by the VHA a month ago, have been abandoned (at least for now). According to the director of the VLHA, the "conceptual idea was rejected before any meaningful discussion amongst the community could occur." Unfortunately, because of the secret ways in which the LVHA operates, it is never clear what is really going on. The VHA will continue to monitor this and other LVHA activities and bring them to your attention as warranted. Tell the PEC and Town Council what you think PEC email: pec(aivailgov.com Town Council email: towncouncil(a vailgov.com Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vha(&vail.net Web Site: www.vailhomeowners.com © Copyright 2019 00 Vail Homeowners Association I PO Box 238, Vail, CO 81658 Unsubscribe jflamont@vail.net About Constant Contact Sent by vha@vail.net in collaboration with Try email marketing for free today! A4 Vail Valley Economic Development A4 vast y PRRTRERSNIP 2018-19 Workforce Survey Report July 2019 Prepared by: Vail Valley Partnership/Vail Valley Economic Development 97 Main Street, Ste. E-201 I Edwards, CO 81632 1970-476-1000 vailvalleypartnership.com I vailvalleymeansbusiness.com Report Author: Andrej A. Birjulin, Ph.D., Research Director 1970-328-0299 Eagle County's Labor Force: Conditions are Positive and Holding Steady After relatively high unemployment rates in 2009-2012, unemployment saw a steady decline thereafter. In 2018, the Eagle County unemployment rate was 2.7%, which is slightly higher than the previous year, but below the state rate of 3.3%. The unemployment rate has remained below 3% over the past four years. At the same time, the size of the labor force continues to grow. After a relatively flat period between 2010 and 2014, the number in the labor force increased 11.9% between 2014 and 2018 to 36,207. The county's population continues to grow at a slow and steady pace. The State Demographer estimates that the population grew by 5% between 2010 and 2017. The population is currently estimated at 54,662, which represents a 0.7% increase over the previous year. School enrollment has seen growth of 2.4% in the past five years in grades Pre K — 12, which was 6,874 in fall of 2018. 37,000 34,500 L O L 32,000 O J 29,500 C N p 27,000 N L a 24,500 22,000 10.0% 7.5% }? 0.0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Eagle County Labor Force Eagle County Unemployment Colorado Unemployment As a rural resort county, employment is disproportionally comprised of the accommodation and food services; retail trade; arts, entertainment and recreation; and construction. Almost a quarter (24%) of the County's employees work in accommodations and food services, another 11 % in retail trade and 11 % in arts, entertainment and recreation. Construction employs about 10% of the workforce. Additionally, many residents are challenged to find suitable employment to carve out a sustainable living in the county since the average wage is lower than in Denver, yet the cost -of -of living is high. The cost for housing is especially high, ranging from about two Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 2 times the national average in the Gypsum and Eagle area and increasing dramatically as one gets closer to the prestigious ski areas of Vail and Beaver Creek. Eagle County has 32,465 housing units and 20,283 households. Almost 2 in 5 homes (38%) in the county are classified as "vacant," primarily second homes. While median household income in the county is higher the statewide ($83,803 compared to $65,458), weekly wages are low: $882 a week in Eagle County compared to $1,133 per week average statewide. It's against this backdrop of an economy holding steady that we take a look at what employers in Eagle County are saying about business and workforce. 13th Annual Workforce Survey Vail Valley Economic Development (formerly The Economic Council of Eagle County) has been conducting a workforce survey in Eagle County since 2006-07. Although there has been some variation in items and response choices across administration years, core items on the current version of the survey have been collected since 2007-08 and ask employers about their business outlook, their employees, and their forecasts for the future. Items added in 2017-18 ask about business retention and expansion. Prior survey results can be found at www.vailvalleymeansbusiness.com. In 2018-19, 98 businesses responded to the Workforce Survey, which is similar to most survey years. This summary report compares those responses with data from the prior ten years of survey data for items which were in place for that period of time. Hirinq New Employees and Workforce Conditions The chart on the next page shows that the experience with finding new employees has continued to get worse in the County. In 2009-10, 54% percent indicated that finding new employees was "Good" or "Excellent. " While this percentage has trended up and down over the past 10 years, it was at a high point in 2009-10 and has recently come down dramatically from 53% in 2016-17 to 30% in 2018-19. At the same time, those that indicate it was "Terrible" or "Poor" had been relatively stable between 2014-15 and 2017-18, but has increased over this past year. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 3 60% 54% report "Good" or "Excellent" 45% 30% Experience Finding New Employees ■Terrible Poor Fair —Good Excellent ■ 30% report "Good" or "Excellent" 15% 1 ■■ 0%Al, r i M I Aq2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 As seen in the chart below, in 2018-19 38% of businesses report that they can fill positions within 4 weeks, a 55% decrease over the previous year and a 33% decrease from 2015-16. Those that indicated it took more than a month increased to 62%. The overall hiring results show that the days of easy hiring peaked in 2010-11 and are currently facing challenges. 100% 75% 50% 25% Average Length of Time Positions Remain Open Until Filled 0% 2008-09 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 ■One Week —2-4 Weeks —2-3 Months 4 Months or More Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 4 The charts on the next two pages show the results of questions that were added to the 2017-18 version of the survey. Overall, employers indicate that unfilled positions are largely stable, although about two out of five respondents say it is increasing. The percentage that say "increasing" has gone up over this past year. While about half of employers are not anticipating significant changes in their workforce, almost a third indicate they are hiring new employees and another 19% say they are replacing employees. Hiring new employees has gone up some since the prior year and replacing employees has gone down. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Is the number of unfilled positions at your company: 2017-18 2018-19 Increasing Stable 3% 4% Decreasing Have you experienced or do you anticipate any significant changes in the make-up of your workforce? 2017-18 2018-19 No Yes, hiring employees Yes, replacing Yes, releasing employees employees Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 5 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% How many new positions do you anticipate adding in the upcoming year? 2017-18 2018-19 59% 51% 31% 24 14% 9% ��l More than 10 full or Between 5 and 10 full Between 1 and 4 full or None part-time employees or part-time employees part-time empoyees As seen in the chart below, employers do not give high ratings with their experience in finding new employees and the availability of workers has decreased significantly from the previous year. While the overall mean for quality of workers in the area received the highest rating this year, it falls right above the mid -point of the 7 -point scale, indicating the experience is "fair." Quality of the workforce increased substantially over the previous year. 4.5 4 3.5 3 co 2.5 2 1.5 1 Experience in Finding Employees (1 =Terrible, 4=Fair and 7=Excellent) Availability of Workers 2017-18 2018-19 Quality of the Workforce Stability of the Workforce Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 6 3.5 j 3.1 2.5 Quality of the Workforce Stability of the Workforce Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 6 Two-thirds of the businesses surveyed (66%) indicate that they are experiencing recruitment problems with specific employee positions or skills. The specific problems that employers described are shown below. Accounting and QuickBooks training Affordable Housing, Professional Expertise Bilingual professionals Both ends of the spectrum. We have a hard time finding qualified, yet affordable business service applicants (i.e. front desk), but we really struggle finding licensed mental health clinicians. Compensation can be a barrier in our recruitment process Copy writing, PR/media, account management Culinary and spa Difficult to find part time retail help. Difficulty paying a competitive wage, particularly given the high cost of housing. Education, professionalism Experience Few applicants and rarely do they have the skill set we require Finding quality people with skill and desire. Expectations of more than what they are qualified for. Ability to live close to work area. Front Drive, Loss Prevention Hard to find retain experienced employees Hard to find skills we need working with older adults and someone who only wants to work 10- 15/hrs week Have been trying to hire and train a team member for office service work. Phones, computer skills, career oriented Housekeepers Housekeeping and any weekend positions Housekeeping and reservations Housekeeping, US workers will not do this work, Federal immigration and visa regulations make hiring impossible. The polarized nature of government right now is preventing reasonable solutions to this problem Housekeeping, front desk It is difficult to find someone who wants to drive into Vail to work. The parking is difficult and the roads can be bad. Kitchen labor. Qualified business managers. Kitchen positions are impossible to fill. Kitchen staff Lack of qualified applicants. Issues with applicants "ghosting" us during the interview process. Leadership roles and higher skill level positions (managers/supervisors) Lift operations, F&B cooks, stewards, and dish washers, housekeeping. Maintenance Engineers, Cooks, Massage Therapists, Estheticians, Management roles Maintenance engineers, cooks, property managers with experience, housekeepers, F&B Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 positions, front desk agents for smaller properties, Valets Maintenance workers Maintenance, Housekeeping, and Front Desk Most challenging are skilled positions (mechanics, police officers, emergency dispatchers), although our seasonal landscaping has been a bigger challenge this year than normal. Need Skilled Carpenters/ Capable PMs No housing, poor work ethic Not currently, but anytime we have an open position Not really applicable Not right this minute Our hourly staff applicant pool is very shallow, as is the entire valleys. People can't afford to live here. Qualified Mechanic and Spray Tech Qualified tradespeople (Concrete, Masonry, skilled trades) willing to work in the mountains due to lack of affordable housing options. Recruiting for Line Service Technician position we are competing against bus drivers, construction \ laborer jobs, and electricians. Restaurant workers Restore Driver / Donations Ambassador - can't find someone with good driving record who can also meet physical demands and has good customer service skills. AmeriCorps members - no applicants - I think low unemployment means there are a lot of jobs and nobody wants to take a low paying / temporary AmeriCorps job when they can get something that pays more and is more stable/long term. RN, entry level positions are hard to recruit for when it comes to finding sustainable housing expenses for them and their families. See previous comment about needing professional people at compensation levels that make sense to them and us Seeking teachers with the educational background we require that can work for non-profit pay and still live in up valley. Senior financial positions, entry level positions Skill of showing up on time Skilled kitchen employees. Skilled trades positions are typically the hardest to fill. Specific skills as it relates to Recreation and child poop development Superintendent Tough work in crawlspace. Not easy to find people wanting to work on the hole Trades i.e. maintenance and seasonal work We have problems finding servers with the skills. We have a lot of problems just finding employees to work in the kitchen, skill set or not. We haven't had anyone apply for a position that has been available since early April. We mainly pull from larger employers as a part time position that than moves into a full time position. We struggle to recruit special education teachers, school psychologists, and counselors. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 Employee Experiences and Key Issues for Emolovers Perception of employees' experiences in finding reliable transportation and housing continue to change. Transportation saw a small improvement over the previous year, with 49% of employers saying their employees' experience finding reliable transportation to and from work is "excellent" or "pretty good" and 33% giving a negative rating. Frustration with housing held relatively stable, with nearly two-thirds of employers indicating "major frustration" and another 21 % saying "it could be better." Only 5% don't feel that housing is much of an issue. The housing results this year and last are the most negative they have been in the history of collecting this information. Employees' Experience Finding Reliable Transportation To and From Work 100% 50% 0% 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Employees' Experience Finding Housing They Desire at an Affordable Price 100% 50% 0% Excellent w Pretty Good Neutral/Don't Know r Could be Better Major Frustration 747._� 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 9 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Effect of Housing on Ability to Attract, Hire and Retain Employees 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 ■ Negatively Neutral Positively The effect of housing on the ability of businesses to attract, hire and retain employees improved slightly from the previous year, but is quite low overall. Specific comments made in this area include: #1 issue A lot of people are living out of their cars Available, and affordable, housing is the biggest issue for workers in the valley right now. Especially difficult for seasonal employees and those with families. Folk are choosing to live down valley and commuting so they can afford a place to live. Horrible, between NYMBY's VRBO's and lack of affordable housing construction cost will continue to grow Housing is the number one issue for retention and attraction and business growth I have put [named person] on the job of finding affordable homes for my co-workers. We just helped a 25 year-old buy in Edwards. It can be done if they focus. I live with my daughter in a one -bedroom apartment. Can't afford my own place. $38k a yr doesn't cut it. I usually avoid hiring employees who don't already have adequate housing and transportation Luckily our main employee rents and has long term. The other part time one owns their home Most employees and even managers live in Gypsum, Eagle and even Dotsero. Living close to work is not an economically intelligent option for many. Employees with families are more likely to live in either a mobile home or in apartments. My employees live with their parents still. But finding a new employee is difficult because housing is so tough to find. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 10 No such thing as affordable housing in this county... Our employees are not able to sustain a long term residency and employment with our company due to current housing prices. At some point they realize that it is too difficult to further their financial future, and leave eagle county entirely. Pricey. Rent is too high in Gypsum / Eagle area. Full time employees are not able to afford buying a home without assistance on a down payment. Simply. None available. Terrible situation in the surrounding area of Vail The ones who have been here a while are in a good position, the ones who don't own struggle They all have to live together! Housing is the main reason we see our employees moving away. Very few employees are able to afford to buy a place and many find it difficult to find housing elsewhere. We have prioritized this as a company and are currently building a new 63 unit building to add to our existing housing inventory. This will allow us to provide housing to more employees and not require shared bedrooms as we currently do (which very few adults want for their living situation). We cannot hire out of state employees planning to move to Colorado unless they have housing. Most cases they do not find housing. We have generally hired people already living here, but if we were hiring from outside, this would be a bigger issue. We've had new employees in the past not be able to find housing and had to rent an overpriced shared room from strangers to make it work. In 2016-17, items were added regarding availability of affordable child care and in 2017-18 items were added regarding affordable health care. These items are presented with the housing and transportation results in the section below for comparative purpose. As seen in the chart below, 65% of employers felt that health care is a problematic issue for their employees and 57% felt that child care is a problematic issue. Additionally, the percentage of employers using the "Major Frustration" category was higher for health care than for child care. At the same time, 27% of employers used the positive end of the scale to describe the health care experience for their employees, reflecting the fact that a number of businesses provide comprehensive coverage. For child care, only 10% of employers used the positive end of the scale to describe their employees' experiences. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 11 2018-19: Employees' Experience with Health Care, Child Care, Transportation and Housing 60% 50 40% 39% ■ Major Frustration ■ Could be Better Neutral/Don't Know ■ Pretty Good ■ Excellent 36% 33% 30% 26% 21% 20% 17% 10% 8% 10% 4% 0% 36% 26% 18% 13% 7% Health Care Child Care Transportation 65% 3% 4% Elm Housing The two charts below present the overall mean ratings on the four key issues presented to employers: reliable transportation, affordable child care, affordable health care, and affordable housing. These charts show that employee experiences are rated as lowest for housing, followed by child care, then health care, and transportation is rated as highest. In terms of perceived employee experiences, all issues moved in a negative direction from 2016-17 and 2017-18, then held relatively steady after that (note that health was new to the 2017-18 version of the survey). In terms of the impact of these issues on the ability to attract, hire and retain employees, housing was rated as significantly more problematic than child care or health care (the impact of transportation on hiring and retaining employees was not included on the survey). The impact of housing on hiring and retaining employees remained steady compared to the previous year, but health care and child care both declined. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 12 2.2 r M 1.4 r_ 1.2 cc Q a 1 Impact of Key Issues on Ability to Attract, Hire and Retain Employees by Year --D--Child Care Health Care* —ix --Housing 1.96 1.92 1.84 1.89 1.74 1.37 1.28 1.32 * New Item in 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 13 Employee Experience on Key Issues by Year m 3.5 a Transportation o — O N (Child Care v x 3 3.01 Health Care* N LV v --X--Housing2.69 2- 2.65 L O a) 0 2.5 2.14 2.1 a� 2.03 ` r_ a 2 MOM 1.92 .94 L 1.5 1.57 , 1.43 op 0,1.43 * New Item in 2017-18 1 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2.2 r M 1.4 r_ 1.2 cc Q a 1 Impact of Key Issues on Ability to Attract, Hire and Retain Employees by Year --D--Child Care Health Care* —ix --Housing 1.96 1.92 1.84 1.89 1.74 1.37 1.28 1.32 * New Item in 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 13 Businesses were asked to allocate $100 across 11 key issues in Eagle County. Not surprising and as shown in the chart below, housing received the highest mean dollar allocation at over double the amount of the next highest item. Health care, talent attraction, and talent retention also received relatively high mean allocations. In terms of comparisons to 2017-18 results, housing, talent attraction, and environmental sustainability/climate change saw small declines, while health care saw a sizable decline. Increases were seen for transit, early childhood tourism/visitation, state government regulations, and the macro -economic environment. Tourism/visitation saw the strongest increase over the previous year. If you had $100 to spend annually to address community- based barriers to your company's success, how would you allocate the money across the following issues? Housing Health Care $13.12 0$15.13 Talent Attraction $10.77 $11.81 Talent Retention $9.98 $9.95 Transit $6.55 $5.33 Early Childhood $5.91 $5.43 Env. Sustainability/Climate Change $5.34 $6.5 Tourism/Visitation $4.56 $3.16 State Government Regulations $3.53 $2.72 Local Government Regulations $2.59 $2.26 Macro -Economic Environment .773 $0.77 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 Mean Dollar Allocation $35.9 $40.00 Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 14 Pay, Traininq and Benefits The survey asked employers about their pay scale, job training and professional development, and about benefits they provide. The chart below shows that 99% of employers provide job training and professional development to new employees and 96% provide training for those who have been there more than 6 months. Not surprising, new employees get more training than those that have been there more than 6 months. About half of the employers indicated that investment in employee training is increasing at their company, but this is a decline from the previous year. 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% How much job training and other professional development do you offer... 47% ...new employees? 39% 34% .employees that have worked for you more than 6 months? Is company investment in employee training: 2017-18 2018-19 ■ None t Some Moderate Considerable Increasing Stable Decreasing No Investment Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 15 Most entities in Eagle County say the pay the same, or more, than similar businesses in other parts of the state. Additionally, as shown in the chart below, those who say they pay more than other parts of the state decreased slightly over the previous year, those who say they pay the same increased, and those that pay less declined slightly. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Perceived Pay Scale In Relation to Other Parts of Colorado ■ We pay less About the Same We pay more The following two charts show the percentage of businesses that offer various benefits asked about in the survey. Health insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, retirement, and employer sponsored retirement plans are offered by over half of the entities surveyed. 75% 50% 25% 0% Percentage of Businesses Offering the Following Benefits: Retirement Health Ins. Emp. + Fam. Dental Ins. Vision Ins. Life Ins. Health Ins. 2013-14 2014-15 ■ 2015-16 2016-17 ■ 2017-18 2018-19 Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 16 75% 50% 25% 0% Percentage of Businesses Offering the Following Benefits: Emp. Asst. Flex Time Emp.-Spons. Transp. Subs. Housing Subs. Recreational Prog. Retirement Benefit* 2013-14 2014-15 ■ 2015-16 2016-17 ■ 2017-18 2018-19 The Economy As shown in the two charts on the next page, business owners and managers continue to feel pretty good about the Eagle County economy in general as well as their own business health. However, perception of the Eagle County economy in general has been moving in a negative direction since 2013-14. Perception of one's own business health is always rated more positively than Eagle County in general and current results show slight to small changes when compared to the two previous years. Longer-term trends on perception of one's own business health show 2013-14 to be the most positive year and then stayed relatively stable thereafter. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 17 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Businesses Indicating the EC Economy in General is Better or Worse Off than in the Previous Year 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ■ Worse About the Same ■ Better than last year Businesses Indicating their Own Business Health is Better or Worse Off than in the Previous Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 18 Comments from survey respondents regarding the Eagle County economy in general are as follows: 2018/2019 about the same if not a little better. Much better than 2017. Expecting to level off. Businesses seem to be doing well, but staffing is suffering. The cost of living keeps going up and wages do not keep ace. Costs keep rising but not wages. I am making what I made two years ago when I started. Housing and labor shortages Cannot find qualified subcontractors Housing is harder to find and more expensive Housing too expensive and pay can't start to keep up I answer better because the housing market is strong - non tourist industry business growth is strong. I'd say worse off in the health insurance arena. Rental rates for housing also seem to be a bigger issue for my teachers. It is better and worse. Better- more work Worse- more work, same price to customer at a higher cost to contractor It is hard to gauge, but the costs of housing and healthcare make it very difficult for our employees. It's harder to be a working person in Eagle County right now because the cost of living keeps going up but wages aren't keeping pace with that growth Maybe a little better, seems people are spending a tiny bit more than they have in the past few years and travelling a bit more. Not enough adequate affordable housing inventory; not enough talented job applicants. The economy is doing great since the last election the snow helped this season with increased sales The work force is low and the demand for trades is high. Good companies can do very well we could use less skilled folks but the wages are too high for those folks. Worse for those seeking to own land / home. Comments from survey respondents regarding their own business health are as follows: Currently the spring and summer season numbers are down. Early Winter was down as well. It fluctuates ...lack of snow in 2018 was an issue. Affected tourism. We are up this year. Only because of the snow this year - we saw strong growth within our sales this winter. Our current staff has gained some stability and tenure and we have a clear strategic plan for growth that our constituency is in support of post renovation we are in a more comfortable spot. This past year was good for the hotel industry. Record snow fall and epic skiing conditions increase visitors and traffic through the airport. The snow helped. We are fully enrolled and retaining staff, however, once we lose staff everything will change. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 19 Predicting the Future The outlook for finding and retaining employees has held relatively stable since 2014-15. Currently, about 24% of respondents say finding and keeping employees will be worse next year, about the same as the prior year result. About 11 % predict it will improve, which is also about the same as the prior year. 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Predictions for Your Ability to Hire and Retain Employees in the Coming Year T 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Getting Worse About the Same Improving for Next Year Don't Know* * Don't Know was not offered as a response option starting in 2013-14. As seen in the charts on the next page, the outlook for the economy and one's own business health both improved somewhat when compared to the previous year. For Eagle County in general, the percent indicating "worse" decreased from 14% to 12% and those that said "better" increased from 14% to 17%. There was more optimism for respondents' own business health and those that that indicated "worse" decreased from 3% to 2% and those that indicated "better" increased from 33% to 40%. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 20 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Predictions for EC's Economy for the Coming Year 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ■ Getting Worse About the Same ■ Improving Trends ■ Don't Know* * Don't Know was not offered as a response option starting in 2013-14. Predictions for Own Business Health for the Coming Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 1 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ■ Getting Worse About the Same ■ Improving Trends ■ Don't Know* * Don't Know was not offered as a response option starting in 2013-14. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 21 Current Business Growth and Expansion Over half (58%) of businesses surveyed indicate that they expect to expand in the next three years. About 17% of businesses say they are considering expanding or diversifying into a different service sector, a 7% decrease from the previous year. At the same time, 89% of businesses say there are barriers to growth in this community and 45% say that they the anticipate federal state, or local legislation changes that will adversely affect their business in the next five years. The anticipated changes in legislation are shown in the table below, while comments regarding barriers to growth are shown in the table starting on page 22. Additional resources that would be beneficial to the businesses surveyed are listed in the table starting on page 25. Adverse Legislation Anticipated in the Next 5 Years: Colorado Legislation is working to a single payer health system which will crush our Insurance Industry and limit healthcare for its residents. Continued reduction of the Residential Assessment Rate Family leave fees (taxes) and other burdensome regulations at a state level. Transit improvements locally. FCC could change their policy on Radio Station ownership. Could be either a benefit or detriment. Funds are always subject to state funding hard to say health insurance and health care provider availability Hopefully: - Health care initiatives - improved / increased affordable housing - revamped public transportation I am sure something will happen. Immigration reform and ability to obtain visas. Increased federal excise tax on beer. Insurance, litigation, healthcare Legislation and compliance issues always have the opportunity to affect our work. Mandatory leave policy at state level may be difficult financially if passes Minimum Wage, Family Leave Act New Colorado Employment Laws Not aware of any, but not tracking Not legislation per se, but a recession will impact philanthropy and marketing spend. Not state or local, but federal real estate laws can always change the way we operate. Polis taxing us to death is not positive. And depending on 2020 election as far as business taxes ...we like it lower! Possible changes in H2B program and possibly having to provide housing for J -1s. Possibly expansion of liquor to other retail outlets Possibly, however we may see them improve aspects of our business. Namely the Camp Hale Legacy act, and how the implication will directly affect our permits and trail system. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 22 Property tax increases are a major factor Proposed amendments to TABOR and Gallagher could increase property taxes and have an adverse effect on 2nd homeowners interested in home remodel projects. Rising minimum wage TABOR and/or Gallagher Tariffs Tariffs Tax laws and Tariffs may affect us. Health Insurance too. Unknown if these changes will help or hurt us. Taxes and small business responsibilities for hiring more full-time staff (unemployment, healthcare, workers compensation). That is certainly very difficult to answer. Will the new governor's agenda be helpful, costly or neutral? Remains to be seen. Will local government actually help the housing situation? That is certainly an unknown at this time. The way in which the hospital is paid as well as greater transparency with billing / expenses. There is legislation underway to raise the minimum wage to $15 and abolish the current tip credit for restaurants by 2024. If this passes it will be disastrous for the restaurant industry. There is regularly employment related legislation that require additional resources or changes in business practices. Tipped minimum wage increase Town of Eagle's budget struggles. Unknown We are a bank.... We are constantly looking at and watching future legislation We are greatly affected by state level and legislative changes. Change always puts pressure on our processes and businesses. We are in the short=term/vacation rental business. Communities across the country are considering rules/regulations for this industry. In many cases the new rules are hostile to our business model. So far not the case here, but it's not impossible that it could change Barriers to Growth in the Community: Ability to attract young professionals due to high cost of living and limited affordable housing. Affordable Housing Affordable housing and medical expenses make it difficult for young workers to build a career in this valley so employee retention is always a challenge. Affordable housing for employees and cost of living is high Affordable housing, child care Affordable housing, comparable to cost of living, recruitment and talent retention. Affordable housing, duh Affordable Housing, Professional Workforce Affordable housing. We have to bring in employees from other parts of the state to work temporarily. Compensation and housing Complex equation of looking for professional people and being able to afford to pay them Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 23 commensurate with their experience and at a level that allows them to "live" here and not just survive Cost of housing & cost of salary to accommodate the overall premium we pay here in cost of living. Cost of health insurance. Cost of living being more than pay. Cost of child care. Healthcare costs. Lack of housing/ cost of housing. Difficult to grow when there is no place for retail workers to find housing that is less than half their monthly income. We pay a competitive rate with incentives and it's still very hard for employees to pay rent let alone love where they live. Employee housing and population base Employee Housing, Talent Pool Expanding services is challenging in that finding talent that already have housing or can make the move here is sometime difficult. Expanding staff this past year resulted in our agency reaching outside of the valley to find experienced professionals in the field from other areas. The high cost of living was a barrier to getting them to come. One even cancelled the day before his first day of work. Expansion is affected greatly by lack of labor, Lack of housing and end-user customers/developers not understanding the requirements to live in the valleys Finding quality job candidates Finding skilled talent. For hiring: professional employee pool & cost of living; For programming: venue & vendor cost Funding is always a challenge for non -profits but we work hard in this area; ability to hire staff - low unemployment & lack of affordable housing coupled with high cost of living have made this difficult in recent years Generally cost of living is perceived as barrier especially for married couples with children Grocery stores selling full strength beer Have to rely on contract labor to fill in gaps High cost of land, increasing construction costs, limited sellers allowing development, high population of residents traveling out of town (too few local jobs to support daytime shopping/eating for businesses).... Hiring quality long term employees Housing & healthcare costs, early childhood access and cost, need for local governments to improve housing development processes to facilitate smart growth Housing and employee costs. Housing and healthcare costs Housing crisis and lack of qualified applicants for open positions Housing expense, low unemployment, public transportation Housing verses wages Availability of housing Housing, both for families and employees. We have seen some growth in families in Vail with Chamonix development, we need both children and employees up Valley in order to sustain. Housing, Cost of getting here as guests, general cost of living - but it's a great place to live Housing, cost of living, available services, cost of healthcare Housing, cost of living, medical costs, immigration laws, large amount of job vacancies with few applicants due to the aforementioned challenges Housing, housing, housing. The expense of housing drives a need for higher wages and lowers the available workforce. Positions go unfilled. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 24 Housing, transportation. Housing, Wages keeping staff. The cost of living is high and the wages do not sustain the cost of living. Housing. It's hard to move here when you have to drop $6,000-$7,000 just to move in Housing. Expense. Cost. Housing/Cost of Living I have actually looked at other locations in the valley and am presently doing so, but do not feel comfortable that educated and hardworking employees are available to businesses in the area due to high cost of living and lack of affordable housing. In Eagle we are desperately short of housing for the 'missing generation'- Millennials. As a result our employers struggle to find and keep qualified staff. It is hard to find office managers with previous experience that don't expect an extremely high salary It is very difficult to find employees and it is very difficult for employees to find housing. Labor pool and high housing and wages Lack of affordable housing that is located close to hospital for clinical staff to be able to respond quickly to if necessary. Lack of child care with hours of operations that would accommodate 12 hour shifts. lack of professional employees that are here to stay, looking for a career not just seasonal short term employment Lack of qualified associates to fill management and professional roles, in addition the housing issue causes great strain on associates to remain in the valley and grow into senior positions. lack of staffing, expense of construction, housing for employees, sub base shrunk, healthcare costs, weather, transportation challenges on i70 and up and down the front range. Land & Economy Land is a limited commodity since our valley is surrounded by public land. Local and State legislative barriers continue to create barriers to growth. Many: - Cost of living - Health care - Public Transportation - Holding a strong profit margin that ensures business success Medical qualifications and certifications No affordable housing for those working in hourly positions for Vail resorts. Not enough people for the employee demand. Impossible to depend on an influx of qualified workers. only the available develop -able space limitations Over regulation Pay scale People not wanting it to become a cit which I agree with and affordable housing Permits for our tours within the white river national forest. Stricter regulations from Eagle County on our wedding program. Lack of services such as electricity, upgraded internet, and upgraded phone due to our location. Remoteness of our location. Rental housing and ownership market. Seasonality of work So many nonprofits and many of which are not open to collaboration Staffing Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 25 Staffing is a huge barrier Staffing, housing Talent pool, cost of living. The barriers we are up against are attracting, hiring, retaining good employees due to the high cost of living. We like to be on the leading edge of compensation in the Vail Valley and the cost of living is rising faster than company rowth. The community is built out..... Options for programing on existing facilities The cost of housing and difficulty in establishing in the area are barriers to getting qualified professionals who could make the same or more elsewhere with lower living costs. The main cost is real estate, which is on average 50% higher than the national average. This makes it difficult to pay staff a high enough wage to make up for this additional cost. We recommend that municipalities institute a universal basic income for county residents/workers to help ease this burden. The real estate market tends to be the biggest factor. Tight Labor Market Time to train for qualified and skilled workers. Time, money Town of Vail various limitations including housing, signage, parking Workforce housing continues to be our biggest challenge in recruiting and retaining employees. Yes and no. Finding qualified employees is hard for all businesses. No more or less for mine. I hired my first remote employee this year. He works from home in the front range. That may be a strategy I employ to expand in the future. Yes. High cost of land, construction materials, impact fees, costly approval process, narrow- mindedness, and extreme NIMBYish. Additional resources that would be beneficial: A larger candidate pool to choose from A list of available skilled contractors. Is this distinct from VVP directory? A network for housing. If you don't have a place to live how can you work in this valley. Commuting from Leadville or Glenwood seems a bit crazy. A state run family leave program would allow small employers to better compete with larger employers on benefits. Affordable and usable health insurance affordable housing light rail transportation AFFORDABLE HOUSING Affordable housing Affordable housing for employees Affordable housing, ease of transportation from down valley to Vail and Beaver Creek, better parking for employees Continued access to VVP information and resources, allowing more Miller Ranch type housing programs, transportation systems could develop better (carpool programs that allow a space for parking?) Continued efforts to create partnerships that provide workforce housing are essential. Continued leadership from VVF in areas political concern - family leave act, health insurance, wage surveys Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 26 Continuing education around non-profit administration (management, development, marketing, etc.). Continued networking support for collaboration, cooperation, shared resources, etc. Continuing Education. The more we, as business owners can share with each other, the better. County wide health plan; pool of employee housing for qualified employers Eagle/Gypsum area job fairs Employer driving housing initiatives or collaborations. Financial literacy classes Find ways to address the "cost of living" issues: housing, healthcare, childcare to help with employee retention. Finding and retaining quality employees, help with affordable housing so that they remain in the area Good insurance (health) for employees that have multiple PT jobs Health care education Housing database Healthcare resource, VVP is doing a great job, but its needs to be expanded. Housing opportunity Housing subsidies, stronger labor pool I think affordable healthcare either for employees to pay out of pocket, or for us to offer employees as a benefit. Getting a better handle on some sort of housing regulations in the county. Local health insurance co-op to negotiate better rates with local hospitals. More support for childcare centers to open more locations/increase staffing/take more kids. More mental health resources. Marketing/Promotion/Advertising assistance (from the TOV and/or the county). Real Estate cost subsidy (from TOV and/or County). More affordable housing. The valley is a great place to live, but not everyone can afford to live, work and start a family here. We have valuable employees that leave the valley after a year or 2 due to housing issues and no long term security. More choices for health insurance More collaboration between organizations rather than "Avon" ones, "Vail" ones, etc. More health care options. More housing options. Stronger work force More information on the health of businesses in general. More networking opportunities None Partnerships between government and business community for housing solutions Purchasing home / land assistance. Day care with earlier and later hours of operations at a more reasonable fee. Quality local housing which we could offer to employees who are considering moving to the valley. real solutions for health care and housing affordability issues The Town of Vail provides a significant amount of resources to us as do the CO State Library and other library -related networks, statewide. The VVP Business Insights Series held on May 15 and May 22 were beneficial and would attend similar workshops in the valley. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 27 We need more affordable health care for local businesses and we need our local governments, especially the county to help with the housing crisis. Elected officials need to actually vote for housing instead of just saying they will and then caving in to the NIMBYs in our community. Our county used to be a place of opportunity for new residents. It's becoming a retirement community for many who do not care about future vibrancy in our economy or community. We need the county and local governments to get into one room with business leaders and discuss options to improve our issues - if we work together we could accomplish so much. Survey Methodology Vail Valley Economic Development invited employers to participate in this research by sending them an email link to an online survey. Staff then placed follow-up "invitation to participate calls" to those companies and other entities that had not yet completed the survey, but were considered highly representative of the local business climate. The Vail Valley Partnership and its member associations included information and the survey link in their online newsletters, and area non-profit organizations were invited to weigh in. The survey was designed and tested by research staff, and distributed through Survey Monkey, an internet-based survey tool. Data was tabulated and analyzed using SPSS, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. This was an opt -in rather than a random sample or census survey, so a margin of error cannot be calculated. However, survey respondents represented small and large businesses of different types employing a large number of workers throughout the valley, and results can be used to assess trends in the Eagle County workforce. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 28 Conclusions Some conclusions from the 2018-19 Workforce Survey: ✓ Business owners and managers as a whole predict a small positive change in the economy in general for the upcoming year. This was also true for the vitality of one's own business and the magnitude of the positive trend was slightly larger. Similarly, a an improvement was seen among respondents in terms of opinions regarding current economic conditions in the County in general and current views on the health of their own business also moved slightly in a positive direction. ✓ Predictions about the ability to hire and retain employees in the upcoming year held relatively steady since the 2015-16 survey year. ✓ Frustration with housing continues to be a major issue, but has held relatively steady compared to last year. Negative opinions continue to run at an all time high. Nearly 3 out 4 businesses feel that the housing situation negatively impacts their ability to hire and retain employees and this issue was mentioned frequently when asked about barriers to growing their business in the community. ✓ Over half of the businesses feel that their employees have a negative opinion of the availability of affordable child care, an issue that was introduced to the survey for the first time in 2016-17. Close to 1 out of 3 businesses feel that lack of child care negatively impacts their ability to hire and retain employees. ✓ Two-thirds of the businesses feel that their employees have a negative opinion of the availability of affordable health care, an issue that was introduced to the survey for the first time last year. Almost 2 out of 5 businesses feel that lack of affordable health care negatively impacts their ability to hire and retain employees. However, a number of the businesses provide comprehensive coverage and 27% of respondents say their employees have a positive experience on this issue. ✓ Over half of the businesses surveyed indicate that they expect to expand in the next three years and about nearly 1 out of 5 say they are considering expanding or diversifying into a different service sector. However, nearly all of the businesses say there are barriers to growth in the county, with a large number of respondents providing open-ended comments in this area. Vail Valley Economic Development - Workforce Report 2019 29 valivallev PRRTOERSH/P'm EAGLE COUNTY BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION INTERVIEWS: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS MAY 20, 2019 ANDRE) A. BIRJULIN, PH.D. CONFLUENCE RESEARCH AND TRAINING, LLC I. Introduction In 2017, Eagle County Government commissioned Vail Valley Partnership to begin interviewing local businesses to better understand the climate in the county for improving retention and supporting future expansion. The focus of this effort is on primary businesses, that is, those that generate at least a portion of their revenue from sales and services outside of the county. While this is an ongoing effort, this interim report summarizes the findings from 68 businesses from throughout the county. Interviews were conducted by trained researchers in a face-to- face format using a well validated and highly reliable protocol developed by Blane, Canada Ltd. As seen in the chart below, there is representation of businesses from throughout the county, with the greatest number of interviews conducted in Avon, Edwards, Eagle, Gypsum, and Vail. Interviews were conducted with high level personnel within each organization, most commonly owners, CEOs/presidents, or high level directors/managers. 2.9%-\ 11.8% 16.2% 1.5%-Z Business Locations 20.5% 12.9% ■ Vail ■ Minturn `1.5% EagleVail 8.8% ■ Avon 22.1% Edwards Wolcott Eagle Gypsum Dotsero Basalt Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report - 2 II. Company Characteristics 100 90 80 70 c 60 50 a� a 40 30 20 10 0 Cycle of Company's Primary Product or Service 5 ■ Emerging .1% ■ Growing 20.5% ■ Maturing 17.9% ■ Declining 1■ 56.4% L.1 New Products or Services Past and Future 13.2 Introduced New Products/Services/Capabilities in the Last 5 Years New Products/Services Anticipated in the Next 2 Years Maybe ■ No ■ Yes Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 3 50 45 40 35 M E 30 0 4U 25 0 a� 20 U G -j 15 a 10 5 C Company Spending on New Product or Service Development as a Percent of Sales ■ None ■ 1%-2% YC' ■ Over 6% 18.9% 10.8% Product/Service Allocations by Spending Budget 1-2% 3-6% Over 6% All Categories Percent of Sales Dedicated to New Product or Service Development ■ New Product/Service Development ■ Product/Service Improvements Production/Efficiency Improvements Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 4 Company Investments in Last 3 Years to Increase Productivity by Operational Area 70 70.4 70.4 v CL 60 E 0 v 0 50 c 48.1 v a 40 — 30 Office Product/Service Production Sales/Marketing Distribution Development Changes in Ownership and Top Management 100 90 80 52.6 70 61.1 60 c No Change 50 a 5.3 Change Pending 40 Changed 30 16.7 20 42.1 10 22.2 0 Ownership Top Management More than half of primary businesses in Eagle County are in the growing phase of the life cycle and about one out of five are in the emerging phase. Very few local businesses are in a declining phase. Most businesses (87%) introduced new products or services in the past five Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report - 5 years and three out of four anticipate new products or services in the next two years. Over half of the businesses interviewed spend more than 6% of their sales budget on new product or service development. Local companies invest somewhat more in the areas of product/service development and sales/marketing, than in distribution, production and office operations. Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report - 6 Market Maximum Extent of the Company's Market 35.9% IN F 7.7% 30.8% 25.6% Total Company Sales 2.6% 10.5% 86.8% Local Only Regional National International ■ Increasing ■ Stable Decreasing Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 7 L are of the Company's Key Product or Service(s) 33.3% ■ Increasing ■ Stable Decreasing 66.7 Key Customers at Risk of Merging or Closing 66.7 Yes % No 33.3% Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report - 8 Plan to Expand in the Next 3 Years 23. 1--- 2.6% ■ Yes ■ No Maybe About one out of four businesses interviewed serve only the local market, 31% serve a regional market, and 36% have a national reach. Less than 10% have an international reach. Almost all businesses (87%) say sales are increasing and two-thirds says their market share is increasing. Three-quarters say that they plan to expand in the next three years, although few businesses could provide details such as the estimated total investment, amount of real estate needed, number of jobs added or lost, or the future operating space needs. Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 9 IV. Industry Merger, Acquisition or Divestiture Activity in Company's Industry ■ Increasing 33.3% 56% ■ Stable k■ Decreasing 61.1% Production or Service Market in Company's Industry 13.2% 47.4% Under Served Balanced Over Served 39.5% Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report - 10 60 50 40 20 10 0 Anticipated Federal, State or Local Legislation that will Impact the Business Adverse Beneficial Nearly two-thirds of businesses report merger, acquisition or divestiture activity in their industry. Close to half of businesses say that the service market for their industry is balanced and about 40% say is under served. About half of businesses say they anticipate Federal, State or Local legislation that will have an adverse impact. Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 11 V. Workforce 6 5.5 5 v 4.5 0 V 4 c v 3.5 3 2.5 2 Workforce Characteristics (1=Low, 7=High) 3.89 3.36 5.79 Availability of Workers Quality of Workforce Stability of Workforce Productivity in Local Operation ➢ 66.7% of companies interviewed are experiencing recruitment problems with employee positions or skills. Change in the Number of Unfilled Positions 56.4% ■ Increasing 7.7% ■ Stable ■ Decreasing 35.9% Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 12 Recruitment Problems Community -Based or Industry -Based? 22.7% 77.3° Community Industry Investment in Employee Training 0.0%, 13.9% 38.9% ■ Increasing ■ Stable Decreasing None 47.2% Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report - 13 Employee Trainining Areas by Change in Training Budget 60New Job Skills 55 61 63 62 Training 50 Proficiency Training v 45 — Q40 ■ Remedial Skills E 35 Training U 0 30 c 25 29 26 20 23 — a 15 — 16 10 12 5 g 0 Increasing Budget Stable Budget All Companies Ease with which Company Employees are Able to Find and Secure Suitable Housing (Mean=1.74) 25.6 10.3 2.6 2 3 4 5=Easy Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 14 Impact of Housing on Company's Ability to Attract, Hire and Retain Employees ■Negative 0.0% 17.9° 1q* 82.1% ■ Neutral Positive Workforce availability, quality and stability is concern for local businesses, with ratings in these areas all falling below the midpoint of the scale used to measure them. Follow-up analysis did not detect significant differences of these ratings based on location within the county. Two- thirds of the businesses are reporting recruitment problems and over one-third indicate that the number of unfilled positions is increasing. Most report that recruitment problems are rooted in lack of suitable employees in the community rather than the lack of employees in the industry as a whole. Nearly half of local businesses are increasing their investment in employee training, with new job skills training the primary area of focus. Not surprisingly, ease with which company employees are able to find suitable is rated quite low, with 56% giving it the lowest score possible and 82% indicating housing has a negative impact on their ability to attract, hire and retain employees. Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 15 VI. Facilitators and Barriers of Success A. Community Strengths as a Place to do Business • People who live here/Tight knit community/Quality of relationships: 34% (N=23) • Ski industry connection/Vail and Beaver Creek brand: 24% (N=16) • Lifestyle/Quality of Life: 21% (N=14) • Access to tourism market/International market: 16% (N=11) • Town government responsiveness/progressiveness: 15% (N=10) • Community support for local businesses: 15% (N=10) • Central location/Location within Colorado: 15% (N=10) • Environmental quality/Beauty: 15% (N=10) • Proximity to 1-70: 10% (N=7) • Local culture: 7% (N=5) • Entrepreneurial atmosphere: 7% (N=5) • Airport: 7% (N=5) • Small community: 4% (N=3) • County government: 4%, (N=3) • Workforce quality: 4%, (N=3) • Moving toward a year-round economy: 3%, (N=2) • Local non-profit efforts: 3%, (N=2) • Working on housing solutions: 3%, (N=2) • Employment opportunities: 3%, (N=2) • Other: Workforce quality: 18%, (N=12) B. Community Weaknesses as a Place to do Business • Lack of affordable housing: 35% (N=24) • Limited workforce availability: 28%, (N=19) • High cost of living: 28%, (N=19) • Commercial real estate cost/availability: 25%, (N=17) • Freight/shipping costs and/or schedule: 18%, (N=12) • Poor quality of workforce pool: 18%, (N=12) • Issues specific to Vail: 15%, (N=10) • Lack of high paying jobs: 13%, (N=9) • Transportation and/or travel issues issues/1-70 closures: 10%, (N=7) • Parking: 7%, (N=5) Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 16 • Zoning/Other regulations: 7%, (N=5) • Limited networking opportunities: 4%, (N=3) • Small market: 4%, (N=3) • Upstream resources are lacking locally: 3%, (N=2) • Seasonality: 3%, (N=2) • High healthcare costs: 3%, (N=2) • Poor infrastructure: 3%, (N=2) • Poor school funding: 3%, (N=2) • Mail delivery to PO boxes: 3%, (N=2) • Other: 13% (N=5) C. Barriers to Growth in the Community • None: 13%, (N=9) • Transient workforce/low quality workforce: 31% (N=21) • Affordable housing: 25% (N=17) • Real estate costs: 24% (N=16) • Industry specific issues: 10% (N=7) • Lack of land: 7% (N=5) • Regulations/Zoning: 4% (N=3) • Cost of living: 4% (N=3) • Local economic health: 4% (N=3) • Low population density/small market: 4% (N=3) • Reluctant lenders: 3% (N=2) • Seasonality: 3% (N=2) • Shipping: 3% (N=2) • Slow population growth: 3% (N=2) • Lack of warehouse space: 3% (N=2) • Poor internet access: 3% (N=2) • Lack of marketing opportunities: 3% (N=2) • Other: 3% (N=2) D. Reasons the Community May Not be Considered for Future Expansion • None: 34% (N=23) • Limited workforce: 13% (N=9) Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report - 17 • Regulations: 7% (N=5) • Warehousing/Commercial real estate costs: 4% (N=3) • Cost of living: 3% (N=2) • Tight margins: 3% (N=2) • Cost of land: 3% (N=2) • Unreliability of snow/climate change: 3% (N=2) • Water issues: 3% (N=2) • Limited networking: 3% (N=2) • Market saturation: 3% (N=2) • If local economy declines: 3% (N=2) • Other: 3% (N=2) E. Summary All interviewees articulated both strengths and weaknesses in conducting business in the local community. The greatest strengths include the tight knit community, the connection to the ski industry, and the quality of life. Overall, businesses were able to articulate a greater number of strengths than weakness. When considering the weaknesses, barriers to growth, and reasons the community might not be considered for future expansion, several common themes emerged. The lack of affordable housing, high cost of living and the impact this has on local workforce quality and worker availability were discussed relatively frequently. The high cost of commercial real estate and lack of availability were other areas of concern for local businesses. Some businesses also are challenged by less frequent shipping schedules and/or high shipping costs. While challenges exist for the majority of businesses interviewed, about one out of three said that there are no reasons the community may not be considered for future expansion. Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report - 18 VII. Local Technological Infrastructure and Community Services ➢ 89.7 percent say the community's technology infrastructure is adequate for the company's growth plan. ➢ 64.9% say that that there is emerging technology that will substantially change either the company's primary product/service or how it is developed. Most (88.9%) say the emerging technology is positive, 3.7% say it is negative, and 7.4% say it is both positive and negative. Water Sewer Natural Gas Electric Telecom Cellular service Internet Access Internet Speed Satisfaction With Utility Providers 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Mean Score (1=Low, 7=High) Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 19 C� 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Mean Score (1=Low, 7=High) Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 19 Change in Utility Use ■ Increasing ■ Stable Decreasing ■ NA Water Sewer Natural Gas Electric 7.9 _ Telecom 12.1 _ Cellular service .7 Internet Access Internet Speed El.6 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Businesses are quite satisfied with water, sewer, natural gas, and electric utilities, but are much less satisfied with telecomm, cellular service, Internet access, and Internet speed. Given that they also report increasing use of cellular service and the Internet translate into areas where future improvements would have a direct benefit to local businesses. Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 20 Quality of Life/Community Services Police Protection Fire Protection Ambulance Paramedic Service Health Care Services Child Care Services School (K-12) Community College Public Transportation Traffic Control Streets and Roads (Local) Highways (State & Federal) Airline Passenger Service Air Cargo Service Trucking Property Tax Assessment Zoning & Building Permits Regulatory Enforcement Community Planning Other Community Services Other County Services Municipal Chamber of Commerce Vail Valley Partnership Workforce Services 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 Mean Score (1=Low, 7=High) Eogle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 21 VIII. Conclusions and Next Steps Participants were quite engaged in the interview process and were encouraged that there were stakeholders in Eagle County Government and in the business support community that were interested in understanding their experiences with running and growing a business in this community. Again, it is important to note that this effort focused, to the greatest extent possible, on primary businesses that generate at least a portion of their revenue from sales of products or services conducted outside of county. This means that certain sectors and/or businesses that solely exist in the county to serve the tourist industry, such as hotels and most restaurants, or solely serve the needs of local residents were deliberately omitted from the potential sample pool. At the same time, the county has a relatively small pool of what would be considered true primary businesses and therefore, this effort utilized a somewhat wider selection of business sectors than what might be done in higher density metropolitan areas. This is reflected in the fact that about 25% of the businesses that were interviewed reported that all of their revenue was from sales from within the county. Some of these non -primary businesses were chosen because although 100% of their sales are local, they attract regional customers from outside of the county who come to their local facility for a unique product or service. Overall, there was considerable variability of responses based on industry sector and where the company was in terms of its life cycle. There were also some important differences that emerged between specific municipalities. For example, running a business in Vail or Beaver Creek has unique challenges not seen elsewhere in the county. However, true primary businesses are unlikely to locate their main operation in these resort towns due to the high cost of commercial real estate. Elsewhere in county, interview participants even underscored significant differences between neighboring towns, such as Eagle and Gypsum. Because this project is an ongoing effort, this summary is the first in a series of reports to better understand policies and supports needed to retain primary businesses in the county, facilitate their growth, and attract other primary businesses from outside the county to locate here. Additional interviews will be conducted throughout 2019 and as the sample size increases, the ability to disaggregate the results by key variables will also increase. These variables include: industry sector, select municipalities within the county, where the business is in its life cycle, the maximum extent of the business's market, change in sales for the business over time, as well as other key variables that may emerge during the course of future analyses. Eagle County Business and Retention Interviews: Summary Report — 22 Suggestions for East Vail Work Force Housing Subdivision (Booth Heights) Mitigation Measures August 5, 2019 Gene Byrne, Rick Kahn, and Melanie Woolever, Consulting Wildlife Biologists We have been retained by the Town of Vail to provide recommendations on the proposed Booth Heights development in East Vail that will provide workforce housing and other development. Our recommendations focus primarily on impacts to bighorn sheep but also are relevant to mule deer, elk, black bear, peregrine falcons and other wildlife species. We realize that some of these mitigation suggestions may not be the responsibility of the proponent but may instead fall on the CPW, TOV or U.S. Forest Service to implement. However, we believe that they are important for the long-term sustainability of this sheep herd and other wildlife species. Due to the already limited winter and transitional range for bighorn sheep and the relatively small number of sheep in this herd, our collective view is that finding another location for this development would offer the best mitigation for this sheep herd. We encourage revisiting the evaluation of the 11 development sites previously studied and subsequently dismissed prior to this project being proposed. One or more of those sites might be preferable. We realize this may not provide a viable alternative. We offer the following mitigation recommendations for the Booth Heights location. Please keep in mind that the impacts to this already struggling bighorn sheep herd as a result of this development might not be able to be mitigated. Based upon our collective experience, most wildlife mitigation efforts do not provide the intended mitigation result. There is no certainty, even with these measures, that this herd will be able to sustain itself considering the human disturbance -associated impacts related to this development. ON-SITE High Importance • Obtain a conservation easement on 17.9 -acre NAP providing for general wildlife. We do not consider these acres winter bighorn sheep habitat although area does provide for some bighorn sheep movement. This area does provide mule deer summer range, elk summer and winter range, black bear habitat and other wildlife habitat. It needs to be protected on this basis. • Move the bus stop, including the pedestrian access route, to the east end of the property. • Prohibit trails to NAP, TOV lands and USFS lands, with a cooperative year-round area closure. • Provide a buffer zone along Pitkin Creek trail to protect bighorn sheep winter range if any vegetation work is done in the NAP. • Schedule dirt work and major construction for summer -time months while also avoiding peregrine falcon conflicts from June 1 to Nov. 15. These dates could be modified if new CPW information regarding bighorn sheep use is obtained. • Use rigorous enforcement and signage rather than a fence on the rock berm. A fence could be added if CPW indicates the need has arisen. • Revegetate the rock berm area with grasses and shrubs that will provide bighorn sheep winter forage. • Open a migration corridor on the west side of the rock berm area that will allow bighorn sheep to access the rock berm. • Ban dogs domestic sheep and domestic goats from the development area. We understand that ADA service animals are an exception, Medium Importance Consider reducing the number of units in the development. Intuitively, fewer people moving about the area will reduce the impact on bighorn sheep. Quantifying the degree of impact reduction is difficult. Lower Importance • Open the forest canopy in the NAP using a shelter wood cut, stacking and burning, prescribed fire or other workable solutions. This will benefit deer, elk and other some other wildlife species but likely will have limited benefits for bighorn sheep. • Remove jackstraw trees in NAP to benefit deer and elk using the area. OFF-SITE High Importance Establish a Colorado Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Special District (C.R.S. Title 32) that will have an elected board of directors from the Vail Valley. The special district could include all or most of the Vail Valley from East Vail to Edwards. The taxpayer funded revenues could be used to finance future wildlife enhancement projects, wildlife studies and purchase wildlife habitat and conservation easements within the local defined area. The special district is a unique and groundbreaking approach to wildlife management and mitigation which recognizes that all people, developers, business owners, homeowners and visitors have impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat and all should be involved in mitigating those cumulative and collective impacts and help to sustain this valuable resource. Establish a mitigation fund for enhancement and protection of bighorn sheep habitat. We suggest a minimum of $50,000/year for the 10 -year period. This could be proponent funded or a partnership with the developer, residents and/or visitors. The habitat fund concept would provide for long-term evaluation (10 -year monitoring listed below) and the long-term, repeated habitat enhancement that will be required to maintain bighorn sheep habitat conditions. It would also provide a funding source to address potential post -development impacts. Immediately help fund a bighorn sheep movement study in cooperation with CPW, USFS and the proponent to determine how sheep are using the Booth Creek areas. By using GPS collars and with an adequate sample size, the TOV and CPW could better understand the importance of the area, where other potential habitat treatments could be considered, sub -groups of sheep that might have differing movement patterns and also sources of mortality including potential disease issues that could help determine impacts of development. • Focus treatments and habitat enhancements around prime bighorn sheep ranges e.g. Booth Creek cliffs on the East and West sides of Booth Cr on both TOV and FS habitat. • Burn or cut, stack and burn to open -up aspen woodlands. Burning will be most effective and cheapest alternative. Both options should be used to ensure prescribed fire safety. 2 • Treat burn areas with herbicide effective in preventing native vegetation from being replaced by cheat grass and other noxious weeds post -burn. • Investigate methodologies to allow for prescribed fire. Hotter fires will likely be more effective in achieving bighorn sheep habitat improvement in this area. It is expected that this will require public/private partnerships. • Prohibit bike paths and sidewalks along the frontage road in the Booth Creek area. In the event they are allowed, close them during the winter to facilitate bighorn sheep use. • Work with USFS and TOV to set up a winter closure on the Booth Creek area to prevent human recreation use. • Work with USFS to prohibit dogs year-round on the Booth Creek area. Medium Importance • Remove jackstraw timber. Burning would be most effective and cheapest, but there may be a need to cut, stack and burn some areas to establish adequate fire lines. • Cut/maintain migration corridors suggested in the 1998 USFS habitat plan. • Consider fertilization. It might be wise to do a treatment/control study to determine efficacy of treatments. Remember that fertilization will be an ongoing project if the desired vegetation response is necessary in the long-term. Lower Importance • Consider using salt or other supplements to keep bighorn sheep away from the frontage road and 1-70. • Encourage CPW to update current CPW wildlife maps to reflect the current distribution and use patterns. We do not believe they currently have the data to do this. The study listed in the High Importance section will inform this. However, if the study is not done, CPW should update the maps to the best of their ability. 3 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff memo PEC19 0017 FINAL.pdf Mauriello Letter 6-7.pdf MOC Letter.pdf TOV code change 7.15.19.0 20190718 TOV CodeAmend Landscaping.pdf Description Stsff Memo Public Comment Letter Mauriello Public Comment Letter_OCONNOR Public Comment Letter—Eagle River Public Comment Letter ERWSD 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark SUMMARY The Community Development Department is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to amend definitions in Title 12 and Title 14 to remove redundant definitions and clarify the code. This ordinance also seeks to update the definition of landscaping to include permeable surfaces and relocate the 20% provision from Title 12 Definitions to Title 14 under landscaping regulations, as guided by the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, "Action Plan". DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Community Development Department is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for amendments to Sections 12-2-2, 14-2-1, and 14-10-8, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of redundant definitions and update of the definition for what qualifies as landscaping. The proposed changes to the landscaping regulations were developed in concert with the Environmental and Sustainability Department. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The Community Development Department proposes the following language to be added to Title 12 and Title 14, respectively, bold is new and is removed - 12 -2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have the specific meanings as defined in this section. All words, terms, and phrases not otherwise defined herein shall be qiven their usual and customary meanings, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. ADMINISTRATOR: The admipistrat&r director of the department of community development or their designee. DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single-family, two-family or multiple -family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Any surface that cannot effectively absorb or infiltrate rainfall; for example, sidewalks, rooftops, roads, and parking lots. LANDSCAPING: Natural or significant rock outcroppings, native vegetation, planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flowerbeds and ground cover. Impervious surfaces are not counted as landscaped areas. shall be deemed , (29,04) of the PERVIOUS SURFACE: A pervious surface is a surface that allows the infiltration of water into the underlying soil. Pervious surfaces include grass, mulched groundcover, planted areas, permeable paving as well as porches and decks erected on pier foundations that maintain the covered lot surface's water permeability. Underground parking rooftops may be able to meet the standard for a pervious surface. Pervious surfaces do not include any structure or building, any porch or deck that limits the covered lot surface from absorbing water, or any outdoor stairs, on -grade surface sports court, swimming pool, artificial turf, sidewalk or patio constructed of concrete, asphalt, brick, compacted gravel or other material that impedes the infiltration of water directly into the subsurface of the lot. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL • • The bedy respeRsible Town of Vail Page 2 The board established by title 3, chapter 2 of this code. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- An Advisory Master Plan for the development of the Town of Vail. The Vail Comprehensive Plan is a compendium of numerous planning documents that are updated, amended and adopted as needed by Vail Town Council. An up-to-date list of adopted plans shall be kept by the Community Development Department and made publically available. ■... email NRA� 11 ON _1111 W-1 M,0-9 WN tole .4 WIL 14 - Chapter 2 DEFINITIONS 14-2-1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: IRWIN Town of Vai I Pagi 1 ► ■ 1 1 1 . r Town of Vail Page 4 Town of Vail Page 5 14-6-7: RETAINING WALLS: A. General: All retaining walls are reviewed by the design review board or the administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography and the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six feet (6). Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of three feet (3'), unless related to -assess development of a structure constructed on excessive slopes (in excess of 30 percent) and meets the standards prescribed in 14-10-3. Retaining walls associated with a street located within a public right of way or access to an underground covered parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be approved by the design review board. 14-10-8: LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL: L. Pervious core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, underground parking structures and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area may be utilized to meet the landscape requirement. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board held three separate work sessions to review the proposed text amendment. The board is supportive of the language submitted to the PEC for their review. The Design Review Board (DRB) has no formal review over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Town of Vail Page 6 Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 12-1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12-1-2: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a mannerthat vull conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the follovung more specific purposes.- 1. urposes:1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. Town of Vail Page 7 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect WIdlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, adopted by the Vail Town Council March 15, 2016 (in part): EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLAN GOALS AND FORMAT The Gore Creek Action Plan (Plan) provides a framework for Town of Vail initiated actions designed to address current water quality impairments and aquatic health issues affecting Gore Creek and its tributaries. Because these impairments are not attributed to a single pollutant through extensive research by many entities, Plan actions target the three known causes of degradation, including.- - ncluding: • Pollutants from land use activities, commonly referred to as urban runoff, which many times has direct drainage pathviays to Gore Creek or its tributaries • Drainage from impervious surfaces, which multiplies the effects of land use practices, especially in areas where there is little opportunity for infiltration and treatment of accumulated surface pollutants RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Nonpoint source pollution in diverse locations across the vlatershed drives water quality impairments observed in Gore Creek. Unlike a single point source of pollution, individual contributions from residential, commercial orpublic properties (including transportation routes) are probably not significant enough to singlehandedly cause the observed degradation in aquatic health. However, the collective impact of pollution from these 1 Pollutants from Land Use Activities The WQIP indicates that a variety of common land use activities contribute to pollutant loading on Gore Creek. These include: soil disturbance on construction sites, application Town of Vail Page 8 of herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers on residential properties or public spaces,- application paces,application of deicing products to roadviays, deposition of fine metal dust and accumulated hydrocarbons by vehicles on roadviays and parking lots, and use of detergents and solvents for cleaning Wndows and other commercial and residential surfaces (1). Application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides to near -stream locations, overhanging vegetation, and landscaped surfaces that quickly drain to stormwater systems contribute varying loads of toxins to the stream ecosystem (25). In particular, many plant and insect pest management chemicals exhibithigh toxicity to fish and aquatic insects (32). Chemical treatments applied to near -stream vegetation may quickly move to the stream during snomelt and precipitation events and eventually find their way into aquatic food webs. Other pollutants like motor oil, cleaning solvents, etc. deposited onto impervious surfaces like roads can also be carried into Gore Creek and its tributaries where they may negatively affect aquatic habitat and water conditions important for healthy macroinvertebrate communities 2 Drainage from Impervious Surfaces The effects of land use practices are multiplied by the amount of impervious surface coverage in the viatershed, and the location of particular activities relative to Gore Creek or connected stormwater infrastructure. Increases in the amount of hardened, impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, parking lots, and pedestrian walkways are one of the most visible impacts of urbanization. Pollutant deposition on these surfaces results from vehicle traffic, airborne deposition, building maintenance, road maintenance, and many of the other activities described above. Due to low surface roughness characteristics and a lack of infiltration, snow melt and intense precipitation events intercepted by impervious surfaces rapidly mobilize accumulated pollutants, moving them toviards Gore Creek and its tributaries. Transport of the generated runoff to rivers and streams occurs via the town's stormvLeter drainage infrastructure or as sheet flow across the land surface. Both pathviays are capable of delivering water loaded Wth excessive sediment, nutrients, hydrocarbons, dissolved metals, detergents, bacteria pathogens, and complex organics like pesticides and herbicides directly to receiving vlaters (3). REGULA TORY CONSEQUENCES OF WA TER QUA LITY DEGRA DA TION Regulatory action by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) in 2012 resulted in the listing of Gore Creek on the Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. This listing resulted from application of the WQCC's Aquatic Life Use Attainment Methodology (Policy Statement 10-1) to macroinvertebrate sample data collected at numerous locations along Gore Creek through the Town of Vail. WQCC guidelines describe specific protocols for analyzing and assessing benthic macroinvertebrate data using a Multi -Metric Index (MMI). Between 2009 and the 303(d) listing of Gore Creek in 2012, data collection Town of Vail Page 9 activities yielded twelve failing MMI scores between East Vail and the Eagle River. These results provided WQCC Wth ample evidence of significant water quality impairments on the creek. During the 2012 Section 303(d) listing process, WQCC assigned a "provisional" status to the aquatic life impairments on Gore Creek, indicating that the exact cause of the impairmentwas unknown. CDPHE subsequently initiated a 10-yearprocess to identify and resolve the observed degradation of aquatic life health conditions. Specific pollutant(s) of concern identified through this investigative process vull eventually be targeted by the State of Colorado as the primary source(s) of water quality degradation and subsequently become subject to more stringent controls and permit limitations via implementation of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulatory mechanism (26). If specific pollutant(s) of concern are not identified, no TMDL vull be implemented but Gore Creek W11 remain on the 303(d) list indefinitely or until water quality conditions improve. The Town of Vail is committed to restoring the quality of the water in Gore Creek to ensure it is removed, and is never again listed, on the Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Opportunity exists for the Town and other local partners to act on the findings of the WQIP before CDPHE and WQCC conclude their investigative process and, potentially, implement TMDL on Gore Creek. Additionally, waiting for the results of the WQCC effort W11 allow existing causes of impairment to continue unabated and may complicate the task of eventually resolving them. Local action to address water quality impairments has the potential to impro ve conditions, protect existing water uses, and maintain a higher degree of local control in water resource management decision- making processes. This opportunity provides the primary motivation for development of the GAP. A. MAINTAIN SITE HYDROLOGY Increased impervious area associated Wth most urban development can dramatically alter the timing and magnitude of runoff from development sites during precipitation events and snomelt runoff. Effective site planning can help infiltrate runoff and filter pollutants while significantly reducing the size of controls required for retaining runoff and sediment on a development site. Existing Town regulations provide guidance for assessing and designing sites to minimize impacts of impervious surfaces and building footprints. Further clarification of existing regulations wall reduce water quality risks associated Wth post -development runoff by promoting site design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate or detain runoff. E. REDUCE IMPERVIOUS AREA AND IMPLEMENT RUNOFF CONTROLS Impervious areas convey significant amounts of runoff, carrying pollutants quickly across Town of Vail Page 10 the land surface or through storm viater conveyance systems to Gore Creek and its tributaries. Pollutant loading from impervious surfaces can be effectively reduced through disruption of the pathviays that link these areas to waterbodies. Routing of urban runoff into bioretention structures, over lawns or through other vegetated areas greatly increases infiltration and opportunities for uptake and transformation of pollutants. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques intend to mimic the natural pre -development drainage patterns and include curbless roads, networks of grassy swa/es to convey runoff, and bioretention areas (Wth drop inlet structures where necessary to convey concentrated floor during larger storm or runoff events) (12). Pervious or porous pavements promote infiltration while providing a hardened surface for pedestrians or vehicles. Use of LID techniques produces discernible improvements to the quantity and quality of urban runoff generated from a property. Current Town regulations require parking areas to be paved. Design standards require runoff generated from impervious surfaces to be directed to natural or improved drainage channels or dispersed to shallow sloping vegetated areas. However, hardscape areas are not well defined as impervious by Town's development standards. Hardscape areas may be included in satisfying the required landscaping standards of any zone district, provided they do not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total landscape area. For many properties - particularly those adjacent to Gore Creek - the existing standard should be reconsidered with an emphasis on the use of LID's to minimize the use of impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed regulation amendment does not have any immediately identifiable environmental impacts. The expectation over time however, is that redevelopment will use more permeable surfaces in place of impervious surfaces which will have a positive impact on Gore Creek by filtering pollutants out before the water enters the creek. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for "promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality" This text amendment is intended to advance these purposes by providing clear standards in the zoning code by removing repeated definitions and provided one clear Town of Vail Page 11 definition for words used in the code. This added clarity will help to improve customer service as residents will be able to more easily navigate through the code and staff will be more effective in finding relevant sections applying them and answering questions about them. In addition, the text amendment seeks to implement a recommendation from the Action Plan adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016 to reduce impervious surfaces. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve 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 The proposed text amendment will provide the community, as well as anyone who references the code, clear standards for planning and development review that can be applied consistently. The Action Plan identified several areas in which the zoning and development code could be amended to better promote Vail's sustainability and environmental goals, especially as they pertain to protecting the health of the creek. The proposed text amendment seeks to achieve this by amending the provision for landscaping to encourage more permeable surface to better filter water and mitigate runoff to keep pollutants from entering the creek. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The landscaping regulations were originally adopted in the late 1980s and have not changed substantively since. As the code is currently written, up to 20% of the required landscaping can be impervious surfaces such asphalt or impervious concrete materials. The existing 20% regulation is no longer appropriate. As evidenced by the listing of Gore Creek on the State's 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, the existing zoning and development codes have not sufficiently encouraged development in a manner that is consistent with town goals. While the degradation of the water quality in the creek is not attributed to a single pollutant, pollutants from land use activities and drainage from impervious surfaces have been identified as two main contributors. Town Council's mission is to "Grow a vibrant, diverse economy and community and preserve our surrounding natural environment." The town is committed to taking measures to ensure that Gore Creek is never placed on the 303(d) list again and have outlined a number of strategic actions to restore the water quality in the creek. Removing as much impervious surface as possible was identified as a goal in the council -adopted Action Plan. For these reasons, changing the landscaping requirement is appropriate to better align with stated town goals. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, Town of Vail Page 12 workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and By increasing consistency and removing redundancy in the zoning code, the proposed text amendment would promote a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. The text amendment does not conflict with other existing land use documents or municipal development objectives. While there is a concern regarding the creation of nonconforming properties as a result of the landscaping change, the code contemplates these circumstances and allows for legal nonconformities to be repaired and maintained. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed Town of Vail Page 13 regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section 111 of the July 22, 2019 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 amendmentis consistent with 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 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, and 3. That the amendmentpromotes 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." Town of Vail Page 14 Ashley Clark From: Dominic Mauriello <dominic@mpgvail.com> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 5:18 PM To: Ashley Clark; Jonathan Spence; Chris Neubecker; Matt Gennett Cc: Matt Mire Subject: Proposed Amendment to Definition of Landscape Area Attachments: Additional_Sheet.pdf, ATT00001.htm Dear staff, PEC, and Town Council We have reviewed the proposed changes to the definitions be proposed by staff. By and large, these look like appropriate changes. I believe much of the confusion in definitions was generated when the Town adopted the Development Standards Handbook, which was intended as more of an assemblage of requirements handed to architects and builders, into the Town Code as Title 14 without removing or cleaning up the text to make it suitable for codification. We believe there is a significant problem with the proposed amendment that changes the definition or requirement for Landscaping. The current definition of Landscaping has been in the Town Code in its current form for at least 25 years and probably longer. The current definition allows that 20% of what is considered landscaping or landscape area be in the form of sidewalks, fountains, retaining walls and other impervious surfaces. Many properties have been developed throughout the Town that comply with this current definition. The proposed definition eliminates the ability to count 20% of the landscape requirement as these hardscape and impermeable improvements by requiring them to be "pervious surfaces." While in the abstract this seems like a great idea, what this change will do is make many properties in Vail "nonconforming" and restrict an owners ability to make improvements to their property. The provision reduces what is considered landscaping today on every property in the Town. Whether a single-famly lot or a large commercial property in the core, each will automatically be reduced in landscape area. That would severely restrict one's ability to make landscape changes in the future and could have substantial financial implications for relatively minor projects. Based on the trend of the PEC today, I believe it would be nearly impossible to justify a variance to this standard based on the variance criteria so the idea that there is some relief available isn't true in practice. As one example, this change would cause the Vail Marriott Resort property to be nonconforming. The Marriott obtained approval last year to make significant improvements to the landscape and pool deck to enhance this property. The calculation of landscape area on this project was critical and without the ability to count 20% of the landscape requirement as hardscape, the project could not occur. Another issue that this proposed definition does not address is landscaping and hardscape that exists on top of a parking structure or building that is below grade. Many projects in Vail have landscape areas on the surface that are underlain with below grade parking. These areas have always been allowed to be counted toward the landscape requirement, yet the parking structure below is certainly impermeable. Examples include: Arrabelle, Solaris, Sonnenalp, Vail Health, and Vail Marriott. While I understand the goal of reducing the impact of paved surfaces on the environment and specifically on the issue of groundwater recharge, I believe there could be better ways to achieve this goal without rendering a significant number of properties in the Town nonconforming. Maybe there is a carrot method that could be used rather than the stick method like encouraging the use of pervious surfaces by giving a bonus of 5% to the percentage of landscape area that can be pervious surface IF one uses 100% pervious surface materials, or something like that. Our recommendation is to not change the definitions related to Landscaping. Thank you for taking the time to consider our input. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com From: Michael0"Connor To: Ashley Clark Cc: Matt Gennett Subject: Change in definition of Landscaping Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 7:03:48 PM Hi Ashley. I wanted to weigh in on the proposed change to the Landscaping definition as it relates to impervious space. The cost -benefit of this change does not add up to me. I'm afraid we are going to make the approved site plan of so many previously approved projects non -conforming and handcuff them from changes to landscaping, etc. in the future. I believe the Town's landscaping guidelines are first and foremost in place to encourage quality landscaping that is attractive outdoor space. Hardscapes are a very important part of those plans for heavily used areas. The Village Core areas are perfect examples of this. Attractive landscaped areas with very little pervious space. Water quality was a distant second in importance when those guidelines were drawn up - and those guidelines still did a good job of this by committing 80% of landscaped areas to impervious areas. I'm not sure what is driving this change, but the negatives are big - many potential nonconforming uses, discouraging outdoor public gathering spaces and amenities like pools and water features and landscaped areas on top of parking garage, etc. And the positive impact of swapping what amounts to a small amount of hardscape in each project is not going to move the needle from a water quality standpoint if that is the main driver. Let's stick with the current code language which serves us well today. WIN Michael O'Connor Triumph Development w: 970.688.5057 m: 240.793.6405 12 Vail Road - Suite 700 - Vail, CO - 81657 michaelntriumphdev. c om www.triumphdev.com EagleRiver (ij Watershed Council In9 July 15, 2019 Dear Vail Town Council, 330 Broadway, Unit D PO Box 5740 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Advocates for our rivers 970-827-5406 info@erwc.org www.erwc.org Tax ID#:20-4448864 Eagle River Watershed Council is encouraged to see that the Town of Vail is considering revisions to the town code that will further support the efforts you have undertaken with the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan, the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan and the Restore the Gore campaign. These efforts are already seeing improvements in bug scores, and will ultimately help to restore water quality, however reducing impervious surfaces is critical and still must be addressed. The Town of Vail has committed $8.5 million dollars to the Restore the Gore initiative over 5 years. The Watershed Council has supported these efforts by selecting projects listed in the Strategic Action Plan for implementation. We have secured additional grant funds, and coordinated project partnerships, design, planning and oversite for several of these Gore Creek restoration projects over the last few years, including Cedar Point, Sundial, and west of the Lionshead Gondola. We plan to continue working with the Town of Vail in this way for years to come. However, these projects are restoring areas that are already impacted. The next step is to reduce the number of areas needing to be restored to begin with- this will require regulatory changes. "Increased impervious surfaces" is cited in the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, adopted by Town Council in 2016, as one of the three main causes of Gore Creek's impairment. The Strategic Action Plan specifically calls on town staff to propose changes to code that align your regulations with the goal of improved water quality and overall creek health. The proposed changes to code will support this effort and are the next step in seeing real and long-lasting change. Eagle River Watershed Council supports the code changes proposed by Vail staff, which will remove impervious surfaces from the definition of landscaping. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me directly at loff&erwc.org or 970-827-5406. Sincerely, Holly Loff Executive Director Eagle River Watershed Council is a nonprofit 507(c)3 organization that advocates For the health and conservation of the Upper Colorado and Eagle River basins through education, research, and projects. EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION D I S T R I C T July 18, 2019 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Transmitted via email Re: Vail Town Code Update Landscaping Definition Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (District) supports the town of Vail (TOV) staffs recommended amendment to the Vail Town Code regarding the definition of landscaping; specifically, the amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space. The District and TOV staff have worked together closely to improve the water quality of Gore Creek since Gore Creek was listed on Colorado's 303(d) List of impaired water bodies in 2012. At the time, seven local entities collaborated to fund the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan. The plan identified, stormwater runoff as a main stressor to Gore Creek. TOV staff subsequently completed the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, which concluded that "increased impervious surfaces" were one of the three main causes of Gore Creek's impairment. TOV staff has changed the culture within the town through the Restore the Gore campaign. They have done an amazing job with education and outreach, updating best management practices, restoring riparian areas, updating stormwater infrastructure and completing site-specific construction projects to improve drainage and stormwater impacts. One of the last and most challenging efforts will be updating the Vail Town Code to align with the Restore the Gore principles. The Strategic Action Plan outlines numerous high-priority actions, and the second on the list is updating the water quality objective definitions. This recommended amendment is a step in the right direction to improve water quality; however, additional code amendments are needed to meet the TOV's goal to remove Gore Creek from Colorado's list of impaired streams and ensure it is never listed again. The District's Water Efficiency Plan goals may provide a platform for future collaboration between the District and TOV when the town undertakes a more comprehensive land use code update. Besides being the primary source of domestic water supply for the Town of Vail, Gore Creek is the literal and figurative center of the Vail community. As the town's water and wastewater provider, the District fully supports the town's efforts to protect Gore Creek and its tributaries. I erely,o�Brook eral Manager Clean Water. Quality Life,' City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0031) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff memo PEC19 0017 FINAL.pdf Mauriello Letter 6-7.pdf MOC Letter.pdf TOV code change 7.15.19.0 20190718 TOV CodeAmend Landscaping.pdf Description Stsff Memo Public Comment Letter Mauriello Public Comment Letter_OCONNOR Public Comment Letter—Eagle River Public Comment Letter ERWSD 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark SUMMARY The Community Development Department is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to amend definitions in Title 12 and Title 14 to remove redundant definitions and clarify the code. This ordinance also seeks to update the definition of landscaping to include permeable surfaces and relocate the 20% provision from Title 12 Definitions to Title 14 under landscaping regulations, as guided by the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, "Action Plan". DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Community Development Department is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for amendments to Sections 12-2-2, 14-2-1, and 14-10-8, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of redundant definitions and update of the definition for what qualifies as landscaping. The proposed changes to the landscaping regulations were developed in concert with the Environmental and Sustainability Department. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The Community Development Department proposes the following language to be added to Title 12 and Title 14, respectively, bold is new and is removed - 12 -2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have the specific meanings as defined in this section. All words, terms, and phrases not otherwise defined herein shall be qiven their usual and customary meanings, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. ADMINISTRATOR: The admipistrat&r director of the department of community development or their designee. DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single-family, two-family or multiple -family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Any surface that cannot effectively absorb or infiltrate rainfall; for example, sidewalks, rooftops, roads, and parking lots. LANDSCAPING: Natural or significant rock outcroppings, native vegetation, planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flowerbeds and ground cover. Impervious surfaces are not counted as landscaped areas. shall be deemed , (29,04) of the PERVIOUS SURFACE: A pervious surface is a surface that allows the infiltration of water into the underlying soil. Pervious surfaces include grass, mulched groundcover, planted areas, permeable paving as well as porches and decks erected on pier foundations that maintain the covered lot surface's water permeability. Underground parking rooftops may be able to meet the standard for a pervious surface. Pervious surfaces do not include any structure or building, any porch or deck that limits the covered lot surface from absorbing water, or any outdoor stairs, on -grade surface sports court, swimming pool, artificial turf, sidewalk or patio constructed of concrete, asphalt, brick, compacted gravel or other material that impedes the infiltration of water directly into the subsurface of the lot. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL • • The bedy respeRsible Town of Vail Page 2 The board established by title 3, chapter 2 of this code. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- An Advisory Master Plan for the development of the Town of Vail. The Vail Comprehensive Plan is a compendium of numerous planning documents that are updated, amended and adopted as needed by Vail Town Council. An up-to-date list of adopted plans shall be kept by the Community Development Department and made publically available. ■... email NRA� 11 ON _1111 W-1 M,0-9 WN tole .4 WIL 14 - Chapter 2 DEFINITIONS 14-2-1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: IRWIN Town of Vai I Pagi 1 ► ■ 1 1 1 . r Town of Vail Page 4 Town of Vail Page 5 14-6-7: RETAINING WALLS: A. General: All retaining walls are reviewed by the design review board or the administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography and the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six feet (6). Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of three feet (3'), unless related to -assess development of a structure constructed on excessive slopes (in excess of 30 percent) and meets the standards prescribed in 14-10-3. Retaining walls associated with a street located within a public right of way or access to an underground covered parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be approved by the design review board. 14-10-8: LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL: L. Pervious core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, underground parking structures and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area may be utilized to meet the landscape requirement. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board held three separate work sessions to review the proposed text amendment. The board is supportive of the language submitted to the PEC for their review. The Design Review Board (DRB) has no formal review over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Town of Vail Page 6 Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 12-1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12-1-2: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a mannerthat vull conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the follovung more specific purposes.- 1. urposes:1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. Town of Vail Page 7 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect WIdlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, adopted by the Vail Town Council March 15, 2016 (in part): EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLAN GOALS AND FORMAT The Gore Creek Action Plan (Plan) provides a framework for Town of Vail initiated actions designed to address current water quality impairments and aquatic health issues affecting Gore Creek and its tributaries. Because these impairments are not attributed to a single pollutant through extensive research by many entities, Plan actions target the three known causes of degradation, including.- - ncluding: • Pollutants from land use activities, commonly referred to as urban runoff, which many times has direct drainage pathviays to Gore Creek or its tributaries • Drainage from impervious surfaces, which multiplies the effects of land use practices, especially in areas where there is little opportunity for infiltration and treatment of accumulated surface pollutants RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Nonpoint source pollution in diverse locations across the vlatershed drives water quality impairments observed in Gore Creek. Unlike a single point source of pollution, individual contributions from residential, commercial orpublic properties (including transportation routes) are probably not significant enough to singlehandedly cause the observed degradation in aquatic health. However, the collective impact of pollution from these 1 Pollutants from Land Use Activities The WQIP indicates that a variety of common land use activities contribute to pollutant loading on Gore Creek. These include: soil disturbance on construction sites, application Town of Vail Page 8 of herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers on residential properties or public spaces,- application paces,application of deicing products to roadviays, deposition of fine metal dust and accumulated hydrocarbons by vehicles on roadviays and parking lots, and use of detergents and solvents for cleaning Wndows and other commercial and residential surfaces (1). Application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides to near -stream locations, overhanging vegetation, and landscaped surfaces that quickly drain to stormwater systems contribute varying loads of toxins to the stream ecosystem (25). In particular, many plant and insect pest management chemicals exhibithigh toxicity to fish and aquatic insects (32). Chemical treatments applied to near -stream vegetation may quickly move to the stream during snomelt and precipitation events and eventually find their way into aquatic food webs. Other pollutants like motor oil, cleaning solvents, etc. deposited onto impervious surfaces like roads can also be carried into Gore Creek and its tributaries where they may negatively affect aquatic habitat and water conditions important for healthy macroinvertebrate communities 2 Drainage from Impervious Surfaces The effects of land use practices are multiplied by the amount of impervious surface coverage in the viatershed, and the location of particular activities relative to Gore Creek or connected stormwater infrastructure. Increases in the amount of hardened, impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, parking lots, and pedestrian walkways are one of the most visible impacts of urbanization. Pollutant deposition on these surfaces results from vehicle traffic, airborne deposition, building maintenance, road maintenance, and many of the other activities described above. Due to low surface roughness characteristics and a lack of infiltration, snow melt and intense precipitation events intercepted by impervious surfaces rapidly mobilize accumulated pollutants, moving them toviards Gore Creek and its tributaries. Transport of the generated runoff to rivers and streams occurs via the town's stormvLeter drainage infrastructure or as sheet flow across the land surface. Both pathviays are capable of delivering water loaded Wth excessive sediment, nutrients, hydrocarbons, dissolved metals, detergents, bacteria pathogens, and complex organics like pesticides and herbicides directly to receiving vlaters (3). REGULA TORY CONSEQUENCES OF WA TER QUA LITY DEGRA DA TION Regulatory action by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) in 2012 resulted in the listing of Gore Creek on the Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. This listing resulted from application of the WQCC's Aquatic Life Use Attainment Methodology (Policy Statement 10-1) to macroinvertebrate sample data collected at numerous locations along Gore Creek through the Town of Vail. WQCC guidelines describe specific protocols for analyzing and assessing benthic macroinvertebrate data using a Multi -Metric Index (MMI). Between 2009 and the 303(d) listing of Gore Creek in 2012, data collection Town of Vail Page 9 activities yielded twelve failing MMI scores between East Vail and the Eagle River. These results provided WQCC Wth ample evidence of significant water quality impairments on the creek. During the 2012 Section 303(d) listing process, WQCC assigned a "provisional" status to the aquatic life impairments on Gore Creek, indicating that the exact cause of the impairmentwas unknown. CDPHE subsequently initiated a 10-yearprocess to identify and resolve the observed degradation of aquatic life health conditions. Specific pollutant(s) of concern identified through this investigative process vull eventually be targeted by the State of Colorado as the primary source(s) of water quality degradation and subsequently become subject to more stringent controls and permit limitations via implementation of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulatory mechanism (26). If specific pollutant(s) of concern are not identified, no TMDL vull be implemented but Gore Creek W11 remain on the 303(d) list indefinitely or until water quality conditions improve. The Town of Vail is committed to restoring the quality of the water in Gore Creek to ensure it is removed, and is never again listed, on the Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Opportunity exists for the Town and other local partners to act on the findings of the WQIP before CDPHE and WQCC conclude their investigative process and, potentially, implement TMDL on Gore Creek. Additionally, waiting for the results of the WQCC effort W11 allow existing causes of impairment to continue unabated and may complicate the task of eventually resolving them. Local action to address water quality impairments has the potential to impro ve conditions, protect existing water uses, and maintain a higher degree of local control in water resource management decision- making processes. This opportunity provides the primary motivation for development of the GAP. A. MAINTAIN SITE HYDROLOGY Increased impervious area associated Wth most urban development can dramatically alter the timing and magnitude of runoff from development sites during precipitation events and snomelt runoff. Effective site planning can help infiltrate runoff and filter pollutants while significantly reducing the size of controls required for retaining runoff and sediment on a development site. Existing Town regulations provide guidance for assessing and designing sites to minimize impacts of impervious surfaces and building footprints. Further clarification of existing regulations wall reduce water quality risks associated Wth post -development runoff by promoting site design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate or detain runoff. E. REDUCE IMPERVIOUS AREA AND IMPLEMENT RUNOFF CONTROLS Impervious areas convey significant amounts of runoff, carrying pollutants quickly across Town of Vail Page 10 the land surface or through storm viater conveyance systems to Gore Creek and its tributaries. Pollutant loading from impervious surfaces can be effectively reduced through disruption of the pathviays that link these areas to waterbodies. Routing of urban runoff into bioretention structures, over lawns or through other vegetated areas greatly increases infiltration and opportunities for uptake and transformation of pollutants. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques intend to mimic the natural pre -development drainage patterns and include curbless roads, networks of grassy swa/es to convey runoff, and bioretention areas (Wth drop inlet structures where necessary to convey concentrated floor during larger storm or runoff events) (12). Pervious or porous pavements promote infiltration while providing a hardened surface for pedestrians or vehicles. Use of LID techniques produces discernible improvements to the quantity and quality of urban runoff generated from a property. Current Town regulations require parking areas to be paved. Design standards require runoff generated from impervious surfaces to be directed to natural or improved drainage channels or dispersed to shallow sloping vegetated areas. However, hardscape areas are not well defined as impervious by Town's development standards. Hardscape areas may be included in satisfying the required landscaping standards of any zone district, provided they do not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total landscape area. For many properties - particularly those adjacent to Gore Creek - the existing standard should be reconsidered with an emphasis on the use of LID's to minimize the use of impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed regulation amendment does not have any immediately identifiable environmental impacts. The expectation over time however, is that redevelopment will use more permeable surfaces in place of impervious surfaces which will have a positive impact on Gore Creek by filtering pollutants out before the water enters the creek. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for "promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality" This text amendment is intended to advance these purposes by providing clear standards in the zoning code by removing repeated definitions and provided one clear Town of Vail Page 11 definition for words used in the code. This added clarity will help to improve customer service as residents will be able to more easily navigate through the code and staff will be more effective in finding relevant sections applying them and answering questions about them. In addition, the text amendment seeks to implement a recommendation from the Action Plan adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016 to reduce impervious surfaces. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve 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 The proposed text amendment will provide the community, as well as anyone who references the code, clear standards for planning and development review that can be applied consistently. The Action Plan identified several areas in which the zoning and development code could be amended to better promote Vail's sustainability and environmental goals, especially as they pertain to protecting the health of the creek. The proposed text amendment seeks to achieve this by amending the provision for landscaping to encourage more permeable surface to better filter water and mitigate runoff to keep pollutants from entering the creek. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The landscaping regulations were originally adopted in the late 1980s and have not changed substantively since. As the code is currently written, up to 20% of the required landscaping can be impervious surfaces such asphalt or impervious concrete materials. The existing 20% regulation is no longer appropriate. As evidenced by the listing of Gore Creek on the State's 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, the existing zoning and development codes have not sufficiently encouraged development in a manner that is consistent with town goals. While the degradation of the water quality in the creek is not attributed to a single pollutant, pollutants from land use activities and drainage from impervious surfaces have been identified as two main contributors. Town Council's mission is to "Grow a vibrant, diverse economy and community and preserve our surrounding natural environment." The town is committed to taking measures to ensure that Gore Creek is never placed on the 303(d) list again and have outlined a number of strategic actions to restore the water quality in the creek. Removing as much impervious surface as possible was identified as a goal in the council -adopted Action Plan. For these reasons, changing the landscaping requirement is appropriate to better align with stated town goals. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, Town of Vail Page 12 workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and By increasing consistency and removing redundancy in the zoning code, the proposed text amendment would promote a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. The text amendment does not conflict with other existing land use documents or municipal development objectives. While there is a concern regarding the creation of nonconforming properties as a result of the landscaping change, the code contemplates these circumstances and allows for legal nonconformities to be repaired and maintained. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed Town of Vail Page 13 regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section 111 of the July 22, 2019 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 amendmentis consistent with 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 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, and 3. That the amendmentpromotes 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." Town of Vail Page 14 Ashley Clark From: Dominic Mauriello <dominic@mpgvail.com> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 5:18 PM To: Ashley Clark; Jonathan Spence; Chris Neubecker; Matt Gennett Cc: Matt Mire Subject: Proposed Amendment to Definition of Landscape Area Attachments: Additional_Sheet.pdf, ATT00001.htm Dear staff, PEC, and Town Council We have reviewed the proposed changes to the definitions be proposed by staff. By and large, these look like appropriate changes. I believe much of the confusion in definitions was generated when the Town adopted the Development Standards Handbook, which was intended as more of an assemblage of requirements handed to architects and builders, into the Town Code as Title 14 without removing or cleaning up the text to make it suitable for codification. We believe there is a significant problem with the proposed amendment that changes the definition or requirement for Landscaping. The current definition of Landscaping has been in the Town Code in its current form for at least 25 years and probably longer. The current definition allows that 20% of what is considered landscaping or landscape area be in the form of sidewalks, fountains, retaining walls and other impervious surfaces. Many properties have been developed throughout the Town that comply with this current definition. The proposed definition eliminates the ability to count 20% of the landscape requirement as these hardscape and impermeable improvements by requiring them to be "pervious surfaces." While in the abstract this seems like a great idea, what this change will do is make many properties in Vail "nonconforming" and restrict an owners ability to make improvements to their property. The provision reduces what is considered landscaping today on every property in the Town. Whether a single-famly lot or a large commercial property in the core, each will automatically be reduced in landscape area. That would severely restrict one's ability to make landscape changes in the future and could have substantial financial implications for relatively minor projects. Based on the trend of the PEC today, I believe it would be nearly impossible to justify a variance to this standard based on the variance criteria so the idea that there is some relief available isn't true in practice. As one example, this change would cause the Vail Marriott Resort property to be nonconforming. The Marriott obtained approval last year to make significant improvements to the landscape and pool deck to enhance this property. The calculation of landscape area on this project was critical and without the ability to count 20% of the landscape requirement as hardscape, the project could not occur. Another issue that this proposed definition does not address is landscaping and hardscape that exists on top of a parking structure or building that is below grade. Many projects in Vail have landscape areas on the surface that are underlain with below grade parking. These areas have always been allowed to be counted toward the landscape requirement, yet the parking structure below is certainly impermeable. Examples include: Arrabelle, Solaris, Sonnenalp, Vail Health, and Vail Marriott. While I understand the goal of reducing the impact of paved surfaces on the environment and specifically on the issue of groundwater recharge, I believe there could be better ways to achieve this goal without rendering a significant number of properties in the Town nonconforming. Maybe there is a carrot method that could be used rather than the stick method like encouraging the use of pervious surfaces by giving a bonus of 5% to the percentage of landscape area that can be pervious surface IF one uses 100% pervious surface materials, or something like that. Our recommendation is to not change the definitions related to Landscaping. Thank you for taking the time to consider our input. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com From: Michael0"Connor To: Ashley Clark Cc: Matt Gennett Subject: Change in definition of Landscaping Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 7:03:48 PM Hi Ashley. I wanted to weigh in on the proposed change to the Landscaping definition as it relates to impervious space. The cost -benefit of this change does not add up to me. I'm afraid we are going to make the approved site plan of so many previously approved projects non -conforming and handcuff them from changes to landscaping, etc. in the future. I believe the Town's landscaping guidelines are first and foremost in place to encourage quality landscaping that is attractive outdoor space. Hardscapes are a very important part of those plans for heavily used areas. The Village Core areas are perfect examples of this. Attractive landscaped areas with very little pervious space. Water quality was a distant second in importance when those guidelines were drawn up - and those guidelines still did a good job of this by committing 80% of landscaped areas to impervious areas. I'm not sure what is driving this change, but the negatives are big - many potential nonconforming uses, discouraging outdoor public gathering spaces and amenities like pools and water features and landscaped areas on top of parking garage, etc. And the positive impact of swapping what amounts to a small amount of hardscape in each project is not going to move the needle from a water quality standpoint if that is the main driver. Let's stick with the current code language which serves us well today. WIN Michael O'Connor Triumph Development w: 970.688.5057 m: 240.793.6405 12 Vail Road - Suite 700 - Vail, CO - 81657 michaelntriumphdev. c om www.triumphdev.com EagleRiver (ij Watershed Council In9 July 15, 2019 Dear Vail Town Council, 330 Broadway, Unit D PO Box 5740 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Advocates for our rivers 970-827-5406 info@erwc.org www.erwc.org Tax ID#:20-4448864 Eagle River Watershed Council is encouraged to see that the Town of Vail is considering revisions to the town code that will further support the efforts you have undertaken with the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan, the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan and the Restore the Gore campaign. These efforts are already seeing improvements in bug scores, and will ultimately help to restore water quality, however reducing impervious surfaces is critical and still must be addressed. The Town of Vail has committed $8.5 million dollars to the Restore the Gore initiative over 5 years. The Watershed Council has supported these efforts by selecting projects listed in the Strategic Action Plan for implementation. We have secured additional grant funds, and coordinated project partnerships, design, planning and oversite for several of these Gore Creek restoration projects over the last few years, including Cedar Point, Sundial, and west of the Lionshead Gondola. We plan to continue working with the Town of Vail in this way for years to come. However, these projects are restoring areas that are already impacted. The next step is to reduce the number of areas needing to be restored to begin with- this will require regulatory changes. "Increased impervious surfaces" is cited in the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, adopted by Town Council in 2016, as one of the three main causes of Gore Creek's impairment. The Strategic Action Plan specifically calls on town staff to propose changes to code that align your regulations with the goal of improved water quality and overall creek health. The proposed changes to code will support this effort and are the next step in seeing real and long-lasting change. Eagle River Watershed Council supports the code changes proposed by Vail staff, which will remove impervious surfaces from the definition of landscaping. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me directly at loff&erwc.org or 970-827-5406. Sincerely, Holly Loff Executive Director Eagle River Watershed Council is a nonprofit 507(c)3 organization that advocates For the health and conservation of the Upper Colorado and Eagle River basins through education, research, and projects. EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION D I S T R I C T July 18, 2019 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Transmitted via email Re: Vail Town Code Update Landscaping Definition Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (District) supports the town of Vail (TOV) staffs recommended amendment to the Vail Town Code regarding the definition of landscaping; specifically, the amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space. The District and TOV staff have worked together closely to improve the water quality of Gore Creek since Gore Creek was listed on Colorado's 303(d) List of impaired water bodies in 2012. At the time, seven local entities collaborated to fund the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan. The plan identified, stormwater runoff as a main stressor to Gore Creek. TOV staff subsequently completed the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, which concluded that "increased impervious surfaces" were one of the three main causes of Gore Creek's impairment. TOV staff has changed the culture within the town through the Restore the Gore campaign. They have done an amazing job with education and outreach, updating best management practices, restoring riparian areas, updating stormwater infrastructure and completing site-specific construction projects to improve drainage and stormwater impacts. One of the last and most challenging efforts will be updating the Vail Town Code to align with the Restore the Gore principles. The Strategic Action Plan outlines numerous high-priority actions, and the second on the list is updating the water quality objective definitions. This recommended amendment is a step in the right direction to improve water quality; however, additional code amendments are needed to meet the TOV's goal to remove Gore Creek from Colorado's list of impaired streams and ensure it is never listed again. The District's Water Efficiency Plan goals may provide a platform for future collaboration between the District and TOV when the town undertakes a more comprehensive land use code update. Besides being the primary source of domestic water supply for the Town of Vail, Gore Creek is the literal and figurative center of the Vail community. As the town's water and wastewater provider, the District fully supports the town's efforts to protect Gore Creek and its tributaries. I erely,o�Brook eral Manager Clean Water. Quality Life,' City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the Wildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: August 12, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: July 22, 2019 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 072219.pdf July 22, 2019 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl July 22, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: Rollie Kjesbo Public Hearing 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 30 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Planner Clark introduced the application. Staff has presented these code changes to the Design Review Board, and previously at one work session with PEC. She mentioned that public comment on the proposed code changes had been received. The proposal is to amend the Vail Town Code relating to existing definitions, conflicting or duplicated definitions in the code. There is also some change proposed to policy, which staff will discuss. Clark indicated that changes are proposed to Title 12, definition of Administrator, and definition of Comprehensive Plan. Perez asked about changes to the Comprehensive Plan definitions. Stockmar asked if the intent on landscape permeability was based on where the water goes, and how to redirect the water flow so that it does not go into the creek. Intent is to ensure that contaminated water does not go directly to the creek. Clark — I mpervious surfaces are directly mentioned on the Gore Creek Action Plan. That is one of the reasons staff looked at changing the definitions. Peter Wadden — The more impervious a surface, the more likely and quicker that water and pollutants will be carried into Gore Creek. Permeable surfaces will allow water to flow through the ground which will filter water before going into the creeks Stockmar — I understand the concept of permeability, but isn't there a bigger issue we should be addressing with our codes on construction? We should redesign some of our codes to reduce as much as possible the opportunity for pollutants to get into the creek. Let's focus on the bigger picture. Clark — These are small steps we can take while staff is making updates to the definitions. We would like to have a greater conversation on some of these issues moving forward. Hopkins — Town is 95% developed, so there's only a chance to address 5% of the properties. Is there an opportunity for improvements to the existing developed properties? What else can be done for these projects? Can filters be placed at the intakes to Gore Creek? Wadden — Staff has a list of 44 projects that could be implemented. We are focusing on the projects that will have the most impact. We have a project planned at the Public Works yard. We are taking incremental steps to see what works. Hopkins — We need to discuss the alternatives to how we have been operating to date. Gillette — Let's back up to where we started. Why did staff remove language on retaining walls relating to access on steep slopes? Clark — Staff discussed this with the DRB. Development on a steep lot is already very difficult, so changing the language recommended by the DRB will allow retaining walls on steeper slopes, regardless of the access or driveway. Gillette — Once the code is revised, with the word "access" removed, it will make more sense. Can we discuss the potential concern of making properties nonconforming? Clark — Code has existing language that addresses nonconformity. Nonconformities cannot be made worse. Gillette —Are there other issues, not relating to the new nonconformity that could be impacted if the property becomes nonconforming? Clark — Staff reviewed several landscaping plans in town to determine how many properties might be impacted. She discussed ways that underground rooftops that are landscaped might qualify as landscaping, but depending on the design, some underground parking might not meet the intent of this code change. Lockman — If properties are nonconforming, is it only relating to the landscaping? What is the true impact of the nonconformity? Does it affect other issues of the site? Clark — This issue will only come up on redevelopment. There are also other materials that could be permeable with newer technology and new materials. We have a very active and informed board, and this was reviewed by the DRB and PEC. If this does not work, we can come back to the PEC to fix the definitions. Stockmar — There is still a line that differentiates new construction from remodels and additions. Perez — We did not address situations where a structure is destroyed, as opposed to voluntary redevelopment. Clark — Existing code already addresses damage by acts of God and by other catastrophe. Stockmar —At what point does a remodel trigger compliance with these codes? Clark — If a project has nonconforming landscaping, and an owner replaces the landscaping, then the new landscaping needs to meet the code. Existing code already has a trigger of 500 sq. ft. for additions to require compliance with design standards. Gillette —Additions might still require a nonconforming situation to come into compliance with the new regulations. Clark — Presented an example at the Marriott landscaping plan, comparing pervious and impervious surfaces in the landscaping plan. Staff reviewed 14 landscaping plans to understand how the proposed code changes might impact development and redevelopment. Most of the projects that staff reviewed had excess landscaping, and have wiggle room to still meet the code. There are also other remedies in the code, such as a variance. Stockmar — To what extent do we have a current problem with the existing codes? What would be the real world impact on people in the town who might be impacted by these changes? Clark — We don't know of any applications that are being held back due to the pending landscaping changes, but there are a few proposals on hold and watching closely as it relates to retaining walls. Perez- I would like to use the language that we discussed in the work session. We also have defined terms that use lower case vs upper case which need to be cleared up. We need to be consistent. Gillette — If you have a rooftop with a rooftop deck, it may still be impervious beneath the garden. It really matters most how the water is treated before it goes into the creek. Wadden — Depending on how the rooftops are designed, it could impact the amount of storm water that flows into the creek. A lot of different factors determine how much water flows off a site. Gillette — I would like to see staff meet with Dominic Mauriello to understand his concerns. I think we should table this discussion. Lockman — Would feel better to understand impacts to commercial development and redevelopment. Public Comment — None Final Commission Comments Lockman — Bravo for updating the Town Code to align with our strategic plans. We need to see this across all forms of sustainability. Nice work. Brian Gillette moved to table to August 12, 2019. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.2. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 10 min. 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker Chris Neubecker presented additional materials that were requested by the PEC at the last meeting, including renderings of the proposed buildings, and sections through the buildings and site. Lockman inquired about the meeting with the wildlife biologists. Matt Gennett discussed the wildlife meeting. Staff will present a summary of their recommendations at the next PEC meeting on August 12. Stockmar asked if there had been any changes to the submitted rock -fall report or traffic report. Neubecker indicated that no changes have yet been made. Staff and the applicant would like to get all feedback and comments from the PEC, then plan revisions will be made and presented at a later meeting. Hopkins asked about a soils report. Michael O'Connor, Applicant, discussed nine soil test pits that have already been explored in regard to soils. Additional detailed soils reports will be provided prior to the building permit. O'Connor provided a presentation discussing the criteria in the Housing District and how the project meets the criteria. He presented slides showing the scale and architecture of east Vail to demonstrate compatibility. Slides were provided to show building heights, landscape buffers, and building perspectives. Hopkins asked about the berm in relation to the renderings. O'Connor discussed the berm design and location in relating to the renderings. Lockman asked about balconies. O'Connor clarified that there are no balconies facing north, but rather at - grade patio areas. O'Connor provided a comparison of the proposal to the standards of the LDMF and MDMF zone districts, including site coverage, landscape area, density and GRFA. He provided a comparison of the proposal to other housing developments that have occurred in the housing district. Gillette asked about bus stop design and the PEC's previous comments concerning this. O'Connor discussed challenges with different locations for the bus stop. Moving the bus stop to the east of the driveway will require retaining walls. Lockman inquired about the wildlife mitigation plan. O'Connor provided information on the biologists meeting and ne)d steps in relation to this item. O'Connor discussed changes to the proposed parking plan for the multifamily component. Additional parking can and will be provided. A comparison with other housing developments in the Housing zone district was provided, including the parking rate on a per-unit basis. Actual parking counts and parking usage rates at similar developments were provided by the applicant. Stockmar-There is a significant difference between this project and other housing developments that are closer to grocery stores. Stockmar reiterated his concern about the lack of pedestrian access under the highway. O'Connor reviewed the request for information from previous meetings and the additional information that has been provided already, and the additional information that will be provided at the ne)d meeting. Stockmar discussed the need for restrictive covenants and enforcement of regulations. Perez -Asked about a traffic study when Vail Mountain School is in session. O'Connor felt the study occurred at a busy time of the winter and that the existing road has significant a)dra capacity to handle additional traffic. Perez requested additional information from staff concerning traffic in the area. Perez -Asked about the GRFA numbers related to the conditional use permit. Neubecker and O'Connor relayed that it is being worked on, but that plan revisions have not yet been made. Public Comment Dave Gorsuch -How did this project get this far? It should have been rejected before it got to this point. The PEC's job is to protect this valley. I- 70 should have game fences. Susan Bristol - I n 1993 there was a conference about Vail and the environment. She also discussed a conference in 2009 on the environment. She spoke about the need to not kill the golden goose. Spoke on the continued need for exceptional standards related to the environment. Spoke to the landslide threat and the need for a comprehensive geology study. Need for more transparency with regard to the various studies. Remaining concerns include dogs, short term rentals, traffic studies and the Vail Pass closure, code enforcement, bus service, wildlife preservation, building massing, berm design. Barbara Keller- Housing Criteria A. Neighborhood compatibility concerns. Architecture and massing should be compatible with the site and adjacent properties. Does not feel the slides shown for compatibility are comparable, not congruent with single family and duplex homes in Booth Creek neighborhood. Significant part of the parking is visible. Architectural design is not compatible with the area. Architecture is substandard. Need enforcement measures. The PEC needs to preserve the sheep. Blondie Vucich-The recommendation of Rick Thompson was to have no dogs. Plan does not do this. Triumph has ignored the recommendation due to the finances. She read from the developer's plans regarding dogs. This project is unacceptable. Tony Ryerson- The town has come along way in regard to environmental measures but is missing the priority of the animals and their importance to the community. Hope that this gets turned down. Jonathan Staufer-Presented a petition with 1,000 signatures for the Town to permanently protect this area. Discussed his concern with the project having no reference to the past. Others have stated that the existing problems with sheep and wildlife relates to existing homes. We need housing, and can help by getting rid of short term rentals, and building housing on land with less environmental impact. If we ruin Vail we will solve the housing problem since no one will want to come here. Ellen Colrick- Older complexes in town are rented or owned by employees. Vail has owned this parcel since the 1961, yet has not paid taxes for 50 years. They only paid taxes starting in 2017. Vail Resorts should not get a variance for this many housing units. Peter Casabonne -Concern with the bighorn sheep. Saw a ewe and Iamb there this morning. None of the experts will say that the plan will save the sheep. What are the odds of the sheep's survival? The threat to the sheep cannot be mitigated. Is the PEC willing to take the risk? This is the last stand for the sheep. Housing is important, but not here. Alternative sites do exist. The Town should negotiate to purchase and preserve the site. Kristy Hintz - Spoke to the enormity of this decision. PEC does not have the collective knowledge to make this decision. PEC is not listening to the experts concerning the wildlife. Mentioned the importance of the sheep. Throwing environmental concerns out the window. The traffic report was done at the wrong time, on a Saturday when VMS was closed. The plan does not even mention Vail Mountain School, or a pedestrian death at this intersection. Concern with parking, pedestrian safety, environmental impacts. Need new parking study. The risks to the environment are just too great. Lu Maslak- The Town has always needed more parking and housing. Don't need housing here due to the risks to sheep. Recognizes the difficulty of the decision. Remember Vail's environmental stewardship Joe Staufer-Spoke to his letter in the newspaper regarding upzoning. The project is totally unsuitable for the location. Spoke to housing challenges. The Town of Vail allowing home rentals results in the loss of employee housing. Need for a study that shows how impactful this has been. This is the wrong project. Gateway impacts will devalue Vail as desirable. Have the courage to say no to this project. Ann Esson - Member of two HOA's, and discussed difficulty enforcing HOA rules. Spoke to the environmental impact report requirement of the code. Spoke to the studies provided. Spoke to the listing of Gore Creek. Easier to protect than to try to fix. Referenced the staff report and the conflicting goals. Cannot mitigate your way out of this. Other locations exist for housing. Kudos to environmental department for bringing in wildlife experts. Charlyn Canada- Spoke to the importance of the sheep and the importance of speaking up for them. We have enjoyed seeing the sheep here for the past 40 years. Liz Schramm - Spoke to the noise pollution resulting from construction. Need to fence the entire project. Elaine Kelton- Spoke to history of Vail and the magic of Vail. Need to preserve and protect because it is what makes Vail special. Gateway concerns for those visiting Vail. Spoke to the importance of writing and speaking about concerns. Pam Stenmark-Referenced her letter submitted. Concerned that some members of the PEC have already made their mind up. Staff needs to thoroughly review all applications and provide expertise. Expressed concerns with the geological issues, including geologic activity to west of Booth Creek neighborhood as recent as 1984. Provided photographs of the existing rock -fall berm, a major scar. Where are the Town Council members on this? Why are they not here today? They need to be here to understand the passion. Don't approve this project. Betsy Kiehl- Spoke to dog issues, and inability to enforce any rules on dogs. Spoke to the VRBO issues taking away employee housing. Not against housing, just housing here. Follow the mission statement. Preserve the sheep. Not the place to develop. Jeff Kissane- Very difficult decision for the PEC. Competing interests with housing and environment. Boils down to the sheep. Taking away their only environment in Vail. Need to find different sites for housing. The sheep will go away. Tom Vucich- Discussed letter that did not make it into packet. Spoke to the dog issues. Spoke to working for Vail Resorts 20 years ago and the Bachelor Gulch neighborhood that prohibits dogs and how it did not impact the finances. Need for a maintenance plan for the berm. Concern with proposed construction dates. Does not match biologists recommendation. Spoke to geological issues. Spoke to the need for details at the next meeting concerning the wildlife plan. Bill Andree- Looks forward to wildlife review report. Spoke to HOAs and covenants and the challenge of enforcement. The Town of Vail needs to be the enforcement, not neighbor vs. neighbor. Spoke to the failure rate of mitigation plans. Plans need to be flexible and have enforcement. The Division of Wildlife is not an enforcement agency. Closures just don't work. Its human nature to recreate out your back door. Mitigation plan is lacking. Concern with cumulative impacts of development. Concern with Public Works housing proposals. Housing has twice the magnitude of impact of anything else, including oil and gas. Mitigation has never been 100% when it comes to wildlife. Gillette asked Andree about the finances of mitigation Andree responded that is costs about $120 per acre to fertilize. Any fertilizing should be as spread out as possible. Burning is much cheaper, but fertilizing and burns can lead to weeds. Gillette commented about mitigation measures. Andree spoke about the role of nitrogen and wildfire burns. Way into 6 figures for a proper mitigation plan. Total cost could be more than $100,000. Spoke to closures of trails near the area and bighorn sheep hunting. Hunting and the proposed closures are not at the same time. Grace Poganski-Spoke to rock -fall and how the berm will only reduce the threat, not eliminate it. Spoke to the geological report. Spoke to the difference between what could be vs. what will be. The loss of the sheep will be a tragedy. Cindy Ryerson- The location for this development is not good. Expressed concerns with rock -fall. Feels that the decision has already been made. Spoke to the importance of the sheep. Peter Feistmann- Spoke to the importance of employees living in Vail. Supports employee housing. Would the Town have rezoned this if it had been zoned Open Space as the community thought? Spoke to the mission statement. Spoke to the effect of approving this project on the environmental ethos of Vail. Spoke to inadequacy of the berm and the risks associated. Kate Cocchiarella- Invested in the community. It's a wicked problem. Lose/lose situation. Need to slow down the review. Study should be spread out over 1 to 2 years. We thought this property was open space for the past 20 years. There are other solutions to housing problems. Public Comment was closed Commissioner comments Gillette -Thought we would be getting more information from the developer today. Looking forward to seeing the changes to the proposal. Would like a member of the US Forest Service at the next meeting to answer questions. Still concerned with the bus stop location, bus stop should be on the east side. Should maybe fence the whole project, or wood fence to screen the project from the west. Questions the site layout. Underpass needs to be fixed for pedestrians. Parking is better but should meet the code. Should be no dogs. No winter construction on western part of the site November 15 to April 15. No blasting November 15 — July 15. Would like to see money better spent on improving sheep habitat. Habitat restoration should be done prior to start of construction. Asked O'Connor how much money proposed for mitigation? O'Connor- Rough estimates about $50,000 to $100,000. Gillette -The sheep need to be preserved through the habitat and mitigation measures. Need to look at the closures on open space and trails. Kurz -Agrees with Gillette but does not want people crossing the street for the bus. Parking is better but may need more. Biggest decision being made by the Town of Vail in a long time. Need to take time with the decision. Looking forward to seeing the results of the wildlife meeting. Perez- Would like to see the mitigation plan and the results of the wildlife biologists meeting. Need more traffic information. Spoke to the process with zoning coming first, then a development plan. This is the first of many difficult decisions. Need to talk about what's the developer's responsibility, and the Town's responsibilities, and the Forest Service's responsibilities. We need to know who has the power and responsibility to close trails and open space. Supports bus stop on the north side of frontage road. Hopkins -Agrees with taking time on this. Wildlife meeting was critical. Concerning with the effects of construction on the geological situation. Lockman- Appreciates the public comment and the many letters. Will take as long as necessary to review this proposal. Dogs do not fit on this site. Short term rentals do not fit. Bus stop needs to be on the north side. Buffering needed. Mitigation plan is needed with a clear outside review. The pedestrian safety is important. Support bus on the north side. Gillette — Concur with Lockman on short term rentals Stockmar- Been on the board for 3.5 years. PEC must act with community interests in mind. Ne)d meeting will be in three weeks. Concerned about the geologic issues. This is different than Chamonix Not sure how people can be kept out of sensitive areas. Traffic study is not remotely adequate. Parking is improved but still inadequate. Underpass is a deadly zone. Crosswalks with flashers are needed in East Vail. Speeds are problem in East Vail and need to be lowered. Tying parking needs at this site vs. core sites does not work. The underpass is dangerous. Need more parking. If we are wrong about the sheep mitigation it will be an a)dinction event. Gillette asked about the effectiveness of the trail closures. Staff will look into it. Karen Perez moved to continue to August 12, 2019. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it Other (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.3. A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-6I- 120 min. 11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker See notes and discussion for Item 2.3, PEC 19-0019; both projects were discussed at the same time. Ludwig Kurz moved to continue to August 12, 2019. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. July 8, 2019 PEC Results Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 4. Adjournment Ludwig Kurz moved to adjourn. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 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 Ad #: 0000459684-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that he Planning and Your account number is: 1023233 n Id`z publish a°imyibae°e.maneewtaeactlo,;z- 3-6, Vail Town Code,,,Aaga,412, 2019,11:00 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Phi in the Town of Val Muaicip,l Bullding VAIL DAILY A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuantto Seehon l2- 16, Condhional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a sea - STATE OF COLORADO on boat launch area to replace the current boat launch atljacent to the Bridge Rd bridge (210111101001)/1otl, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addi COUNTY OF EAGLE non, and setting forth detat— regard thereto. Applican00rown of Vail, repres,M,d by cress Paul, Planner: Jonathan Spence I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of A request for the review of a variance from Section sG-ssemagka,vauTgwnegd.ina grdanc. the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper in with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail printed, whole or in art and published in the County of Eagle, P P `7 9 fTrowo orrea; set'I° farce a`ewaatkt erequuired 5237 Coleman. way, Unit 21/Bign.m Termer, and adn details in State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; Hing regain there[°. (PEc19-0026) Applicant Christopher Olsson Planner: Jonathan Sane. that said newspaper has been published continuously and Arequ.st for revi.wofaVadanee,pnrsuanitoSee- uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of tion 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for i«a dat 2111 North F �ta9e&oad W md-oot 2Bs more than fifty–two consecutive weeks next prior to theyard Vail Das Schema Filing 3, and setting forth details in thereto. (PEC19-0027) Applicant McDonalds Real Estate Ce., first publication of the annexed legal notice or represented by Sit. Enhaneement Semic.s advertisement and that said newspaper has published the Planner: Ashley Clark Arequ.stfarthereviewof.—i-eefromseetion requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. 9 9 9 wilh the bov,Seth' a of Sil Town Code, V,riaccnce ih the provisions of Section Code, i , Variances, Vail Town Code, tc allow fora variance to requoretl me antl east side setback to facilitate building atltli- nons within the ezieting footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Till TheVAIL DAILY is an le accepted al advertisingmedium, P g ng9,and sellingforth dat,ilsinregard then', (PEC19-0029) only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Applicant: Peter Smith &Amy Fordham, greae edb Manrien.PlanningGr.ap Rule Planner: Jonathan Spence provision. A request for a recommentlation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Am, cannot, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations—ad That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was oa-1 Proem 1St tiara Regulation,, ode 1 "-rod published in the regular and entire issue of every number the regulations on builtling design and landscaping nawildland urban lntedaee to reduce the risk of of said daily newspaper for the of 1 insertion; and ildfire, and sett'mg forth details in regard thereto. (APPi f8-oo35Town°fvail period that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of Plane;: Chris N.ub.ck.r said newspaper dated 7/26/2019 and that the last A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town CounciLpursu,nttoSectien12-3-7. Amendment, publication of said notice was dated 7/26/2019 in the issue Vail Town Cotle, for proscribed regulations amend - Monte to Till. 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town of said newspaper. Code, and amendments to TRI. 14, Development SwndardsdVaetdef Poa's°aaadet9wanao°o r'e tainingewalls, and setting forth details In regard In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, therace.(PEC19-0017) Applicant T°wnofVol 7/30/2019. Planner: Ashley Clark A request for a recommentlation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Tow Code for prescribed regulations amentl- nts to TRIe 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Tgwn Code relocation 0120% hardsoapingstandard loTi- landscaping toe 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation d ,�p®QV/N�,1v'yq�l to allow toen % permeable space, and settinq1) fodh details'n regard thereto (PEC19- 003 Applicant Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Mark Wurzer, Publisher Th. aoplicanons and informati°nabouttnepmpns- hooe vaJable for public inspection during office urs at the Town of Vail Community Development Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and oePararl75South Fromag,Read rn.public I, in,ted to attend site visits. Please call 970-479- for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day all�f-sho wwvailg°°°em/gla°ningieraddai°°- 7/30/2019. Sign language interpretation available upon request Ieriillynn worn 24-hour notification, dial 711. Publishad July 26. 2019 in the Vail Daily. 0000459684 J Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1Er�E �YM!J MEp!RdF WTM Pugt!ru. VATI: Oi CUl04A€70 NOSAftY Ii)Rpi1�Od9i9A N`/ vcel :Xi'IRI:GAk3Gil57et.26x' Ad #: 0000467448-01 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL Customer: TOWN OF VAI L/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM COMMISSION August 12,2019, 1:00 PM Your account number is: 1023233 Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Can to order PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1.1. Anendance 1z. Executive S,i pursu,M to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)—Io receive legal w,Mi on Prob.c. anning and eent al Q VAILDAILY EPvironmcific Commsson STATE OF COLORADO 2. Main Agenda 2.1.Arequea fb,,o iewofacunditi...I COUNTY OF EAGLE Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Parma., Vas Town Code, m aim -f., taneimeal- talion ,f a season boat launch area tore brrrent boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road idge (210111101001)/-,11, Bigh,m Subdivision I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of 2nd Addition, and setting forth details in regard themto.(PEC19-9923)28 min. the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg larna Planner: Jonathan Spence whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, 2.2. Arequestfar thereviewofayarimba from Section 12-6G-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; c,rd..bawith the provisions of Section 12-1], arian,ea, Vail Town C,da, 1. allow for a variance that said newspaper has been published continuously and to the required front and side setback for a new dock, mcatedat4237C,lumbin,Way, Unit uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of 21/Bighorn Terrace, and ..ging forth details in APP, antfea;ri o559o,0026) 15 min. more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the z's""a" n quest faarrintthe`eview of ayarimba first publication of the annexed legal notice or from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Cobb, in acc.rdancacall thepmvisi,nsofSabbom12-17-1, er advertisement and that said newspaper has published the P P P variances. Vail Town Code, t, allow for a variance to aquinal or and ewat a to, stoffi,llitat, em milking addition. within theexistingfootprint, lmad- requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. Via, ,;e9eFtl 99,a'nds ftmg onndet�I,in°'2 regard there,,. (PEC19-0029) 20 min. Applicant: Paler Smith, represented by Mauriell, The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only forjurisdictions 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 8/9/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/9/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day 8/13/2019. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 8/13/2019. / f Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1ER USNNMEDINAP N`3TAI, RDy1"11z oo 11 NOTARY til Rgi1�079i9A NYCCfi%¢CGON:Xi'IRI:GAk3Gil57et.26x' 2.5. A requearfor the review of a Condition- al Use Permit, pursuant t, Section 12-16, or th, ton- al Use Permits, Vail Town Gotle, to allow for the con- struction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) z.n. district, located at 3]00 North Frontage Road Easi/Lot t, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and selling forth details In regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) 10 min. Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubmker 2.5. A request for the revises of a Develop- ment Plan, pursuant I, Section 12-61- 11, Devel,p- enl Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Front- age Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Hall Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) 120 min. Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubmker 2.7. A request for a rammmendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant 1, Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Coda, for prescribed regula- tions amend nis to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Devel- opment Standards, Vail Town Cotle, to update defini tions,1, remove redundant dl and regab- tions for retaining walls, and s,Ui,g mrd, details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) 5 min. Stag has requested this item be tabled to August 26; 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark 2.8. A request for a rammmendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Coda, for prescribed regula- tions amendments 1, Tnle 1z, Zoning Regwar,ns. Vail Town Code, relocation of 20% hard—ping standard to TRIe 14 and amendment to the land- scaping regulation to allow up to 29/ permeable hamscaped space, md .ening torch details m regard thereto. (PEC19-0031) 5 min. Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark 2.9. A request for a rammmendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cotle, for prescribed regula- tions amendments 1, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and TRIe 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on mllding design and landscaping in the Wiltlland Urban Interlace to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard Ihereto. (PEC18-0035) 5 min. Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. July 22, 2019 PEC Results 4. Adjournment The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regular office hours at theTown of Vail Community Develop- ment Data- at, 15 South Frontage Road. The public is invited 1, 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 Iime the Planning and Environmental C,m- mi an 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 August 9, 2019. 0000467448