The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVAIL VILLAGE WEST FILING 1 LOT 22vwd G l Planning and Environmental lCom misson ACTION FORM TOM Department of Community Development: 75 South Frontage Read, Vail, Colorado 81657 tal:970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: SOLIS SETBACK VARIANCE Project Description: SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SFR Participants: PEC Number: PEC060015 OWNER SOLIS, LUIS & REBECCA 03/13/2006 3981 PROMONTORY CT BOULDER CO 80304 APPLICANT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLCO3/13/2006 PO BOX 7760 AVON CO 81620 License: C000001764 ARCHITECT MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLCO3/13/2006 PO BOX 7760 AVON CO 81620 Phone: 970 - 471 -6122 Phone: 970 - 471 -6122 License: C000001764 Project Address: 2180 ALPINE DR VAIL Location: 2180 ALPINE DRIVE Legal Description: Lot: 22 Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE WEST FIL 1 Parcel Number: 2103 - 123 - 1201 -7 Comments: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Action: DENIED Second By: Bill Jewitt Vote: 6 -1 -0 (Gunion opposed) Date of Approval: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. Planner: Matt Gennett PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail /Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06 -0015) Applicant: Luis Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett SUMMARY The applicant is requesting variances from the twenty foot (20') minimum front setback standard and from the fifteen foot (15') minimum front setback standard of the Two - Family Primary/Secondary (P /S) zone district in order to construct a new single family residence in the front and side setbacks of Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1/ 1740 Sierra Trail. A Vicinity Map is attached for reference (Attachment A). Based upon the criteria and findings in Section VIII of this memorandum, staff is recommending denial of the applicant's variance request. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is making a request to build a new single family home at on Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, which would encroach into the front and side setbacks on the uphill, southern portion of the lot, as depicted on the reduced site plan (Attachment B). The proposal entails locating 300.6 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in the front and side setbacks, 293 square feet of GRFA in the eastern side setback of fifteen feet (15') and 7.6 square feet in the front setback of twenty feet (20') from Alpine Drive, in addition to locating approximately 300 square feet of garage area in the front setback from Alpine Drive. The applicant is likewise proposing to gain access to the lot off of Alpine Drive, the portion of which is situated in unincorporated Eagle County, and is basing the rationale for the request upon the existence of a foundation constructed into and on the site in 1979. The applicant's representative and engineer are stating the existing foundation serves as a retention device for the upper portion of the site and its removal would result in an acute destabilization of the lot. The Town Engineer and planning staff believe it may be more practical for the applicant to construct a new foundation for a home which encroaches into the setbacks due to the location of the existing foundation, however, the removal of the existing foundation is an economic hardship imposed by the previous owner of the subject property. The existing foundation system built by the previous owners can be removed and 1 TOWN OF VAIL� replaced with a more appropriate foundation system designed for this site and which complies with all the zoning standards, including minimum setbacks. Staff addresses these potential construction alternatives and other issues in Section VIII of this memorandum. A copy of the applicant's representative's written request is attached for reference (Attachment C). Also attached for reference are two letters from the applicant's civil engineers, Boundaries Unlimited INC. (Attachment D), and a packet of photographs with accompanying descriptions for each (Attachment E). IV. BACKGROUND In 1979, a building permit was issued for a residence to be constructed on the subject property. On March 8 1982, the slope existing of Lot 22 failed due to "the cumulative effects of increased groundwater and excessive side grading cuts during the construction period ", according to a study prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates in July 1982. The Town of Vail subsequently undertook the proper remediation and stabilization measures for the slide area in accordance with the study prepared by Claycomb, which included burying the remaining foundation. A report prepared by Church and Associates (Geologic Engineering), Inc., on July 16, 2003, states: "construction is feasible on the lot." REVIEWING BOARD ROLES VARIANCES: A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 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. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. C. Town Council Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. D. Staff The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and prmvidesa staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS: 12 -6B -6: SETBACKS: In the SFR district, the ninimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the ninimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). CHAPTER 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. B. Development Standards Excepted. Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each 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 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: 3 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: VI. VII 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. SITE ANALYSIS Zone District: Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential Address: 1740 Sierra Trail Legal Description: Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1 Lot Size: 11,020.7 square feet / .253 acres Hazards: N/A Standard Allowed /Required Existin Proposed Setbacks: Two - Family Primary/Secondary (P /S) South: Residential Front: 20' N/A 18' Sides: 15' N/A 3.5'/15' Rear: 15' N/A 15/15' Height: 33' 33' 33' GRFA: 4,988 sq ft 0 sq ft 3,631.5 sq ft Site Coverage: 15% (1,653 sq ft) 0% 15% (1,653 sq ft) Landscape Area: 60% (6,612 sq ft) 100% 85% (9,367 sq ft) Parking: 3 spaces N/A 3 spaces SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING lH Land Use Zonin North: Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary (P /S) South: Residential Unincorporated Eagle County East: Residential Unincorporated Eagle County West: Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary (P /S) lH Vill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff has determined the requested variance will not result in a harmonious relationship between the existing structure and the neighboring buildings. The proposed location of the new single family structure, coupled with its proposed access off of Alpine Drive (in unincorporated Eagle County) will render the new home out of character with the surrounding neighborhood on Sierra Trail, and within the greater Vail Village West Filing 1 Subdivision. Given the more gradual topography on the northern half of the site, which has average slopes of approximately 30 %, and the location of existing homes on Sierra Trail, staff has contemplated the possibility of positioning the garage within the front setback from Sierra Trail, and it is an alternative which could meet the terms of this criterion. With the current proposal, staff does not believe the applicant has met the intent of this criterion. 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. Staff is not convinced that a new single family home of a comparable size and design could not be located elsewhere on this lot, and within the minimum setbacks. The applicant has not demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and planning staff, the existing foundation is an absolute deterrent from building in its present physical location, nor has it been proven the existing foundation cannot be safely removed and replaced with another structure, given modern engineering methods of slope stabilization. Staff does not disagree with the contention that the lot does have a history of slope stability concerns, however, there are no soils tests or geologic engineering studies to suggest a home could not be safely built down on the flatter portions of the site, with or without the existing foundation structure remaining in place, and accessing the new home off of Sierra Trail. 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. Staff believes the effects upon light, air, and other public interests could be negative in association with this proposal. The applicant is proposing to access the lot off of Alpine Drive on the south side, which is in unincorporated Eagle County and would therefore require the County's permission. Also, given the purpose and intent of setbacks in the context of those for the zoning regulations in general, the effect upon light, air, and distribution of population may prove to be negative as well. 5 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. It should be noted the average slope beneath the proposed building location is well in excess of 30 %. Since the applicant is proposing to gain access off of Alpine Drive instead of the prescribed Sierra Trail, the proposed garage structure is located within the twentyfoot (20') minimum setback from Alpine Drive, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 21 -14. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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 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. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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 same mne. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance from Sections 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new single family residence within the minimum front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail /Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny the requested variances; the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 0 That the granting of the variances will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variances will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or irrprovements in the vicinity. 3. That the variances are not warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the requested variances; the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission'pass the following motion: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: That the granting of the variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or irrprovements in the vicinity. 3. That the variances are warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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 same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 7 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Site Plan C. Applicant's Request D. Letters from Applicants Engineer E. Photo Packet Attachment: B a. i i 0 i o�R I I I 0 � SOLIS RESIDENCE LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST 1ST FILING VAIL, COLORADO `v E_ $c o hm m$� wm o E � st� go E � n m ; E o xa E F Z Attachment: C SUMAN A R C H I T E C T March 13, 2006 Lot 22 Vail Village West, 1 st Filing Variance Application for Side Setback RE: Section 12 -61-1-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code 1. Description of Variance Requested Given the extreme history of this property; the location of existing foundations buried below the ground surface; and existing grades over 60 %; the owners of Lot 22 are requesting a setback variance in order to maintain the stability of a sensitive geologic area. The variance being requested will allow approximately 300.6 sq. ft. of GRFA to be constructed within the front and east side setback. Below is a detailed breakdown of the GRFA within each setback: Lot 22 East(side) Setback South(front) Setback Proposed GRFA in Setbacks Total 293.0 sq. ft. 7.6 sq. ft. 300.6 sq. ft. This pre- existing condition through no fault of the applicant is a hardship based on the strict and literal interpretation of the code. 2. Background and Analysis of Proposal In 1979, a building permit was issued for a residence to be constructed on Lot 22. The concrete foundations and a portion of the dwelling were constructed. On March 8, 1982, the slope suddenly failed due to "the cumulative effects of increased ground water and excessive site grading cuts during the construction period" as stated in a drainage study prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. in July 1982. The landslide moved the foundations and carried the framed structure above it down the hill. This failure is extensively documented in the Town of Vail planning and public works files, including photographs. The remediation of the slide area was performed by the Town of Vail under controlled conditions and under the direction of consulting engineers. Based on the Claycomb's recommendations, the remaining foundations were buried; the landslide area was filled with controlled fill; and a subsurface drainage system was installed along the slide plane to intercept any shallow ground water. The stabilization cross - sections are in the Town of Vail file and the site plan is included with this application. A July 16, 2003, report by Church and Associates, Inc.(Engineers and Geologists), states that "construction is feasible on the lot." it also states that "the top of the foundation wall appears to be well below the surface of the lot, and could easily be kept within the slope to supplement the slope stability, thus alleviating the expense of having to remove it ". The applicant believes that keeping the foundations in tact is in fact necessary to prevent a repeat in history and to maintain the integrity of this sensitive geological area. As can be seen in the site plan A 1.0, the lot can be accessed from the north via Sierra Trail or from the south via Alpine Drive. There are practical difficulties with both access locations, and some form of variance is required for both scenarios in order to develop a viable dwelling unit on Lot 22. The existing michaelLsumanar6itect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T foundations create the greatest difficulties for the north access scenario and therefore, this proposal accesses the site from the south. Due to the geometry of the site, the steepness of grades and the location of the existing foundations, there is very little flexibility in locating the new residence. In order to satisfy the parking requirements and stay under the height limits, the garage must be located in the front setback as allowed by section 12 -21 -14 of the code. This forces the livable area of the new residence to be to the north and the east of the garage (i.e. downhill from the garage). A compact, lineal plan is necessary to avoid the foundations and stay within the property and height limits. In addition to compact plans, simple shed roofs that follow the slope of the site are incorporated to address height limits (see site sections on A4.1). The proposed structure is literally squeezed into the building envelope allowed per code. Even so, it is necessary to use the side setback in its development. In recent years, the adjacent Lot 15 was fully developed with a new duplex structure. This structure is located in the center of a lot with two acute angled corners. One of the corners is located directly south of the proposed structure for Lot 22. The hatched area of the site plan designates the required Eagle County setbacks because it is in Eagle County jurisdiction. It is practically impossible to develop a structure of any significance in the acute property corner on Lot 15 because of setback limitations, access and geometry. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed structure on any neighboring properties, is negligible. 3. Approval Criteria a) The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed setback area encroachments are concentrated in one area of the site with little impact to development standards and neighboring properties and structures. b) 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 proposed variance will allow Lot 22 to be developed in a compatible fashion with equal treatment in spite of the extreme history and unique site hardships. The proposed variance is not a grant of special privilege given the practical difficulties that are caused by the existing foundations, site geometry, geologic sensitivity and steep grades through no fault of the applicant. The proposed design is the result of a detailed study based on the development code and site conditions that most sensitively marries structure with site. c) 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 have no negative impacts to these issues. michael4c sumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T 3/12/2006 RE: Subject: Lot Size: Zoning: Setbacks: Height: Site Coverage Allowed: Site Coverage Proposed: GRFA Allowed: GRFA Proposed: Lot 22, Vail Village West, 1 sr Filing Zoning Analysis .253 acre = 11,020.7 sq. ft. Primary/Secondary 20' Front 15' Sides 15' Rear 33' Sloped Roofs 30' Flat Roofs 1,653.1 sq. ft. (15% of Lot area) 1,653.0 sq. ft. (15% of Lot area) 4,600 sq. ft. (10,000 sq. ft./ 100 x 46) 387.9 sa ft (1 020.7 sq. ft./ 100 x 381 4,987.9 sq. ft. GRFA Allowed 264.1 sq. ft. Upper Level Plan 1,584.6 sq. ft. Living Level Plan 986.7 sq. ft. Master Level Plan 796.1 sq ft. Lower Level Plan 3,631.5 sq. ft. GRFA Proposed Parking 3 parking spaces required for dwellings between 2,000 -4,000 sq. ft. Required: Parking 3 enclosed spaces off - street Provided: Garage Credit (2) Spaces @ 300 sq. ft. = 600 sq. ft. Allowed: Garage Area 567.1 sq. ft. Proposed: 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 michael(i SUmanarchitec 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 Attachment: D BOUNDARIES . UNLIMI'TED INC. Civil & Consulting Engineers June 18, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Suman Architect PO Box 7760 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Proposed Solis Residence Building Site Location Recommendation, Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, Vail, CO Dear Michael: The following letter report presents a building site location recommendation for the Solis residence to be constructed on the above referenced Lot 22. Lot 22's street address is 1740 Sierra Trail, Vail, Colorado and is located between the Sierra Trail cul -de -sac and Alpine Drive. This recommendation is based on our reviewing of the available documents and drawings, recent site visits, and our knowledge acquired from direct involvement with the site reclamation completed during 1982 -1983. The following documents and drawings made available for our review are identified as follows: Topographic Survey, Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, Job No. 152, Prepared by Eagle Valley Surveying Inc., Dated 1/16/06. Topographic Map, Bitteto Lot, Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing # 1, Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado, Prepared By Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc., Sheets 1 of 2, Dated 9!21 /82 Cross - Sections, Bitteto Lot, Lot 22, Vail Village West. Filing # 1, Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado, Prepared By Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc., Sheets 2 of 2, Dated 9/21/82 Numerous Field Reports (some not legible) of the Street and Lot reconstruction, Prepared by Bruce D. Lewis, Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. Dated from November 1982 thru November 1983 Review of Available Geologic and Geotechnical Documents, 1740 Sierra Trail, Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, Eagle County, Colorado, Job No. 15591, Addressed to Richard E. Young, by Church & Associate, Inc., Engineers & Geologists, 6 pages, Dated July 16, 2003 Solis Residence, Lot 22, Vail Village West 1st Filing, Vail, Colorado, Prepared by Suman Architect, Sheets A 1.0, A2.1, A3.1, & A4.1, Dated 1 3'06 823 Blake Avenue Suite 102 Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 Ph: 970.945.5252 Fax: 970.384.2833 June 18, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Proposed Solis Residence Page 2 of 3 As shown on the above referenced recent Topographic Survey the ground surface grades across the 0.253 acre north facing lot ranges from approximately 25% to 70 %. The elevation difference of approximately 64 feet exists between the Sierra Trail cul -de -sac and Alpine Drive. A sloped 6 foot stacked boulder retaining wall is located at the base of the lot along the Sierra Trail cul -de -sac. A brief history of Lot 22's building excavation and land slide activity began with the construction of a single family residence back in 1979, as detailed in the above referenced Church & Associates, Inc. report. According to the referenced report, during the fall of 1979 extensive excavation exposed a spring and minor slides undermining the Alpine Drive were noted by Eagle County's Engineering Department. Following intermittent construction activities and several site evaluations, the largest and last land slide failure occurred on March 8, 1982 at the southern excavated vertical escarpment. The last slide took out a section of Alpine Drive's pavement and a portion of the Town's water line. The slide mass moved a portion of the partially framed house (on lot 22) off from its foundation. Claveomb Engineering Associates, Inc. (CEA) was contracted by the Town of Vail to complete a design and monitor the site stabilization and reconstruction of the street and lot to the topography Cy existing prior to any on site building excavation (shown on the referenced Topographic Map and Cross - Sections drawings). As previously mentioned, I was directly involved, as a senior engineer with CEA, with completing the reclamation of the slide area. The scope of work included determining the extent of land slide material removal and the design of the sub -drain system, storm drainage, and street pavement sections. As part of the site reconstruction, the partially completed foundation was left in place and serves as a buried plug or dam. The location of this foundation is shown on the above reference Topographic Map. Two site visits were conducted on May 5 th and 17 "` of this year to observe any visible ground surface conditions and the outflow water from the sites subsurface drain system. The lot's steep sloping ground surface is well vegetated with grass and showed very little surface runoff erosion. The upper sub -grade material near the ground surface shoes some minor settlement and down - slope movement, based on the present condition of the monitor pipe (installed as part of the reconstruction) located near the middle portion of the lot. No ground surface breaks, minor slides, differential settlement or other slope instability indicator were observed on the lot. A small flow of water was observed exiting the storm drain culvert connected to the sites subsurface drain system. The lack of any significant ground movement or slope failures over the past 23 years indicates the site exists in a stable condition. Disturbance of the existing buried concrete foundation stricture and the back - filled material at the bottom portion of the lot in the vicinity of the Sierra Trail cul -de -sac shall be avoided in order to maintain stability of the steep slope and subsurface drainage system. The depth of excavation required for removal of the buried foundation structure, with the presence of year round ground water, significantly increases the risk of slope instability and the potential of land slides. As shown on the above referenced plans, the location of the proposed residence with its access coming off from Alpine Drive is recommended. A soils inN estigation along with a slope analysis June 18, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Proposed Solis Residence Page 3 of 3 shall be performed for the proposed structure. Also, the sub -drain ravel beds and collector pipes must be field located in the proposed building area so that they may be avoided or redesigned prior to foundation construction. All excavations shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer prior to placement of any improvements or fill material. A site grading and drainage plan shall be prepared by a qualified registered engineer. All surface drainage generated by the proposed improvements shall be piped to the bottom of the lot and released at historical runoff rates into the existing storm drain_ In summary, the site reconstruction completed in 1983 on lot 22 appears to remain stable. Disturbance of the buried foundation and backfilled material between this foundation and Sierra trail shall be avoided. The proposed building location, with proper precautions, can avoid disturbance in the immediate area of the existing buried foundation structure. A soils investigation along with a slope analysis for the proposed structure shall be completed prior to any site excavation. All improvements shall be in accordance with the soils investigation recommendations. All excavation and encountered sub -drain systems, surface and subsurface drainage design must be reviewed and modification designs completed by a qualified engineer. Please feel free to contact me for additional information or questions you may have. Sincerely, BOUNDP Bruce D. Lewis,,�:,� Principal o "�� ° 4 0 �.2r, BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED INC. Civil & Consulting Engineers July 3, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Suman Architect PO Box 7760 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Variance Request for Proposed Solis Residence Building Site Location Recommendation, Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, Vail, CO Dear Michael: This letter further discusses our Building Site Location Recommendation letter for the Proposed Solis Residence, dated June 18, 2006. It our my understanding, during a phone conversation with Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, that a variance request has been submitted to the Town of Vail for constructing a portion of the Solis Residence outside the lots building setbacks. I stated in our June 18, 2006 letter, "Disturbance of the existing buried concrete foundation structure and the back - filled material at the bottom portion of the lot in the vicinity of the Sierra Trail cul -de -sac shall be avoided in order to maintain stability of the steep slope and subsurface drainage system. The depth of excavation required for removal of the buried foundation structure, with the presence of year round ground water, significantly increases the risk of slope instability and the potential of land slides." During the site reconstruction (1982 -983), I determined that the concrete foundation was constructed at least 3 feet below the slip plane of the slide area. At that time, I felt that leaving the foundation in place was critical component of the lot stabilization process for the following three reasons. 1. The foundation removal would have required deeper excavation at the bottom of the land slide area. Deeper excavation would create a more hazardous environment to the construction workers by increasing the risk of additional slides. 2. Leaving the foundation in place created a rigid dam like structure. This is an integral part of the field design for maintaining the steeply sloped backfill in place. 3. The foundation's uphill facing large surface wall areas are part of the subsurface drainage system designed to intercept the underground spring and higher seasonal ground water conditions. The uphill faced walls of the foundation are lined with a prefabricated drainage composite mat ( "MiraDrain" system) in order to remove excess water from the soils. Keeping soil dry is critical in maintaining stable ground in steep sloping areas. 823 Blake Avenue Suite 102 Glenwood Springs Colorado 81601 Ph: 970.945.5252 Fax: 970.384.2833 July 3, 2006 Mr. Michael Suman Variance Request for Proposed Solis Residence Page 2 of 2 Again, we believe that a residence can be built on this lot as long as construction in the area of the buried foundation is avoided. Disturbing or removing the buried foundation should be avoided since it is an integral part of maintaining slope stabilization. Also, just as critical, is that any new construction upslope of the buried foundation must be designed not to add additional loads (or surcharge) to the backfilled material of the upper landslide zone. All recommendations stated in the referenced June 18, 2006 letter shall remain unchanged. Please feel free to contact me for additional information or questions you may have. Sincerely, BOLA UNLIMITED INC. Bruce D. Le PE -�° , 0 Principal d �a o o . SUMAN A R C H I T E C T June 30, 2006 Lot 22 Vail Village West, l st Filing Variance Application for Side Setback RE: Section 12 -61-1-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code The attached. photos 1 -4 were taken shortly after the land slide on March 8, 1982. These images are copies of the photos on file at the Town of Vail Planning Department. They illustrate not only the severity of the land slide that took place, but the devastation that occurred as a result. The access drive previously came from the Sierra Trail side(downhill side) of the property. As documented extensively in the TOV file and in documents associated with this variance request, the deep cut created for the access drive and the foundation installation was instrumental in causing the slope to fail. Photo 1 This photo shows the deep cut started from Sierra Trail to the structure. Note much of it is filled with slide debris. Photo 2 This photo shows a close view of the collapsed structure. The concrete foundations are buried below the damaged framing and as located in the remediation site plan, remained relatively in tact and where constructed. Photo 3 This photo captures the slide from the west side. Photo 4 This photo captures the slide from the Alpine Drive side of the property (uphill). Note the land slide material settled against the uphill side of the foundations below. Please refer to the letter prepared on June 18, 2006 by Boundaries Unlimited, Inc. for a review of the present state of the property. Photo 5 This photo shows the current state of the slope from the north side of the property off of Sierra Trail. Note the boulder retaining wall in the foreground and the amount of fill that was place on top of the foundation in the center of the site. A monitoring hole can be seen in the center of the photo. This is connected to the drainage system installed as a part of the slope remediation after the slide. Photo 6 This photo shows the current state of the slope from the north side of the property off of Sierra Trail. Note the distance the proposed building location is from the structure on the adjacent Lot 15 to the east. Photo 7 This photo shows the current state of the slope from the south side of the property off of Alpine Drive. The monitoring hole can again be seen in the center of the slope. Photo 8 This photo shows the current state of the slope from the south side of the property off of Alpine Drive. Note the drainage swale between the adjacent Lot 15 structure and the proposed building location. It will remain in tact with this proposal. michaelg_sumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow. Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T The basis for the Lot 22 variance request is to protect against re- creating similar conditions to that which caused the original land slide. In order to remove the existing foundations, excavation has to go even deeper than the slide excavation to remove the original foundation with its footings. This exacerbates the issues that were involved in the original land slide. As outlined in the letter by Boundaries Unlimited, Inc., the existing foundations buried in the site should be avoided. The proposed building location stays clear of disturbing the stabilized lower section of the slope. It is anticipated that pier foundations will be used in the new building construction in order to minimize slope disturbance and a civil engineer will be involved to design proper drainage around the structure and throughout the site. The building was also located as far to the west on the property as possible. This takes advantage of lower grade elevations in an effort to minimize site disturbance. It also maximizes the distance between the structure on Lot 15 and the proposed home. michaelnasumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T July 6, 2006 Lot 22, Block 7 Vail Village West 1 st Filing 2180 Alpine Drive RE: Historical timeline for Lot 22. 1. Detailed History of Lot 22 This historical summary illustrates the critical events and the diligent and exhaustive process undertaken prior to the variance request needed for the proposed site development. a a� c 3 0 c a� U _o : 0 Q } c a� w N a� c 3 0 m U c N 0 w ■ 1979 Construction of single family residence began ■ 3/8/82 Final and largest land slide failure ■ 9/21/82 A report by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc.(Claycomb) recommended the existing foundations were to remain as part of the remedial plan. ■ 9/19/83- 11/15/83 Field reports document the remediation work performed by Claycomb(on file at TOV). ■ 5/1/85 TOV Chief Building Official signed an agreement that no special restrictions will be imposed on the lot based on the completion of Claycomb's remediation work. ■ 7/16/03 Church and Associates, Inc. report states that construction is "feasible ", but recommends limited excavation on site. It also states the existing foundations are not re- usable. ■ 6/1/04 Property address was changed from Sierra Trail to 2180 Alpine Drive. Property is deeded with the Alpine Drive address. ■ 10/8/04 Lot 22 purchased by Luis and Rebecca Solis ■ 10/28/04 Pre - application meeting with Matt Gennett, Elisabeth Eckel, JR Mondragon and architect Bob Welton of Knudson Gloss Architects. TOV staff confirmed Lot 22 could be accessed from Sierra Trail or Alpine Drive ■ 6/5/05 Michael Suman Architect brought in as architect for new residence. Pre - Design research begins. ■ 6/17/05 Consulted Bruce Lewis(Claycomb engineer in charge of slope remediation) for general site background and history. ■ 6/24/05 Site meeting with geotechnical engineers, Church and Associates, Inc., to review site conditions for a soils report. michael(asumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T ■ 6/28/05 Pre - application meeting with Elisabeth Eckel(TOV planner), Luis Solis and Michael Suman to review TOV planning file for Lot 22. Obtained: original design drawings (plans and elevations); Claycomb Engineering Specs for site reconstruction; Claycomb site plan and site sections of reconstruction. ■ 7/8/05 Pre - application meeting with Tom Kassmel, Leonard Sandoval (TOV public works department), and Michael Suman to review TOV public works file for Lot 22. Obtained: Claycomb progress reports and Correspondence during site remediation. ■ 7/27/05 Meeting with Lynn Schorr of Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Obtained: Map of ERWSD water and sewer service pipe routing. ■ 7/29/05 Site Meeting with Chuck of Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Obtained: ERWSD file as -built dwgs of water and sewer service pipe routing ■ 8/15/05 Site Meeting with Holy Cross regarding overhead powers lines and electrical service access. ■ 10/5/05 Soils report proposal received from Church and Associates, Inc. requiring three test holes 60 -70 feet deep via track mounted drill rig needing excavated benches on the property. ■ 11/14/05 Phone conversation with Eagle County Engineering Department regarding access through Alpine Drive right of way. Eagle County had no issues with our proposal. ■ 1/23/06 Schematic Design and site studies start being developed based on research. ■ 2/13/06 Conceptual site design is developed confirming a setback variance is necessary. ■ 3/13/06 Application for setback variance submitted to the Town of Vail. ■ 3/21/06 Received comments from Tom Kassmel of the Town of Vail public works department requesting proof that the center of the site cannot be stabilized. ■ 4/5/06 Bruce Lewis, Claycomb engineer in charge of slope remediation, brought in to perform report on present site conditions and slope stability. ■ 4/19/06 Site meeting between Lot 15 owner and Michael Suman to present proposed design of variance application. On behalf of the Lot 22 owners, Suman presented offers to the Lot 15 owner for land swap and land purchase arrangements based on two site plan diagrams. The Lot 15 owner declined all offers. ■ 5/5/06 and 5/17/06 Bruce Lewis visited site to study the existing conditions of slope and water flow. ■ 6/18/06 Bruce Lewis prepared Lot 22 Building Site Location Recommendation ■ 6/23/06 Phone conversation between Tom Kassmel and Bruce Lewis. Tom Kassmel recommended that Lewis write another letter based on their phone conversation. ■ 7/3/06 Bruce Lewis prepared second letter of Building Site Location Recommendation a N a� c 3 0 c a� U c . N 0 w michaelksumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479.7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 I I I I T I m I � t I I , I I o� c�sQ °a m A Z tz <c 5 a SOLIS RESIDENCE suM ' LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST 1ST FILING VAIL, COLORADO 9 = 4 I O Iq Q p 5 a SOLIS RESIDENCE suM ' LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST 1ST FILING VAIL, COLORADO 9 = 4 SOLIS RESIDENCE SUMM LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST 1ST FILING VAIL, COLORADO \ 4 4orc y m \ 8. \ I C 4 ION \ i � r I lia y irA 1 l I \ �w Z C � I 1 SOLIS RESIDENCE SUN" .�� '• II LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST 7ST FILING VAIL, COLORADO Application for Review by the D Planning and Environmental Commiss n MAR 13 2006 TOWN OF VAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 TOWN OF VAIL web: www.vailgov.com General Information: All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and /or the Design Review Board. Type of Application and Fee: • Rezoning $1300 Conditional Use Permit $650 • Major Subdivision $1500 Floodplain Modification $400 • Minor Subdivision $650 Minor Exterior Alteration $650 • Exemption Plat $650 Major Exterior Alteration $800 • Minor Amendment to an SDD $1000 Development Plan $1500 • New Special Development District $6000 Amendment to a Development Plan $250 • Major Amendment to an SDD $6000 Zoning Code Amendment $1300 • Major Amendment to an SDD $1250 Variance $500 (no exterior modifications) Sign Variance $200 Description of the Request: ✓ _ r 4ts i Location of the Proposal: Lot:--Z.?, Block:_ Subdivision: VAW Z e- d�T F /i Physical Address: ,1$D ko, Parcel No.: i 16 1 �01 (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970 - 328-8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: Name(s) of C Mailing A X70 A& Owner(s) Signature(s): Name of Applicant: Mailing Address: d' l Phone: ,303 •29 a &651 ��„� .pry ✓� ri l�.0 C� l E -mail Address: Phone: Fax �D • �t��•S For Office s Only: l tG / ��,'�•� Fee Paid: _ Check No.:--/ By: t, Meeting Date: U - © PEC No.: Planner: o ect No.: .r. ,. � _� 1 Page 1 of-6- U4 /U1 /U4 First American Herita a 1111 ', Vt'rAK11vnwN1 — LFE1.1VE,1CY IKAINJIVIII IA1 �� l 1 Title C iany g P.O. Box 1980, 0050 Chatnbt-- Ave. # i Eagle, CO 81631 LIAI(III�LI':41131CIIltllS PC 1'SUl1AI (970) 328 -5211 Fax: (970) 328 -5252 FILE NUMBER: 615- HOO12381- 061 -MIH, Amendment No, 2 DATE: March 14, 2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2180 Alpine Drive Vail, CO 81657 OWNEWBUYER: Richard E. Young / Luis Solis and Rebecca Solis PLEASE DELIVER TO THE CUSTOMER LISTED BELOW: TO: Avon Escrow PHONE: (970) 949 -4406 Michelle Hudspeth FAX: (.970) 949 -4069 P.O. Box 5690 E -MAIL: michelle@fahtco.com 100 Beaver Creek Blvd. #234 NO. OF COPIES: 1 Avon, CO 81620 ROUTING METHOD: Deliver TO: Jo Ellen Nash and Company PHONE: 970 -926 -7653 P.O. Box 461 FAX: 970 -926 -7655 Edwards, CO 81632 E -MAIL: NO. OF COPIES: 1 Attn: Lai T. White R OUTING MET E -mail TO: Jo Ellen Nash and Company PHONE: 970 - 926 -7653 P.O. Box 461 FAX: 970- 926 -7655 Edwards, CO 81.632 E- MAIL: NO. OF COPIES: I Attn: Jo Ellen Nash ROUTING METHOD: E -rnail TO: Richard E. Young PHONE: 2345 Elm Street FAX: Denver, CO 80207 F -MAIL: NO. OF COPIES: ROUTING METHOD: TO: Luis Solis and Rebecca Solis PHONE: 3981 Promontory Court FAX: Boulder, CO 80304 E -MAIL: NO. OF COPIES: ROUTING METHOD: TO: FirstBank of Boulder PHONE: 303' -581 -2532 6500 LookoutRd. FAX: 303 -581 -2540 Boulder, CO 80301 E- MAIL:.: laurie.faye @elirstbank.com NO. OF COPIES: 1 Attn: Laurie ROU M ETHO D: E -mail PLEASE REVIEW THE ENCLOSED MATERIAL COMPLETELY AND TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING TERMS CONTA THEREIN: Schedule A: New effective date, amended loan amount, added lender Schedule RI: Schedule R11: ABOVE IS A LIST OF CLIENTS TO WHOM THE A'T'TACHED MATERIALS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE MATERIALS, PLEASE CONTACT FIRST AMERICAN HERITAGE TITLE COMPANY AT THE ABOVE PFIONE NUMSEN. WE SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS, ,A I A POLICY-ISSUING AGENT OF FIRST AMERICAN , ts� TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 80 /Z0 39VJ SQt70aSSOZiO TTSL6Lb0L6 8T :9T 9002/bT/£0 F/ First American Heritage F/' I � � Title Company Iv[akiulr "Prmuscrions Personal First American Heritage Title Company Date: March 14, 2006 RE: Buyer/Borrower: Luis Solis and Rebecca Solis Seller(s): Richard E. Young Property Address: 2180 Alpine Drive Vail, CO $1657 File Number: 615- H0U12381- 061 -MIH, Amendment No. 2 We would like to thank you for choosing First American Heritage Title Company for your title insurance needs. Enclosed please find: 0 COMMITMENT(s) 0 CCR'S ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMEN'T'S If you have any questions concerning the material contained herein, please feel free to contact First American Heritage Title Company at: . For all of your closing needs, your Escrow Officer is: Michelle Hudspeth: Please feel free to contact your closer at: (970) 949 -4406, fax: (970) 949 -4069, email: miehelle @fahtco.com, P.O. Box 5690100 Beaver Creek Blvd. #234 Avon, CO 81620. For all of your title and commitment needs, your Title Examiner is: Trish Keyes. Please feel free to contact your examiner at: (970) 328 -5211, fax: (970) 328 -5252, P.O. Box 1980 0050 Chambers Ave. # I Eagle, CO 81631. Once again, thank you for your business. We look forward to serving all of your title needs. Sincerely, First American Heritage Title Company •.r. I A POLICY-ISSUING AGENT OF FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 80160 39Vd SQdOJSS0a3 TT9L6Lti0L6 8T:9T 9003/VT160 Owner's Extended Coverage "OEC" COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE. ISSUED BY First American Heritage Title Company AS AGENT FOR First American 'Title Insurance Company INFORMATION The Title Insurance Commitment is a legal contract between you and the company. It is issuer( to show the basis on which we will issue a Title Insurance Policy to you. The Policy will insure you against certain risks to the land title, subject to the limitations shown in the Policy. The Company will give you a sample of the Policy form, if you ask. The Commitment is based on the land title as of the Commitment Date. Any changes in the land title or the transaction may affect the Commitment and the Policy. The Commitment is subject to its requirements, Exceptions and Conditions. THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. YOU SHOULD READ THE COMMITMENT VERY CAREFULLY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMMITMENT PLEASE CONTACT THE ISSUING OFFICE. AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY First American Title Insurance Company, referred to in this commitment as the Company, through its agent First American Heritage Title Company, referred to in this Agreement as the Agent, agrees to issue a policy to you according to the terms of this commitment. When we show the policy amount and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this commitment becomes effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A. If the Requirements shown in the Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment date, our obligation under this Couunitnent will end. Also our obligation under this Commitment will end when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy. Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following: • The Provisions in Schedule A. • The Requirements in Schedule B -1. • The Exceptions in Schedule B -2. • The Disclosures and Conditions contained in this Commitment. • Endorsement 130.3 (Inflation) will be attached to the Plain Language Owner's Policy. This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections I and 2 of SCHEDULE B attached, or if the land is other than a 1 -4 Family Residential land. 80 /b0 SJbd SGVMJSSQZIS TTSLGLtr0L6 8T :9T 900Z/17T/60 DEFINITIONS CONDI'T'IONS rrll' 1V0.: 01J- Y1001GJ0L- ll0L- lVlltl, AltletlOml'lit NO. L (a) "Mortgage" means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b) "Public Records" means title records that give constructive notice of matters affecting the title according to state law where the land is located. (c) "Land" means file land or condominium unit described in Schedule A and any improvements on the land which are real property. 2. 1N'rtRVENING DEFECTS The Company hereby insures against loss or damage by reason of there being recorded any deeds, mortgages, lis pendens, liens or other title encumbrances which first appear in the public records subsequent to the effective Date of Commitment, but prior to the effective Date of Policy. "Public records" as used herein means those records in which under statutes deeds, mortgages, judgment liens or lis pendens mast be recorded in order to impart constructive notice to purchasers of the land for value without knowledge. 'rho Company does not insure against such loss or damage if the existence of such deeds. mortgages, lis pendens, liens or other title encumbrances is actually known to the proposed insured prior to or at the time of closing. The closing is defined herein as being the time of the execution and delivery to the proposed of the documents creating the interest of the proposed insure. Ex1S'rING DEFECTS If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment Date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing. 4. LIMITATION OF OUR i.IABiLiTY Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If we have Emy liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment our liability will he limited to your actual Inss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to; comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B - Section I or eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule i3 - Section 2. We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you. 5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms. DISCLOSURES SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NOTICE The subject land may be located in a special taxing district; a certificate of taxes clue listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the county treasurer or the county treasurer's authorized agent; and information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the hoard of county commissioners, the county clerk and recurder, or the county assessor. PRIVACY PROMISE FOR CUSTOMERS We will not reveal nonpublic personal information to any external non - affiliated organization unless we have been authorized by the customer, or are required by law. CONSUMER DECLARATION STATEMENT This Commitment for Title Insurance may include a Schedule B exception reference: to recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate. If such reference is made, there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals or geothermal energy in the property. The referenced mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface estate owner's permission. You may be able to obtain title insurance coverage regarding any such referenced mineral estate severance and its affect upon your ownership. Ask your title company representative for assistance with this issue. 80/90 39Vd SaVONSSOND TTSL6Lb0L6 8T :5T 900Z/PT/60 First American Heritage Title Company COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Commitment No: 615- H0012381 -061 -MIH, Amendment No. 2 1. Commitment Date: October 8, 2004 at 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy or policies to be issued: Policy Amount (a) Plain Language (OEC) Proposed Insured: $ 207,500.00 Owner's Policy Luis Solis (b) Loan Policy Proposed Insured: $ 155,625.00 FirstBank of Boulder 3. Fee Simple interest in the land described in this Commitment is owned, at the Commitment Date by: Richard F. Young 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, according to the plat thereof, County of 13agle, State of Colorado (for informational purposes only) 2180 Alpine Drive, PREMIUM: Owners Policy $903.00 Tax Certificate $15.00 Form 140.1 -EPA Residential $40.00 Form 130.2 -OEC $40.00 09/23/2004 8:40:29 kty PK Vail, CO 81657 Mortgage Policy Form 100- Restrict -FA Form 103.1- Easements -MP Deletion -Items 1 -5 $140.00 $40.00 $50.00 $15.00 80/90 39VJ savM1SSM10 11SL6Lti0L6 81 :S1 900Z/01/60 CD w v ° ° L 1 E W z Co Q � c y O C U bb W v Q p o Ul bb �? Q 7 N c C Y 73 rn c •� (D a . v co o n. .0 c o 'd $ b o Z '-O bi) CD LO U L � y C: C C/1 ' Ul bb z. v s Ca cua W F- cu > p y y+ tu 3 r _ x C ca 3 s. u L: u .2 2N C '° � W aj y ...r Ci u L. •> fel Cal m E — Lo U 0� Q u C C i y U CQ L Q co o U C C w U a 0 0 co O ✓� c"3 N n C. i > y '� O y r O W V1 :n U ^�� •> J s C1+ C .v ++ G. O vim L tYi cr jw bb ti � U C •a. � 3 � U _+ Cd F •� � C V Q J u 3 U � R. +. C .. U `'� C s�" ' � T� :1� Q '7 �► 3i C Gsfi bA y .'• N . _ bD a� C _ 4 "� 3 .^-1ri J �' .••1 W •� ^ P. Q C i cz C ^. C 72, - Y C C j LL: W E' R� lfl cq C c O i u j 0 0 a a a, O �, U F a� r H 3 s q s c U n W 3 W z Z a a CD N F :n s Z rn U m OD Form No. 1344 -B2 (CO -88) ALTA Plain Language Commitment SCHEDULE B — Section 2 Exceptions Any policy we issue will have the following exceptions unless they are taken care of to our satisfaction: Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. 2. Reservations and exceptions in patents and in acts authorizing their issuance as the same may affect the subject property and specifically, the right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises as set forth in United States Patent recorded October 4, 1918 in Book 93 at Page 301. 4 5 R Affirmative protection against item number 7, of Schedule B, Section 2 will be afforded the Lender by means of Endorsement 1.03.1. Reservations and exceptions in patents and acts authorizing their issuance as the same may affect the subject property and specifically, the right to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with vested and accrued water rights together with the reservation of a right -of -way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States as set forth in United States Patent recorded October 4, 1918 . in Book 93 at Page 301. Affirmative protection against item number 8, of Schedule B, Section 2 will be afforded the Lender by means of Endorsement 103.1. instrument recorded October 25, 1963 in Book 178 at Page 149. Amendment of said covenants, conditions and restrictions by an instrument recorded December 6, 1963 in Book 178 at Page 345. Provisions regarding race, color, creed, and national origin, if any, are deleted. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, which do not include a forfeiture or revert clause, set forth in the Reservation of a ten percent non - participating royalty interest contained in Warranty Deed recorded October 30, 1962 in Book 166 at Page 407. Easements, reservations and restrictions as shown or reserved on the recorded plat of Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, including but not limited to: Utility easements 5 feet in width along the rear and side lot lines. 80/80 39Vd savodsSMID TTSL6Lb0l6 8T:5T 9002/VT/60 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROUTING FORM Routed To: Public Works Date Routed: 03/15/06 Routed By: Matt Gennett Date Due: 03/22/06 Project Name: Solis Variance Request Project #: PRJ06 -0065 Activity #: PEC06 -0015 Description of work: Setback variance request for a new SFR. Address: 2180 Alpine Drive Legal: Lot: 122 Block: I Subdivision: I Vail Village West Filing 1 Status: ❑ Approved ❑ Approved with conditions ® Denied Comments: Date Reviewed: L J Fire Department Issues. Need additional review py rire uepartment. Provide a aeoloaical report. Provide a engineer stability report. I They need to prove that the center of the site can not be stabilized and that the upper portion of the site is more stable. Any auestions call the Town Enqineer Tom Kassmel. SUMAN A R C H I T E C T April 8, 2005 Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing 1 Adjacent Properties List WEST Name: Roger Phanord Zoning: Residential Address: 5501 S W 70th Place Davie, FL 33314 Name: Gary Schaeffer Revocable Living Zoning: Multi- family - Sierra Condos Address: 1760 Sierra Trail A Vail, CO 81657 Name: Dennis Kurplus Zoning: Multi- family -Sierra Condos Address: P.O. Box 1290 Vail, CO 81658 Name: Karl Jarchow Zoning: Multi- family- Sierra Condos Address: P.O. Box 1908 Edwards, CO 81632 Name: Pierre Tagliabue Zoning: Multi - family -Sierra Condos Address: 1760 Sierra Trail 3 Vail, CO 81657 Name: Jeff Cricco Zoning: Multi- family -Sierra Condos Address: P.O. Box 5808 Vail, CO 81658 SOUTH Name: James Aquila Zoning: Residential Address: 6 Crocus Hill St. Paul, MN 55102 Name: William Hibbs Zoning: Residential Address: 50 S 61h St., Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Name: Elie Ouaknine Zoning: Residential Address: 2326 Tahoe Dr. #E Vail, CO 81657 michael(i� 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T Name: Luc Polls Zoning: Residential Address: 2326 Tahoe Dr. #W Vail, CO 81657 EAST William Spilo Name: Ken Bednar Zoning: Residential Address: 2794 NE 5 St. Pompano Beach, FL 33062 Name: Bruce Behren Zoning: Residential Address: 13745 SW 104th CT Miami, FL 33176 Name: Cynthia MCADAM Zoning: Residential Address: 744 Sandy Ln Vail, CO 81657 Name: Timm Paxson Zoning: Residential Address: P.O. Box 1470 Vail, Co 81658 NORTH Name: David Austin Zoning: Residential Address: 1739 Sierra Trail Vail, Co 81657 Name: William Spilo Zoning: Residential Address: 1737 Sierra Trail, Apt D Vail, Co 81657 michael a>sumanarchitect.com 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement Statement Number: R060000218 Amount: $500.00 03/13/200602:02 PM Payment Method: Check Init: JS Notation: 1150 /MICHAEL SUMAN Permit No: PEC060015 Type: PEC - Variance Parcel No: 2103 - 123 - 1201 -7 Site Address: 2180 ALPINE DR VAIL Location: 2180 ALPINE DRIVE Total Fees: $500.00 This Payment: $500.00 Total ALL Pmts: $500.00 Balance: $0.00 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts -------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- PV 00100003112500 PEC APPLICATION FEES 500.00 TO,OVik THIS ITEM MA PUBL C NOTIOER PROPERTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12 -3 -6, Vail Town Code, on April 10, 2006, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, to allow for a new single family residence within the front and side setbacks, located at 1740 Sierra Trail /Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06 -0015) Applicant: Lois Solis, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a final review of a minor exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, for the addition of enclosed floor area, located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive /Lot 5B, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, (Gore Creek Plaza Building), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06 -0018) Applicant: Gore Creek Plaza Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Elisabeth Eckel A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12 -6C -8, Density Control and Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition (garage, entry, and elevator), located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive /Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06 -0017) Applicant: Robert Stephenson, Jr., represented by Snowdon Hopkins Architects Planner: Bill Gibson r nptL,#( -- ICI T A request for final review of an appeal of an administrative action, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination that an observatory is not an architectural feature allowed to extend above the building height limit, 1979 Sunburst Drive /Lot 12, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PRJ05 -0417) Applicant: Ned Gwathmey and Todd Kramer; Gwathmey, Pratt, Shultz Architects Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970 - 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24 -hour notification. Please call 970 -479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published March 24, 2006, in the Vail Daily. �v � �� —� ._ �� , 1 � V I �� Z ___ a'� l ^ 3 � Op I o � � � o w R i � z � 3 - i i i �m �� a 8 s 0 w 0 w Z a J Q � 0 1 r �_ 0 Richard E. Young 2345 Elm Street Denver, Colorado 80207 (303) 388 -6965 r.e.you11P,L(02net.net December 9, 2002 Mr. Matt Gennett Department of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing No. 1, 1740 Sierra Trail Dear Matt: You will recall meeting with me on Thursday, October 19, 20002, at your office, for the purpose of me to learn what ordinances or city requirements applied to the above captioned lot which I own. I needed to find this out so that I could proceed to take the steps to comply with the Town of Vail's requirements. You brought for us to review the Town's file on this lot. But it contained only several pieces of paper, as well as two sets of drawings which appeared to be the drawings of the owner of the lot back in the late 1970's /early 1980's for a residence to be built on the lot. As the Town's file did not contain the:Miiy 1, 1985 letter agreement between the Town of Vail and my then client, KKBNA, Inc., or the J(ugust 2, 1993 letter from Vail's Town attorney, R. Thomas Moorhead, addressed to me, you make copies of these two letters to be placed in the Town's files. I inquired about the extensive records that the Town of Vail had on this lot (growing out of the 1982 Howlett, et al. Vs Board of County Commissioners et al. Lawsuit), and you said you were unaware of these, and I should inquire elsewhere, perhaps at the Town Attorney's office. I also asked about an ordinance which my real estate agent had obtained a copy of from the Town, and which was labeled "Ordinance #29 (series of 1982). You indicated you knew nothing about this ordinance or whether it was in effect or not. You advised me. then, and subsequently, that you thought it might be, as once an ordinance is passed, it is in place unless otherwise rescinded, but that I should check with the Town Attorney. You also, in response to my questions, told me about the Town's three geologic sensitivity areas (avalanche hazard, rockfall hazard, and debris flow hazard), and showed me the official Town maps of those areas. You and I looked at those official maps and determined that my lot was not located in any of the three. (on my way out I purchased the Official Town of Vail Maps, adopted by the Vail Town Council (resolution 13, Series of 2000) on October 17, 2000, and produced by your department on May 8, 2001. Since our original meeting now some more than seven weeks ago, I have been trying to get answers to the questions I asked you. After many communications, I have finally learned that the 1982 Ordinance described above was rescinded in 1985. However, from what I can gather, someone or ones within the Town of Vail continue to pass out the 1982 Ordinance, as I have gotten comments back from a number of potential buyers that they either want to wait to make an offer after the Spring runoff (as the 1982 Ordinance specifies that certain soil tests need to be performed in "the Spring of the Year," or that they do not want to have to go through the expense of obtaining the "extremely detailed geotechnical soils investigation" referred to in the language of that 1982 Ordinance. I need to obtain a copy of the 1985 Ordinance that rescinds this earlier ordinance. If, in fact the ordinance was repealed, I would hope that the rescinded ordinance be withdrawn from the files on this lot. I would also hope that you would be aware of this rescission, so that when people inquire, you and your department would have the correct information to provide them. I have also reviewed on the Town's website the Vail Town Code, specifically Title 12 (Zoning Regulations), Chapter 21 (Hazard Regulations). When we met on October 19, 2002, we discussed (and you gave me a copy of Chapter 6, Article D of Title 12), but you did not mention Chapter 21. In perusing Chapter 21, it appears that Section 12 -21 -14 may apply to my lot. The information I have indicates its slope in around 34 %. Would you please verify to me that the slope of my lot does bring it within the constraints of Section 12- 21 -14, and that,: as we had earlier determined, my lot is not in any of the geological hazard zones of influence or avalanche and geological hazard areas as established by the Town of Vail. Lastly, the files on this lot were located, thanks to Mary Ann Best, Judy Rodriquez, and Lynne Campbell, and I have made arrangements to come up to Vail this Thursday, December 12, 2002, to go through them (weather permitting). If you could have the answers to my requests raised above, I would certainly appreciate it. Let me know if you want me to come to your office. I should arrive in Vail at around 11 a.m. Thursday morning. Sincerely yours, Richard E. Young k N � ENGINEERING GEOLOGY -o GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING -*- SOILS ENGINEERING March 5, 1982 Mr. Doug Bi tetto Box 2765 Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Doug, As. per your request, following is an overview of our observations and recom- mendations regarding stabilization of your dwelling on Sierra Trail. We were requested -by David Green to provide geotechnical information for construction of a. Reinforced Earth Wall to control a landslide behind your partially - constructed dwelling. Al and I reviewed the project site and.proposed plan and decided that would-be imprudent to excavate the amount of soil from the slide to be required for construction of the wall. We also did not agree with the location of the slip plane as displayed in the geotechnical report provided to us. We believe-that the Reinforced Earth Wall would fail because it would not intersect the slip plane. There are a number of methods to correct slope fail "ures and each failure has enough dissimilarities and unique constraints to require individual analysis and corrective action. That is, there is no "standard" design for correcting land- slides. We ran through a number of possibilities, and, given the constraints of deep snow, cold weather, difficult access and an immediate need for correction, we elected to recommend anchorage as the solution to your problem. Because of the urgency of the situation and the obvious economic constraints in dealing with a single family dwelling, we elected to use existing topographic, architectural and geologic data, and performed a very limited exploratory program of our own. That consisted of a vertical hole in the basement in which we instal- led an inclinometer to verify that the failure does not go under the foundation. We also drilled a horizontal hole through the basement wall, through the slide and into unfailed ground. This hole was designed to provide information on geology and ground water and on drilling costs for horizontal anchors. Two solutions via anchorage are possible. The first consists of an array of anchors installed horizontally through the basement wall. This would require practically dismantling the existing framework and several of the required holes would be difficult to access due to their height on the existing wall. The second solution, and the one we recommend, consists of vertically anchoring a reinforced concrete floor slab and reinforcing the existing basement wall with a series of counterforts. Vertical drilling is less expensive than horizontal drilling and this solution is quicker to complete. You will lose some basement space because of the counterforts. 2108 DESERT HILLS ROAD GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81503 (303) 243 -0058 Mr. Doug Bitetto March 5,. 1982 Pace Two Addressing the-question of probabiTity of success, our numbers are based on a series of assumptions provided from existing data.and on values derived from experience. We used a safety factor of approximately 1.5 for most elements in the corrective_ design. This factor may be, somewhat - .conservative, but the-cost difference between, say 1.25 and 1.5 is not proportional. That is, costs for mobilization, floor slabs., counterforts are.all already paid. A few extra anchors., some additional concrete and some extra rebar make a significant mathematical difference, but do not -add a. great deal to the total costa The probability of failure-of the existing foundation wall is quite high, should you,elect.to delay corrective action. Based on movement measurements provided by David Green on 3/4/82, it.i.s.clear that the.wall is gradually failing. and that the existing counterfort is also sliding -- which could be expected. We believe that the probability'of irrepairable damage during the spring thaw this year quite high, and that progressive failure upslope would be inevitable. Our recommended solution must be-completed before a significant increase in ground water occurs. If we can accomplish this, it. is highly probablgL that the house and slide will stabilize.:_.Still,.there rema -ins. a, probability of failure. For example, should -.the s.li - de have:already reduced.horizontal support for the ground above the scarp, then a. second failure could occur from above. This additional load could exceed our design numbers. We think this is not probable, but it is possible. Another possibility for failure is a combination of small errors made by each of us. . We are-relying heavily on your coordinator, David Greene, and on our recommended driller, L. A. Smith. They, in turn, rely on other contractors, suppliers and workmen. We are relying on grout supplied by you. We relied on cross - section information developed by others. As a bottom line, however, we think the probability for success of our solution as we are proceeding far out- weighs the probable consequence of doing nothing. Sincerely yours, U Robert K. Barrett, P.G. Albert C. Ruckman, P.E. SIERRA TRAIL HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION C/o P.O. Box 1872 Vail, Colorado 81658 Doug Bittetto P.O. Box Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Doug, As chairman of the newly formed Sierra Trail Homeowners' Association, I would like to hear from you concerning your plans for the backfilling and landscaping of Lot 22, Vail Village West. As land and home owners we are desperately concerned as to the safety and possible future consequences of leaving the site unattended. Lloyd Johnson, Chairma Sierra Trail Homeowners' Association LJ /bhe cc: Jon Eberly Pete Burnett Steve Patterson V/ 1 . TELEPHONE r 303/,'28 -7311 Board of County Commissioners Ext 241 Assessor Ext 202 Clerk and Recorder Ext 217 Sheriff Eagle: Ext 211 Basalt: 927 -3244 Gilman: 827 -5751 Treasurer Ext 201 Administration Ext 241 Animal Shelter 949 -4292 Building Inspection Ext 226 or 229 Community Development Ext 226 or 229 County Attorney Ext 263 Engineer Ext 236 Environmental Health Ext 238 Extension Agent Ext 247 Library Ext 255 Public Health Eagle: Ext 252 Vail: 476 -5844 Personnel Ex + 24_ Purchasing Ext 245 Road and Bridge Ext 257 ( EAGLE CO(11`ITY Eagle, Colorado 81631 November 30, 1981 Fred W. Handel Executive Vice - President Century Bank First Avenue at Cook Street Denver, Colorado 80206 Re: Release of Letter of Credit No. 1174 - High Country Corporation - Highland Meadows Filing No. 2 - County of Eagle, Colorado Dear_ Mr. Handel: Pursuant to the recommendation of the Town of Vail dated November 25, 1981, this office, on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, hereby authorizes the release of that certain Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 1174 dated October 20, 1980, in the amount of eighty -five thousand dollars ($ 85,000.00) for the account of High Country Corporation.' I have enclosed said Letter of Credit and would appreciate Century Bank taking all necessary steps to finalize the release of the same. Thank you for your prompt attention and assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact this office at 328 -7311, Extension 263, or P.O. Box 850, Eagle, Colorado, 81631. Sincerely, Beth A. Whittier County Attorney BAWJda Enclosure xc: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Jim Rubin, Director of Community Development Hubert Weinschunk, Esq. Paul Van Winkle High County Corporation laws 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 office of town attorney November 25, 1981 Ms. Beth Whittier County Attorney County of Eagle Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Final Plat Approval of Highland Meadows, Filing No 2 - Subdivisions Improvements Agreements - County of Eagle. Dear Beth: I have reviewed with Bill Andrews, Town Engineer, the improvements in Highland Meadows Filing No. 2 which were guaranteed by an irrevocable letter of credit No. 1074, in the amount of $85,000.00. That letter of credit was issued by Century Bank in favor of the Board of County Commissioners, Eagle County. Mr. Andrews has informed me that he has inspected those improvements, and the improvements agreement and that they are substan- tially complete. Further, the Town has other security that will guarantee the completion of the two minor items that remain. From the Town of Vail's standpoint, the $85,000.00 letter of credit may be released. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me. Respectfully, ,r C T96T tawrence C. Rider Town At ney cc: Tim Garton Bill Andrews 1U171 box 100 department of public works vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 November 19, 1981 Kent Kriehn KKBNA Edwards Business Center P. 0. Box 97 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Dear Kent: Two items still need -to be resolved in Highland Meadows. The culvert under Vermont Road at Lot 18 still needs to be daylighted. Also the catch basin between Sierra Trail and Vermont Road should be raised and possibly a culvert installed to make the drainage work from Sierra Trail to the catch'basin. I still question the capacity of the grate on this catch basin. I would like confirmation from someone that this is a highway specification (HS -20) grate. If you have any questions about either of these items, please contact me. Sincerely, Bill Andrews Town Engineer CC: Pete Burnett , Larry:ider Leroy Tobler OCT. „ RECT IM cEnT ury BAnK FIRST AVENUE AT COOK STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80206 (303),321-1234 LETTER OF CREDIT Letter of Credit #1074 October 20, 1980 Board of County Commissioners Eagle County Eagle, Colorado Amount: $85,000.00 Re: High Country Corporation, 1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO Gentlemen: We are hereby extending our Irrevocable Letter of Credit, as listed above, which was issued in favor of Eagle County on January 5, 1979. This credit is available by draft or drafts drawn on the Century Bank, 3300 East First Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80206. This Letter of Credit is for the purpose of guaranteeing construction of public improvements required by the County of Eagle. Each draft drawn on Century Bank at sight shall be endorsed on the reverse side of this Letter of Credit and bear upon its face, "Drawn under Letter of Credit #1074, dated October 20, 1980 of the Century Bank of Denver, Colorado." The Century Bank agrees with the drawers, endorsers and bona fide holders of drafts drawn and negotiated in compliance with the terms of this Letter of Credit that such drafts will be duly honored upon due presentation at the counter of this bank. Except as otherwise provided, this Letter- Credit is to be governed by the Uniform Commercial Code - Letter-, Credit in the State of Colorado. All drafts hereunder must be drawn,on /or before November 30, 1981. j A ,Sincerely, ' C - c— Fred W. Handel i FWH /tdb AGREED AND ACCEPTED: HIGH COUNTRY CO�. PORATION co !r �TELL?HONE EAGLE COUNT 303/32?i -7311 Board of County Eagle, Colorado 81631 Commissioners Ext 241 Assessor Ext 202 CERTIFIED MAIL No. 4329655 Clerk and Recorder Ext 217 November 16, 1981 Sheriff Eagle: Ext 211 Basalt: 927 -3244 High County Corporation Gilman: 827 -5751 1860 Lincoln Street Suite 100 Treasurer Denver, Colorado 80264 Ext 201 Re: Final Plat approval of Highland Meadows Filing Administration No. 2 - Subdivision Improvements Agreements - Ext 241 County of Eagle Animal Shelter 949 -4292 Dear Mr. Paul Van Winkle: Building On January 5, 1979, an irrevocable Letter of Credit, Inspection No. 1074, in the amount of $ 85,000.00 was issued Ext 226or229 by Century Bank for the account of yourself in favor of the Board of County Commissioners, County of Community Development Eagle, Colorado, for the purpose of guaranteeing Ext 226 or 229 construction of public improvements required by Eagle County pursuant to that certain Subdivision County Attorney Improvements Agreement entered into on November 22, Ext 263 1978, between the County and yourself as Subdivider of the Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, and as a Engineer condition of final plat approval of said Subdivision. Ext 236 Said Letter of Credit was extended on October 20, Environmental 1980. Health Ext 238 Pursuant to the extended Letter of Credit, all drafts drawn thereunder must be drawn on or before November Extension Agent 30, 1981. Thus, all public improvements required as Ext 247 per said Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the specifications and plans submitted pursuant to said Library final plat approval must be completed to the satis- Ext 255 faction of the County prior to November 30, 1981. Public Health Since this due date is rapidly drawing near, I would Eagle: Ext 252 suggest that you contact a staff member of the County Vail: 476 -5844 Department of Community Development to discuss the status of such required public improvements. Personnel Ext 241 Purchasing Ext 245 Road and Bridge Ext 257 Social Services 328 -6328 High County Corporation Page Two November 16, 1981 Emphasis should be made that all public improvements must be satisfactorily completed and approved by the County prior to said due date. If this is not accomplished prior to said due date, I shall be left with no other alternative but to present said Letter of Credit to the bank for payment as provided thereunder. If you have any questions, please contact this office at 328 -7311 or P.O. Box 850, Eagle, Colorado, 81631. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, Beth A. Whittier County Attorney BAW /da xc: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Jim Rubin, Director of the Department of Community Development Larry Metternick, County Engineer Hugh Weinschienk, Esq., CERTIFIED No. 4329656 Larry Rider, Vail Town Attorney Fred W. Handel, Vice - President, Century Bank, CERTIFIED No. 4329657 Paul T. Vank Winkle, CERTIFIED No. 4329658 Tim Garton, Kelton /Garton & Associates FLOYD CUSTOM BUILDERS GENERAL CONTRACTOR DAVID M. FLOYD f J April 29, 1981 Mr. Ernie Freggiaro Director of Public Works Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Freggiaro: 2610 BALD MOUNTAIN RD. VAIL, COLORADO 81667 (303) 4761162 Two "Stop Work" orders were issued last week to the Bitetto job at 1740 Sierra Trail in West Vail. The following corrective actions have been completed: 1. On April 23, Bill Andrews of your department directed us to remove two pine trees from the area above the overhead power line, even though the trees were not located on the Bitetto lot. This removal was completed April 24. 2. Excess dirt and landscaping timbers have been removed from the Sierra Trail right -of -way. incerely, David 11. Floyd Dh9F /ksn cc: Mr. Jim Porter, Porter, Fisher, Arnold Mr. Doug Bitetto 211 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners - Day ___ - -Term, 19_— N_ - - beY -- -19 Special Fleeting Dan Williams Chairman George Rosenberg County Attorney Present: Dale Grant Commissioner Terrill Knight Planning Di rector Keith Troxel Commissioner Tom Boni Assistant Planner Rose M. Faulkner Representing County Clerk Susan Vaughn Planner This being regular planning day, the planning department presented the following planning items, to-wit: Request: Review of a final plat for 27.99 acres of the Beaver Creek Development. •eek Filing location: Portion of tract A, block 1, of the Village Core. Phil Ordway and Dave Mott of Vail Associates, were present to discuss the density of the development and requested freedom to assign dwellings on lots. The Board agreed a plat clarification would be needed. Mr. Knight discussed the payment in lieu for the solid waste. Discussion on dog control, protective covenants, street lights, street signs sewer systems, and collateral. was held. Ernie Nunn, U. S. Forest Service, stated he would like to go on record saying that the east side of tract A lies on B L M land and that the natural forest may not remain Forest Service. Commissioner Troxel moved SF- 100-78 be approved subject to the following condition: 1. The addition of a vote onto the final plat which concerns the permission of a transfer of dwelling units from tract to tract and the potential impact that this might have on the lot contained in this filing (exact wording will be provided by the county attorney). 2. The receipt of a letter from the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District which includes: a. Statement that filing 91 of tract A is contained within the district boundaries. b. Enumeration of the service that the district will provide to this area. c. An agreement concerning the minimun standards which will be used in the provision of public signs and lighting. 3. The receipt of a $600,000,00 letter of credit from a Colorado financial. institution (or an alternative financial mechanism) which will guarantee Eagle County the completion of the public improvements committed to by Vail Associates in the final plat of filing #1, tract A of Beaver Creek P.D. Completion date should be specified as December 31, 1981. Dale Grant seconded the motion and the chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. Comm. Troxel stated the change of the preliminary plan was considered to be minor. Comm. Grant then moved to approve that portion of the preliminary plan document part B which dealt with the master plan clarification revised November 3, 1978. Chairman Williams seconded the motion declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. -78 Request: Review of a final plat for 66 units on 32 acres. nd Location: The former Vail Village West #3 and land adjacent to Matterhorn Village. s 40 Tom Boni presented the final plat and discussed subdivision improvement agreement, density of the lots, fire protection, sanitation and water. Tim Garton present stated completion date should be November 1980. George Rosenberg, County Attorney, advised the Toard that Vail Village ,lest filing #2 collateral should be released as the subdivision is vacated. Mr. Rosenberg found no problems with the improvement agreement. Conn. Grant moved to vacate Vail Village West, filing #3 with a resolution to vacate road. (Resolution to be drawn up by applicant). Comm. Troxel seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous by the chairman. Comm. Troxel moved SF- 105 -78 Highland Meadows filing 92 be approved, subject to the following: 1. Treasurer's signature of taxes paid. 2. Lighting fixtures added to road plan. 3. The addition of a plat restriction preventing any form of conveyance of the lots included within this subdivision. No building permits will be issued in connection with the subject real property. Upon receipt of a financial guarantee that the public improvements will be completed by November, 1980, in the amount of $84,500.00, this plat restriction will be removed. Cann. Grant seconded the motion and the chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. rg Est Ranch Request: To create two rural homesites out of 46 acres, 1 parcel of 15 acres & 1 parcel of 31 acres. Location: Seven miles east of Basalt and south of the Frying Pan River in Sec. 7,T85,R85W. Susan Vaughn, Planner, explained the situation concerning the King Guest Ranch discussing access, corrections needed on plat and number of cabins presently on parcel. Cary Belk, owner and Alfred Gardner, real estate agent representing Mr. Belk, present, advised the Board of the bridge adjoining the property and needed repair of same. Discussion on road maintenance, it being, a private road and cost of construction of a new bridge followed. Comm. Grant moved SE- 209 -78, ling Guest Ranch Subdivision Exemption be approved with the followin conditions. 1. Addition of the following restriction to the final plat: No building permits shall be issued for the lots, created by the plat until and unless Engle County receives some form of collateral to secure the construction of acceleration /deceleration lanes or county road P -104 and a bridge over the Frying Pan Road, or completion and acceptance of improvements. 2. Correction of minor technical errors on the plat. Comm. Troxel seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous by the chairman. 78 Request: To split an existing duplex into twv ownerships. rah Duplex Location: Lot 36, Block 4, Eagle -Vail 42 Susan Vaughn, of the Planning Department advised the Board that the duplex is an existing structure. The lot line is in order. The Planning Commission recormendecl approval. Comm. Troxel moved IM-63-78 be approved. Comm. Grant seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was unanimous. The final plat was signed by the alairman. �8 poniest: To split 111 existing 6- L'ni -t buildirti; into 6 ownerships. X12 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners -_ 2 9_ —D3y - Term, 19 _— 1 ?oven ter -- _19 78 -- S V- 7- 78- Variance Ernst Glatzle Request: Subdivision variance from requirement for 6 ft. shoulder;' ft. drainage in 50 ft. right of way. Location: Lot 20, Garmisch Dr., West Vail Terrill Knight, Planning Director, presented the variance discussion to the Board, suggesting the slope should be 4 ft. from the gravel edge for better drainage and snow removal. Jim Guffy, architect for Ernst Glatzle agreed with the Planning Department recam:endations. Comm. Troxel moved SV -7 -78, Ernst Glatzle Subdivision Variance be approved as amended by the Eagle County Planning office, allowing the toe of the slope to be located 10 ft. onto the County right -of -way. Comm. Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. An agenda item and appeal of Chris Sewell was withdrawn at the request of Sewell, re- scheduled for 12 /11/78. Linda Jones, Randy Gallegos, Tan Leonard and Ernie Nunn appeared to discuss finding for a Manpower Training Project and requested $6,500.00 from the County over a two year period. Discussion on the project and the program was Held with all parties contributing. Comm. Troxel moved the County contribute $3,250.00 for 1979 from the Commissioners 1979 Miscellaneous Fund, the voucher to be made after the first of the year. The project will be reviewed again in 1980. Comm. Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. Ernie Nunn, U. S. Forest Service, advised the Board that Piney Park Ranch Road is unsafe. A Forest Service engineer has surveyed the dangerous spots. Mr. Nunn sought some direction on what could be done. A resolution from Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Blanke, owners of Lot 21, Aspen Mesa Estates and a- letter from Aspen Mesa Homeowners Association requestir4q an equestrian easement vacation was presented to the 3oard. Comm. Grant moved to approve the equestrian easement vacation. Chairman Williams seconded the motion the vote was declared una nimous. The Chairman signed the resolution. Lake Creek Meadows Roads: B }-ron Brown, Developer,present,requested acceptance of the Lake Creek Meadows roads. After discussion, Comm. Troxel moved to accept the Lake Creek Meadows roads with the conditions: ] -. A map is submitted showing all the variances to the County road standards. A check for $495.00 be submitted by Mr. Brown to cover the cost of installing a culvert in the spring. Chairman Williams seconded the motion and the subsequert vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. In discussion, the County will put in culvert next spring. The Planning Staff will write a letter to the 3oa-ri on this matter. The Board determined that the Intermountain Firewood Co. may continue at its presert location on the Sill `Iillia,.'s property at Edwards until April, 1979, because, though the land is zoned residential suburban low -iensit its present use is basically agricultural. King's Row Subdivision: Discussion on road maintenance of roads in langs Row Subdivision and an agreement between Garfield and Eagle Cou:ty, was held, part of the Subdivision's roads lying in Eagle County. The Board concurred to classify the roads as private. Comm. Grant moved to declare the Kings Row Subdivision raids as private roads. Chairman WUli_ams seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. H.S. Geological. Survey: Request for $2150.00 to participate in. a water gauging station in Avon. Comm. Grant will do some re- search and advise the board on Dec. 4, 1978. On the New Jersey Zinc Pline any the houses they own in Gilman, Dale Grant moved Gera L1 Best aryl James ,lil -hams be deputy officials aril deputy zoning administrators, so :hey could inspect the houses. Chairman Williams seconded the motion and declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. Michael Krick -Pilot air, an air charter and air taxi service, appeared arO, requested to lease a hangar rcm the County, now leased to Trevor Bradway. The 3oIrd determined to place an ad in the paper for 30 days to see if others are irterested in leasing the ar. The car pound lease was discussed . The lease would be $100.00 per month and would run until April 1, -97 ^, mri. 'Troxel moved to renew the lease. Chairman Williams seconded the motion an declared t?ne ub- sem - rote unanimous. There being no further business to come before t'.ie Board at this time, it was moved, seconded and passed �o adjourn until Dec. 4, 1978. �. SV -7 -78 -Ernst Glatzle Manpower Training Carmittee Ernie Nunn, U. S. Forest Service Piney Park Ranch Road Wayne Blanke Lot 21, Aspen Ples` Estates Lake Creek Meadcwa Roads Intermountain Firewood Co. Kings Row Subdivision i 'y U. S. Geological_ Survey New Jersey Zinc Mine Houses Hangar lease _A Chairman ��,7�r'c to the Board 21 c, 19 - — December_ z7 _ - -Day — term 19 = Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners y -- - Special Meeting Present: Dan Williams Chairman Terrill Knight Planning Director Susan Vaughn Planner Dale Grant Commissioner Keith Troxel Commissioner Maxwell R. 3arz Clerk to the Boar Secretary to Clerk Leila Posher C. S. R. .Johnnette Phillips This being the regular clay for planning items to be heard, to-wit: SF -56 -78 Request: Review of a final plat for 6 lots on 38 acres. 3 miles Northwest of E1 Jebel, the 3,fk, SE$, Section 21, T7S, R8T4. King's Row Location: Approximately The King's Row plat has been reviewed by the Planning Department. No one representing King's Row appeared. FM -56-78 Request: To split a fourpl.ex into 4 interests with a fifth lot to be held in common. Met Replat Location: Lot 20, Block 1, Eagle- Vail 12. the application had been tabled for three months to receive final plat and Susan Vaughn explained ann covenants. Nothing has been received. The Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommended denial. that the subdivision would comply Commissioner Troxel asked for a clarification of the request so with the lot. Tom Sibbald, representing applicant, explained there was no change in the use of the lot or density. for lack of information being sulmitted. Commissioner Troxel moved SM -56 -78 be denied SM -59 -78 Request: To split a fourpl.ex into four interests. Elkhorn Location: lot 9, Block 5, Eagle -Vail 41. Mrs Vaughn advised the Board that an easement for a cocoon lot line had been previously approved. Conloniniums The Planning Department recommended approval of the application. Troxel seconded the motion and the Commissioner Grant moved to approve SM- 59 -78. Commissioner Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. SM -61 -78 Request: To split a twenty acre parcel into four interests. 2' miles up Salt Creek in Sec. 30, T5S, R85W. Horse Mountain Location: Mrs. Vaughn explained that this is the James and Beverly Kunkel property. The County Planning Minor Subdivision Commission recommended approval subject to upgrading the road to County stanxlards. discussed the 50 foot right -of -way. Ken Long, present, representing the applicants discussed was that the garden area should not be considered a building lot. Another restriction Commissioner Grant moved S1 -61 -78 be approved with the following conditions: for bringing the road adjoining the property 1. An agreement be worked out with the applicant LIP to County standard within 2 years. that the common garden area will not be considered a building site. 2. A plat restriction 3. No further subdivision of lots. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion. The subsequent vote was declared unanimous. Armst ong Minor Request: To slit a duplex into two lots. Subdivision Location: Lot 28;..Block 3, Eagle-Vail #1 Mrs. Vaughn advised the Board the applicants were requesting to subdivide an existing duplex. The Planning Department recceineAded approval. The final plat and covenants have been submitted. Troxel SM -64 -78 be approved. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Commissioner Moved Chairman declared the vote to be unanimous. SM-7C-78 Maier Duplex Request: To split a duplex into two interests. Location: Lot 50, Block 1, Eagle- Vail 42. the duplex on a Planning Department plat. The final plat Mrs. Vaughn pointed out the location of covenants have been submitted. The Planning Department recommended approval. The and �omnissioner Grant moved SM -70-78 be approved. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion. Chairman declared the vote unanimous. SM -71 -78 Request: To split a duplex lot and structure into two interests. Mullin /Davison Location: Lot 61, Block 3, Eagle - Vail ft. Mrs. Vaughn stated the Planning Department recommended approval. Commissioner Grant moved SM -71 -78 be approved. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion. The subsequent vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. S.4 -72 -78 Request: To split a parcel of .28 acres into three interests. Brown /Cook Location: Lot 84, Block 1, Eagle -Vail ip2. Mrs. Vaughn stated this parcel was 9600 sq. ft.. The Planning Department recommended approval. Duplex commissioner Troxel moved SM -72 -78 be approved. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. SM-73 -78 Request: To split a 15,246 sq. ft. parcel into five lots with the fifth lot held in co con. Elk lane Town- Location: lot 22 Block 3, Eagle -Vail ;f1. Mrs. Vaughn read letters from the Colorado Geological Survey, Division of Water Resources; Eagle houses. County Environmental Health and Soil Conservation. the drainage from the lot be made to flow onto the fourteenth Erik Edeen, present, suggested fairway of the nearby golf course. aryl Planning Department recommended approval. The Planning Commission Commissioner Grant moved SM -73 -78 be approved. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. SM -78 Request: To split 11,326 sq. ft. parcel into three lots with the third held in common. -76 George Weidmtian location: Lot 2, Block F, Ro suhdivision of Vail das Schone ',`1. The "third tot" was explained by ?lrs. Vaughn, all. common ground will he held in common. Unit 1, Minor Subdivision on top; Unit 2, unclerneath; not considered lots as such. lot if the property should be sold. Commissioner Troxel questioned m the common Terrill Knight advise(] the Board that there is a conlxninium agreement that takes precidemce and covenants dictate rules. Commissioner. Troxel moved to approve SM- 76 -78. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. 120 roceedings of the Board of County Commissioners _ — _Day___ --__- -Term, 19. _ em - - -19 78 - split Lot 7 -B on which a duplex is built and include Lot 7 -A as a third parcel. The party wall agreement the Planning Department recommended and final plat have been submitted. Both the Planning Commission and approval. Wolfgard Mueller and John Silverly, owners of the property, were both present. Troxel secorxied the motion and the Chair- Commissioner Grant moved SM -77 -78 be approved. Commissioner man declared the subsequent vote unanimous. SM -78 -78 Request: To split 14.5 acre parcel into six lots. Bridge two miles South of E1 Jebel in Tract 58, Section 11, Crown Mountain Location: One -half mile South of Hook's and Estates TBS, A87W. Mrs. Vaughn updated the Board reminding them that the property had been re- zoned, Rural Residental, in October. The Planning Staff recommended tabling of the item until some answers were received on questions of Water, Access and Fire Protection. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Gene Grange were Mr. Baran stated he was willing to Dennis Baran, owner of the property and present. Baum discussed the sewer system; the subdivision will be in the Basalt Fire Dis- put in two wells. Mr. trict and irrigation will be from a ditch on the property. the road ensued. Much discussion on the sewer system, adequate water and access be approved with the condition that the following plat restrictions be Commission Grant moved SM -78 -78 added to the final plat. be issued for the lots until the developer has submitted proof to the 1. No building permits shall County that adequate provisions have been made to supply water to each lot and State standards are met. become available. 2. All lots must tap onto a Central Water and Sanitation System, if such systems be advised that evapo- transpiration sewage treatment facilities are 3. All prospective buyers shall to be used until a central system is available. Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Commission on thep private. s roa were dis cussed. a as l a c e CounttyRoad, redescribed remain Dedication of the plat ion Troxel e d i v ision accepted as a private road. Grant moved, at the applicants request, Crown Drive shall be determined as a private road. by the Chairman. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous Commissioner SM -80-78 Request: To split three quarters acre parcel into two lots. La S a , mm b uy Minor Location: Lot 6, Block 5, Eagle -Vail #1. Mrs Vaughn stated that a letter from the applicants, Sally De Zuba and Jane Gros,had been received Department recommended Estates the Plat Title Certificate be waived. The Planning Commission and Planning requesting approval. Troxel moved SM -80-78 be approved and Title Certificate waived. Commission Grant seconded Commission the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. Right -of Way item the agenda to cane before the Board was a Right -of -Way road vacation in Beaver Creek Vacation Next on Subdivision. The County does not maintain the road. Associates, requested the entire width and length of the roadway Vail Associates Rodger Tilkemeir, representing Vail it does not effect the adjacent property owners. Mr. Tilkemeir will supply Right -of -Way vacated, stating a map of what he is requesting to be vacated. Troxel moved to have George Rosenberg, County Attorney, draw up a resolution vacating the Cc=iissioner road right- of -wav to be signed on January 15, 1979 the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and To amend the rodeo grounds at Dowd Junction to allow construction of a temporary "warming -hut" ZS- 34- 77 Vail Ski Bob Request: on the property. The "warming -hut" to be a 8 ft. by 28 ft. trailer. Special Use Permit Rodger Tilkemeir urged approval because of the need for the Ski -Bob service. amended Special Use Permit for a temporary installation of a Commissioner Troxel moved to approve in trailer for a "warming -hut" for Ski -Bob Va: ".1. Grant seconded the motion. and the vote was unanimous. Commissioner A letter of credit for Beaver Creek #2 was the next item on the agenda to be heard by the Board. Beaver Creek #2 better of Credit C-eek, be by a FirstcDeeddofs collaterralrinsteadeof arletternofncredit. secured Trust and a clean title comnittment. to allow a promissory note of 24 lots be accepted as collateral for the Commissioner Grant moved subdivision improvements for Beaver Creek filing 42, for a period of two years, with the condition that title to that parcel of land. Vail Associates provide the County with the legal. description and a clean policy the vote was declared to be unanimous. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion arl agenda item was presented by Terrill Knight; advising the Board tilat Highland Meadows pro The January 8, Highland Meadows #2 Letter of Credit next owner, Dave Elmore, had called and withdrawn from the agenda, but reauested to appear on perty 1979. s due Thursday, Janniary 4, 1979; Mr. Rosenberg stated the letter of credit the County is holding is on January 8, 1979. ir_ the amount of $35,000.00 will be called if Mr. Elmore does not appear Building Permit Lester Ettinger appeared to appeal a Building Permit denial. i to enclose a stairway aril move a Appeal Mrs. Vaughn advised the Board that the Building Permit was -sued is "al.ot of kitchen and bathroom." Part of the bathtub. The building is a family unit, although there parking, is on the County Right- of -Way. -out of the house e ould provide seven spaces. the lag h c Mr. Ettinger explained the par'.ing and stated was discussed. di commissioner Troxel moved the building permit be granted with the following cc tions: and 5 uTlersizel slkaces r- 1. a new site plan showing 3 additional dimensioned parking spaces on site in the front. I1 n con letion of con - 2, a beryl for the spring construction of the 3 ad itional parking spaces. po season, and, in for one building structien, a temporary certificate of occupancc will be issued the County will use the bond to con- i rt., " *, *_he rernnir d - > is not constructed, e . _nt .' - 3. itne Col -i ee it �nE -menC 'a 11- u'. ?o se c" - Grant seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Transfer of Funds commissioner Attornev, a resolution for Transfer of Funds and Appropriation of arl il I I George Rosenberg, County presented 221 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners � _Day_ __ —Term, 19— - DeCember - - -19 '' Commissioner Williams seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. :Jest Vail Terrill Kni,nht advised the Board of an Appeal of West Vail Development Associates, Inc. concerning the >evelorxner_t, Stop Work Order issued on >ecembcr 8 1978. D. A. Bertram, Attorney Associates, Inc. George Straw, Attorney for Streamside Condominiums, Le Roy Tobler, Engineer, Appeal Stop for the Architect and have Green, Architect of the project all appeared to discuss the erosion of the ork Order stream hank, high water level and rip -rap of the creek bank. After much discussion; Commissioner Troxel moved to lift part of the Stop GJork Order issued to the Streamside apartments in the Highland ;Al. Subdivision for the encroachment of the 30' stream setback. The easterly 20' of the building shall remain under Stop ! =Jork at present. Upon written confirmation by the Colorado Water Conservation District the proposed rip rap wall is adequate to protect the building and the stream bank and is not detrimental to the stream, the Stop Work Order for the remaining 20' will he lifted. Comnissioner Grant seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Troxel moved the Stop Work Order issued to the Streamside building for making a cut into the hillside be lifted until January 20, 1979. The order to be lifted permanently if an adequate plan is submitted showing the cut and the proposed treatment of the hillside. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Troxel moved that no Certicate of Occupancy will be issued for the Streamside building unless the measurement from the outside of the rip rap wall to the nearest building point is at least 30 feet. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Knight advised the Board that Source Construction had requested approval to place construction dwellings on the construction site until spring. Mr. Green related to the Board the purpose of the ?mouldings. The Board concurred to grant the request for construction dwellings on the site. BUM Permit The Bureau of I -and Management requested input prior to allowing permits to private individuals. Requests for Terrill Knight discussed the requested structures on MM land in West Vail. It was the Boards opinion 4Jest Vail that nothing should be built in that open space separating, the Vail Intermoutain Subdivision from the rest of the West Vail area. The road, radio tower or the fire station should not be allowed to be built on the public lands. An informati.bnal item; E. tJillis Nottingham has requested a land change of 80 acres, used as grazing lard. The BUM recommending against it. Budget and Bill Barnes, County Auditor, discussed the Budget and Funds for each department. Mr. Barnes recommended Funds a supplemental appropriation for the Road and Bridge Fund. Commissioner Grant moved the County Attorney draft a supplemental appropriation for the Road and Bridge Fund. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous. Anti - Fiscal The Anti- Fiscal Recession Assistance Fund of $5,900.00 was appropriated into the Personnel Director/ Recession .T\rrl Purchasing Agent's Budget. Library Feud The Library Fund was running over and Commissioner Grant moved to transfer $4,000.00 from the Contin- gency Fuud.into the Library Fund. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared _ unanimous. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, it was moved, seconded and passed to adjourn until January 2, 1979. Chairman e� -rte Attest: , , Cherk ," the Board 1k A �Y Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners 8 -- Day_____ —Tenn, 19_— Jarn,ary - 19 '' y Special Meeting 4 Present: Dan Williams Chairman George Rosenberg County Attorney C. S. R. Dale Grant Commissioner Leila ^losher Keith Troxel Commissioner Susan Vaughn Planner M R. Ba Clerk to Terrill Knight Planning Director Johnnette Phillips Secretary t to tthe } Agenda items set for public hearings to b heard by the Board this clay were: ZC -83 -78 Request: Zone Change from Resource to Commercial Limited. Froerming Zone Location: mile south of McCoy on the East Side of Hwy 131, in tracts 39 and 41, Sections 5 and 6, T2S, R83':1 Change y ZS -64-78 Request: To operate a camper park in the Commercial Limited Zone Froemming Special Location: Approximately 3/4 mile west of Eagle on Highway 6, in tracts 39 and 41, Sections 5 and 6, T2S, Use Permit R83W. Susan Vaughn stated the Zone Change and Sp Fin had been tabled Special Use Permit applications of Mr. roemng from the December meeting because opposition to the application was present but the applicant was not present. Terry Quinn, Attorney, representing Mr. Froemning, tendered a petition of persons in the area who are in y , favor of the application. George Froemning, present, gave a run down on the plans he has for the property; to include: a tow truck service, trading post, gas pumps and minor car repairs. Don Lily and Frank Satterfield appeared to state approval and the need for services. Susan Vaughn pointed out that there would be certain Special Use Permits that would have to be applied for. Terrill Knight reminded Mr. Froemning the request was for a Zone Change, if the application goes into the =? Special Use Permit, a detail site plan has to be submitted. Mr. Knight suggested Mr. Froemming decide on the L n uses he wants and determine how the other portion of the property will be used. Discussion on the Special Use Permit was explanation in detail on what would be allowed and what he would have to apply for permits on. Mr. Quinn requested a continuance and the possibility of withdrawing the Special Use Permit. ss Chairman Williams suggested Mr. Froemming amend the site plan and amend uses for the first year until he decides what he needs. Commissioner Grant moved ZC -83 -78 and ZS -64-78 be continued for an indefinate period of time at the request of the applicant. .; Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Location: Approximate y mu Susan Vaughn reminded the Board that a Stop Work order had been issued to Myrtle Price who had placed a trailer belonging, to her daughter on her property. The Board had allowed Corky Fitzsimmons to add the property to his request for a zone change from Resource to Rural Suburban Low Density. The Planning Commission approved the application, the Planning Staff recommended approval as the zone change was not inappropiate. Access to the highway was discussed and the Planning Department's recommended plan was shown on a site plan m><ap. Commissioner Grant moved ZC -86 -78 and ZS -65 -78 be approved with the condition, that if the water standards di are not met approval will be withdrawn. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. =h ms 1041 i Re resentatve P Terrill Knight advised the Board that Mike Walker has been the 1041 Representative for the County, and has been doing all the work on the permits on a per hour basis as a Consultant. Mr. Knight suggested this now go through the County E:m�;r neer. l e 8 ru con ^'r'e l• Rare II The Planning Commission recommended the Board resubmit their original letter to the Forest Service con- tix cerning Rare II. ,?ry Chairman Williams directed the Planning Department to resubmit the letter. .. Management and January 11,1979.: _ Hearing Highland Improvements Agreement for Highland Meadows and a $85,000.00 letter of credit with the Century Bank and Trust in Denver was discussed. George Rosenberg, County Attorney, found the letter of credit in order. Commissioner Troxel moved to approve the letter of credit as substitute collateral. Restrictions on the Meadows Highland Meadows plat to be removed. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Tim Carton, developer, advised the Board the taxes on the property would be paid the next day. Commissioner Grant moved to have the Clerk sign the Highland Meadows Improvement Agreement with the Chairman's signature stamp. " a Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Berry Creek George Rosenberg, County Attorney, requested a formal hearing for a Service Plan on formation of Berry Metropolitan Creek Metropolitan District, waiving the ten day requirement in the statutes and set down a date for the ....: .,. _._. ,.. hnnrinn_. - , . . ------ 1 1 orn ...,,,m.l m,., ..a,,... H,.,,, ZC -85 -78 Request: Zone Change from Resource to Commercial General. Approximately 2 miles north of Wolcott in Tract 42, Section 10, T4S, R83W. Chris Jouflas Location: Susan Vaughn explained the request for the zone change and pointed out the property on a map in the Wolcott area. Mrs. Vaughn stated the Planning Commission and the Planning Department had recommended denial of the application because it would cause strip zoning along Highway #131. Mr. Jouflas requesting the zone change for warehouse type storage and " Mrs. Vaughn read a letter from stating the need in the area. Chairman Williams stated he can not see spot zoning since there is a commercial area at Wolcott. because spot zoning of the area is not desirable. Commissioner Troxel moved ZC -85 -78 be denied the motion and the subsequent vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Commissioner Grant seconded 3 i ZC -86-48 Request: Zone Change from Resource to Residental Suburban Low Density. 3/4 west of Eagle on Highway 6, in Tract 46A, Section 6, T5S, R84, ZS -65-78 Location: Approximately miles t James Fitzsimmons and Myrtle Price Request: Special Use Permit for a mobile home park. 1 3/4 'le west of Eagle on Highway 6, in Tract 46A, Section 6, T5S, R84W. Location: Approximate y mu Susan Vaughn reminded the Board that a Stop Work order had been issued to Myrtle Price who had placed a trailer belonging, to her daughter on her property. The Board had allowed Corky Fitzsimmons to add the property to his request for a zone change from Resource to Rural Suburban Low Density. The Planning Commission approved the application, the Planning Staff recommended approval as the zone change was not inappropiate. Access to the highway was discussed and the Planning Department's recommended plan was shown on a site plan m><ap. Commissioner Grant moved ZC -86 -78 and ZS -65 -78 be approved with the condition, that if the water standards di are not met approval will be withdrawn. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. =h ms 1041 i Re resentatve P Terrill Knight advised the Board that Mike Walker has been the 1041 Representative for the County, and has been doing all the work on the permits on a per hour basis as a Consultant. Mr. Knight suggested this now go through the County E:m�;r neer. l e 8 ru con ^'r'e l• Rare II The Planning Commission recommended the Board resubmit their original letter to the Forest Service con- tix cerning Rare II. ,?ry Chairman Williams directed the Planning Department to resubmit the letter. .. Management and January 11,1979.: _ Hearing Highland Improvements Agreement for Highland Meadows and a $85,000.00 letter of credit with the Century Bank and Trust in Denver was discussed. George Rosenberg, County Attorney, found the letter of credit in order. Commissioner Troxel moved to approve the letter of credit as substitute collateral. Restrictions on the Meadows Highland Meadows plat to be removed. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Tim Carton, developer, advised the Board the taxes on the property would be paid the next day. Commissioner Grant moved to have the Clerk sign the Highland Meadows Improvement Agreement with the Chairman's signature stamp. " a Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Berry Creek George Rosenberg, County Attorney, requested a formal hearing for a Service Plan on formation of Berry Metropolitan Creek Metropolitan District, waiving the ten day requirement in the statutes and set down a date for the ....: .,. _._. ,.. hnnrinn_. - , . . ------ 1 1 orn ...,,,m.l m,., ..a,,... H,.,,, a?� Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners _ & Day_ Appointments to the Planning Commission were made, to wit: Commissioner Troxel moved Stuart Canada be removed from the Planning C for lack of attendance and be appointed as alternate for a one year term. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Commissioner Troxel moved Mervyn Lapin be appointed a Planning Commission member to serve the re- mainder of Stuart Canada's term. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Commissioner Troxel moved Ernie Nunn be appointed to serve on the Planning Commission from January 8, 1979 to January 8, 1982. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Troxel moved; F.ud Gates be appointed alternate for Ernie Nunn, Arnold Nottingham be appointed alternate for Ann Holland, Dick Turgeon be appointed alternate for Don Price, Alfred Gardner be appointed alternate for Deiter Sanders and Stuart Canada be appointed alternate for Mery Lapin. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote to be unanimous. On the Zoning Board of Adjustments Karen Scheidigger was unanimously appointed to fill Ernie Nunn's vacancy until December 30, 1980. Mary Morgan was unanimously appointed alternate for Jack D'Oric for a one year term, December 31, 1980. Commissioner Troxel moved to retain Jack Loughran on the Building Board of Appeals until May 3, 1983. nd th ote was declared unanimous. Term, 19_— -i -man - —19--79 Planning Commission Appointments. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion a e v Rae Benton was unanimously appointed to the Library Board of Trustees, to serve until December 26, 1983. Ella Birdly, County Assessor, appeared with an abatement of taxes for Albert Lleweylln. The tax being $126.61. The Assessor recommended approval as the wrong measurements had been figured on his trailer. Commissioner Troxel moved to allow the abatement. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Jim Williams, presented a list of non - conforming signs for the Board's review. A list will be pub- lished in the paper and the owner's would have time to state their signs are non - confirming, if they were up prior to October, 1974. El Jebel Gas Station was discussed and County Attorney is to determine owner of the property. The Building Inspector to visit the site. Commissioner Grant moved to approve Nurses Contracts for Sally Owens, Therapist for Nursing Service and Carol Ann Beck. Chairman Williams seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution of Highland Meadows 92 was signed by the Board. Tax Abatement Albert Lleweylln Non - Conforming Sign El Jebel Gas Static Contracts Nursing Service Highland Meadows =' Request for Craddock Development financial assistance for West Vail Hotel. No comment by the Board. A -95 Reviews Request for Eagle River Park Tennis Courts in proposed park, Town of Eagle. Favorable comment by the Board. Cc Grant moved to renew the contract for the Eagle Valley T. V. Associates. Eagle Va11ey T.V. Associates Cormissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. Dan Williams paying the $1.00, value received. Acting as agent for E.V.T.V. Associates to renew lease. Commissioner Troxel moved to appoint Craig Colby as CETA Representative until an administrative assistant CETA Representative is hired. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous. GilbertaMatthews appeared and presented a number of checks returned for insufficient funds and requested Returned Checks help in finding a solution to collecting them. The Board turned the bad checks over to the County Attorney for collection. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, it was moved, seconded and passed to adjourn until January 9, 1979. ^ Chai an 7 Attest: E C�grk to the Boar i•{, r C , 1 �. r . ,,.+ �� fyt -- �„ y .�..7 e q•`£ d^Y �.r:.r"�S.$ t�A . < l.� yr .' 4 J. -- � 1- - Girt RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SU C. F. HOECKEL B. 0. 9 L. CO. A 15 November 1978 Subdivision Planning Commission Meeting Attendance Donald Price, Ann Holland Alfred Gardner, Dieter Sanders y Staff: Tom Boni, Susan Vaughn A motion was made to approve the minutes of the October Subdivision Meeting. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIETER SANDERS, VOTE: UNA At the 3 January 1979 General Plannin1E11JebeletongheGCountydlinenty will be asked to attend to discuss the area around Subdivision Review Meter #312 - Sf- 100 -78 - Beaver Creek #1 - Final Plat for 27.99 acres of the Beaver Creek Development, Tract A, Block 1 of the Village Core. Covenants have been received. Dave Mott reviewed certain sections of the covenants. Clarification of the word MAY in the parking section of the covenants means somebody will provide it in some manner. Same with the solid waste section. Staff Recommended approval. A motion was made to recommend approval of the Final Plat. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIETER SANDERS VOTE UNA. A motion was made to approve the clarification of the Master Plan for Beaver Creek. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIETER SANDERS, VOTE: UNA The items that were considered in the clarification and revision are as follows: Lot Line Adjustment amended, Lot Area Coverage - Final Plat will set forth construction envelop where unit will be built - 30% buildings - 20% all other inpervious material. Meter #370 - Sf- 105 -78 - Highland Meadows #2 Final Plat -final plat for 66 units on 32 acres - the former Vail Village West #3 and also land adjacent to Matterhorn Village. The final plat has been reviewed and covenants have been changed to reflect the conerns of the County Commissioners - Building Height, Parking and Doi Control. Need Subdivision Improvements agreement. 16,000 square foot lots are required - one lot is not 16,000. Leroy Tobler, Engineer said that it would be corrected prior to signing of the plat. Discussion took place on the roads. Staff recommended approval based on the additional information submitted. A motion was made to recommend approval with the condition that the there be a 35 foot radius on the cul -de -sac - 100 foot right -of -way, 70 foot construction diameter. MOTION: DIETER SANDERS, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA Meter #419 - Se- 209 -78 - King Guest Ranch - 2 rural homesites out of 46 acres. One parcel of 15 acres and one parcel of 31 acres. Tabled from previous meetings. Staff recommends approval - have engineer signed bridge plan. Need Subdivision Improvements Agreement - Member Gardner abstained from voting on this item. A motion was made to recommend approval. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIFTER SANDERS, VOTE: UNA Meter #440 - Sm -56 and 57 -78 - Met Replat #2 and #3 - tabled from the October meeting. The applicant has requested that the applications be continued to the December meeting. A motion was made to continue to December. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIETER SANDERS VOTE: UNA Meter #470 - Sm -62 -78 - Happy Jack Minor Subdivision and Zs -67 -78 - Bruce Gabow Zone Change. Letter from applicant requested continuance to December meeting. A motion was made to continue the Hearing to the December meeting. spl a £ Meter #478 - Sm -63 -78 - Skedah Du staff recommends recommend A wasomadeltoa duplex. Final Plat is in and ch e c recommend approval. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIETER SANDERS. VOTE: UNA Meter #485 - Sm -64 -78 - Armstrong Duplex - Lot 28, Block 3 Eagle -Vail #1 to split a To 43 c e -2- and checked - has had site specific Stu y - Is it a County Road? According to Ken Long representing the applicant, the applicant's part of Eaton Lane has been deeded. Applicant will gravel the road. There is a water treatment plant above the subdivision. Should get the Town of Eagle to activate it. Staff recommends tabling because of the water problem which they feel has not been taken care of i.e. safe water. Erik Edeen, County Sanitarian said the water does not reach safe drinking water requirements. The Town is allowing people to tap on to the system but it's not safe. Chairman Price wants to check with the County Attorney to find out where the County stands as far as liability goes. A motion was made to table for more information on the water supply. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ALFRED GARDNER, VOTE: UNA Meter #589 - Ssp- 109 -78 - Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Sketch Plan. 25 units of 4.382 acres - lots 7 and 8 - Block 4, Vail Intermountain. Tom Boni read the letters in the file and located the property. There will be two tennis courts. Will be building out of the flood plain area. Bank is about 20 feet. There will be 18 parking spaces between courts plus other parking - 2 spaces per unit. This will have to be revised to 2.5 parking spaces. No problem with the stream setback. CHANGE IN TAPE TO #58 The lot across the creek is questionable according to Chairman Price. Staff Member Jim Williams suggested a foot bridge across the creek and leave as openspace for the entire development. Would have to reduce the units by two. Applicant will have to decide something on the lot across the creek and allowable density. Long discussion on the lot across the creek. Sv -7 -78 - Ernst Glatzle Subdivision Variance from requirement for 6 foot shoulder/ 4 foot drainage in 50 foot right -of -way. Lot 20, Garmisch Dr. West Vail. This is to come into compliance with the Special Use Permit granted. County Commissioners said they would accept something less than the County standards for right -of -way. Mr. Guffy representing the applicant read a letter from Lincoln DeVore Testing Lab. on grading and landscaping - satisfactory way of soil stablization. Change variance to locate boulders 4 feet back at cul -de -sac and build a 2 foot wall. Would also be a ditch for drainage. A motion was made to recommend approval of a variance to 10 feet from property with boulders as stablization. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ALFRED GARDNER, VOTE: UNA Peter #320 - Zc -85 -78 - Chris Jouflas Zone Change from Resource to Commercial General - approx. 2 miles north of Wolcott. Susie Vaughn read letters and located property. Staff has recommended denial because it would tend to create strip development. Applicants wants to put in light warehousing for perishable goods. Chairman Price lint ,.i;1r�1 r ,r, np thn_ Ott o f (lpromh�r !Illth proposals on openspace. Will continue hearing until the 20th of December. A motion was made to recommend denial of the application because it would create strip development. MOTION ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ALFRED GARDNER, VOTE: 3 -1 Ann Holland, Alfred Gardner and Dieter Sanders - for the motion Don Price - against the motion RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM Sn C. F. MOECKEL S. B. 8 L. CO. 15 November Planning Commission Meeting - Continued duplex - No final plat has been submitted or party wall agreement. A motion was made to table until applicant brings in all information nee DIETER SANDERS, VOTE: UNA MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ^} Meter #491 - Sm -65 -78 - Capstone Townhouses - 6 unit building into 6 ownerships, for parking. 5taf Lot 21, Buffer Creek. 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit provided Applicant has cleared up the geologic concerns with Mr. Lew recommends approval. Ladwig of the Colorado Geological Survey. Need minor changes on the final plat. to the final plat of split A motion was made to recommend approval with corrections parking space. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ALFRED GARDNER VOTE: UNA Meter #523 - Sm -67 -78 - Mo's Subdivision - Minor Subdivision for 40 acres into 4 lots Brush Creek Road. Final Plat is in of 10 acres. Located 62 miles south of Eagle on A there is a question concerning Eaton Lane. and checked - has had site specific Stu y - Is it a County Road? According to Ken Long representing the applicant, the applicant's part of Eaton Lane has been deeded. Applicant will gravel the road. There is a water treatment plant above the subdivision. Should get the Town of Eagle to activate it. Staff recommends tabling because of the water problem which they feel has not been taken care of i.e. safe water. Erik Edeen, County Sanitarian said the water does not reach safe drinking water requirements. The Town is allowing people to tap on to the system but it's not safe. Chairman Price wants to check with the County Attorney to find out where the County stands as far as liability goes. A motion was made to table for more information on the water supply. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ALFRED GARDNER, VOTE: UNA Meter #589 - Ssp- 109 -78 - Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Sketch Plan. 25 units of 4.382 acres - lots 7 and 8 - Block 4, Vail Intermountain. Tom Boni read the letters in the file and located the property. There will be two tennis courts. Will be building out of the flood plain area. Bank is about 20 feet. There will be 18 parking spaces between courts plus other parking - 2 spaces per unit. This will have to be revised to 2.5 parking spaces. No problem with the stream setback. CHANGE IN TAPE TO #58 The lot across the creek is questionable according to Chairman Price. Staff Member Jim Williams suggested a foot bridge across the creek and leave as openspace for the entire development. Would have to reduce the units by two. Applicant will have to decide something on the lot across the creek and allowable density. Long discussion on the lot across the creek. Sv -7 -78 - Ernst Glatzle Subdivision Variance from requirement for 6 foot shoulder/ 4 foot drainage in 50 foot right -of -way. Lot 20, Garmisch Dr. West Vail. This is to come into compliance with the Special Use Permit granted. County Commissioners said they would accept something less than the County standards for right -of -way. Mr. Guffy representing the applicant read a letter from Lincoln DeVore Testing Lab. on grading and landscaping - satisfactory way of soil stablization. Change variance to locate boulders 4 feet back at cul -de -sac and build a 2 foot wall. Would also be a ditch for drainage. A motion was made to recommend approval of a variance to 10 feet from property with boulders as stablization. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ALFRED GARDNER, VOTE: UNA Peter #320 - Zc -85 -78 - Chris Jouflas Zone Change from Resource to Commercial General - approx. 2 miles north of Wolcott. Susie Vaughn read letters and located property. Staff has recommended denial because it would tend to create strip development. Applicants wants to put in light warehousing for perishable goods. Chairman Price lint ,.i;1r�1 r ,r, np thn_ Ott o f (lpromh�r !Illth proposals on openspace. Will continue hearing until the 20th of December. A motion was made to recommend denial of the application because it would create strip development. MOTION ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ALFRED GARDNER, VOTE: 3 -1 Ann Holland, Alfred Gardner and Dieter Sanders - for the motion Don Price - against the motion -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. S. a L. CO. Al l 15 November 1978 Subdivision Planning Meeting - continued Meter #400 - Zc -86 -78 - James Fitzsimmons and Myrtle Price - Zone Change from Resource to Residential Suburban Low Density Zs -65 -78 - James Fitzsimmons or th e P so ccan a minor The Zone Change is to allow for the subdivision to correct the illegal subdivision. Located 3/4 mile west of Eagle on Hwy 6. Fitzsimmons wants to put in 7 si Commiss requested that Mrs. Price's property be inc subdivision. Staff has no problem with density as it stands now. !dater will be provided b water by an y a cistern. Applicant has an alternate plan for obtaining easement thru the Montgomery property. Will have to look into this more. A motion was made to recommend approval of the zone change. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIFTFR SANDERS, VOTE: UNA A motion was made to recommend a of S AND E RS , Sp Use PIJrAit MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECON Meter #450 - Zs -61 -78 - Manternach and Paul Special Use Permit to build on slope greater than 3 - Lot 14 Block 4, Vail Ridge Subdivision. Tabled from previous meetings. Staff has recommended denial because the lot area is too smal l. applicant has not submitted any information to tell what the slope is. A motion was made to recommend denial based on inadequacy of the lot MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIETER SANDERS, VOTE: UNA Zs -66 -78 - Radio flail - Special Use Permit to allow Radio Antenna on BLH land 6 miles SW of I -70 West Vail Exit. Applicant must have to Special Use Permit from BLM and the County. Staff recommends tabling until we get information from the BLM. This is an area that the County and BLM want to preserve as part of the proposed scenic corridor. Applicant would like to have the hearing continued until the BLM has decided about the view corridor. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DIETER SANDERS, VOTE: UNA Meter #562 - Zv -57 -78 - Variance from Parking Requirements for the undeveloped portion of Sopris Village Subdivision - applicants wants the present 2 parking spaces per house (single family) instead of the required four. This is a new roval Staff feels that 2 is appropriate. A motion was made to recommend app -7" variance for 2 parking spaces. MOTION: ALFRED GARDNER, SECONDED: DIETER SANDERS, VOTE: UNA CHANGE IN TAPE TO SIDE II Highland Meadows #1 revision to the PUD. Proposed recreation building was not on the final plat. Developers were supposed to have provided something but did not at the time of the final plat. This is a needed facility. Staff recommends denial because more parking cannot be provided. Could put in a parking structure - this would help the situation 75 more parking spaces are needed. Commission will look at this at another meeting. Meter #097 - Sopris Village Sanitation Plan - creation of a Sanitation District. _ Sopris Village will give debt free an operational system to the homeowners association - if that fails, they will deed it to them. Staff recommends tabling until such a time as a master plan for the area is looked at. Could mean a larger District instead of small districts. This will be heard by the County Commissioners at a special Public Hearing . A motion was made to recommend that it be favorably considered by the County Commissioners. MOTION: ALFRED GARDNER, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA R ' !jrther fJl,lsin ° n t t� .S� - mnQ +i �', I �r�� 0 PY1. ued on Tape #58 to end of tape and Recorded on Tape #57 Side ii peter 283 and con on Side II to #260. by: Katherine Peterson Recording Secretary i ilk _ 4D SUBDIVISION I.!4rr,�)VEMENTS, AGI:EEN NT THIS AG REE:-II,N made and enterod into this 22nd day of November, 1978, by and between High Country Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider ", and the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, .a body corporate and politic, by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as "County". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Subdivider, as a condition of approval of the final plat of Highland meadows Filing No. 2, desires to enter into a Subdivision Improvements Agreement as provided for by Section 30 -28 -137, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the same authority, the Sub- divider is obligated to provide security or collateral sufficient in the judgment of the Board of County Commissioners to make reasonable provision for completion of certain public improve- - „ ments set forth in ixhibit ,. H attached hereto and incorporate herein; and WHEREAS, the Subdivider desires to provide collateral to guarantee performance of this agreement, including construc tion of the above - referenced public improvements, by means of a plat restricLion; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants, conditions, and promises, the parties hereto agree hereby as follows: 1. Subdivider hereby agrees, without cost to the County, to arrange for the furnishing of all equipment and material necessary to perform and com1- )lete, in good workmanlike i,ianner, all public improvements as shown in the final plat documents for the subject subdivision in accordance with all plans and specifications for the subject subdivision filed in the office of the County Engineer and /or the Department of Planning and Development and to do all wort: incidental thereto according to and in compliance with the following: (a) All final plat documents submitted prior to or at the time of final plat approval. (b) All laws of the United States, State of Colo- rado, Eagle County and its various agencies, including its Zoning Resolution, affected special districts and/ or service districts. (c) Such other designs, drawings, maps, specifi- cations, sketches, and other matter submitted by sub- divider to and approved by any of the above - referenced governmental entities. All said work shall be done under the inspection of, and to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and /or the Building official, re- spectively, of the County of Eagle, and shall not be deemed complete until approved and accepted as com- pleted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County or said Board's appointed designee. The estimated cost of said work and improvements F;� G'� J� 1, 4 r , ` �is $77,-0.00 -H for Lots 1 through 3a. (See Exhibit C) (d) Lots 1 through.-Z-3 will be com- pleted prior to November, 1980. 2. To secure and guarantee performance of its obli- gations as set forth herein, the Subdivider agrees to provide security and collateral in the following form, as approved here- in by the County: a plat restriction to be placed prominently on the final plat for the subject subdivision containing the language set forth on E::hibit "B" attach:d hereto and incorpora ted herein by this reference. -2- 3. It is mutually agreed, pursuant to the provisions of Section 30 -28 - 137 (3), Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, that the County or any purchaser of any lot, lots, tract or tracts of .land subject to a plat restriction which is the security portion of a subdivision improvements agreement shall have the authority to bring an action in any district court to compel the enforcement of any subdivision improvements agreement on the sale, conveyance or transfer of any such lot, lots, tract or tracts of land or of any other provision of Part 1 of Article 28 of Title 30 of C.R.S. 1973. Such authority shall include the right to compel rescission of any sale, conveyance, or transfer of any lot, lots, tract or tracts of land contrary to the provisions of any such restrictions set forth in the plat or in any separate recorded instrument, but any such action shall be commenced prior to the issuance of a building permit by the County where so required. 4. It is further mutually agreed that pursuant to the provisions of Section 30- 28- 137(2), Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, that as improvements are completed, the Sub- . divider may apply to the Board of County Commissioners for a re- lease of part or all of the collateral deposited with said Board. Upon inspection and approval, the Board shall release said col- , lateral. If the Board determines that any of such improvements are not constructed in substantial compliance with specifications, it shall furnish the Subdivider a list of specific deficiencies and shall be entitled to withhold collateral sufficient to in- sure such substantial compliance. If the Board of County Com- missioners determines that the Subdivider will not or is unable to construct any or all of the improvements in accordance with all of the specifications, the Board of Countv Commissioners -3- �. .y 4 may withdraw and employ from the deposit of collateral such funds as may be necessary to con:,truct the improvement in accord- ance with the specifications. 5. The County agrees to approval of the final plat of Highland Meadows Piling No. 2, subject to the terms and con- ditions of this agreement. G. parties hereto mutually agree that this agreement may be amended from time to time, provided that such amendment be in writing and signed by all parties hereto. 7. In the event suit is brought upon this Agreement, Subdivider hereby agrees to pay a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the Court if Judgmen is rendered in favor of County, and County agrees to pay reasonable attorney's fees if Judgment is rendered in favor of the Subdivider. 8. County shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage happening or occurring to the works specified in this Agreement prior to the completion and acceptance of the same, nor shall County, nor any officer or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property injured by reason of the nature of said work, but all of said liabilities shall be assumed by Subdivider. The Subdivider hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County, and any of its officers, agents, and employees against any losses, claims, damages or liabilities to which County or any such of its officers, agents, or employees may be- come subject to, insofar as any such losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of or are based upon any performance by Subdivider hereunder; and the Subdivider shall reimburse County for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by County in connection with investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liabil- itv, or to the other liability which thc, Subdivider may otherwise have. ME 9. It is further agreed that Subdivi.der shall at all times from the acceptaricc by the Board of County Commissioners of the roads offered for dedication in the subject Subdivision up to tho completion and acceptance of said work or improvement by County, give good and adequate warning to the traveling public of each and every dangerous condition existent in said roads or any of them, and will take reasonable care to protect the travel- ing public from such defective or dangerous conditions. It is understood and agreed that until the completion of all the im- provements herein agreed to be performed, each of said roads not accepted as improved shall be under the charge of Subdivider for the purposes of this Agreement; and Subdivider may close all or a portion of any street or road whenever it is necessary to protect the traveling public during the construction or instal- lation of the improvements herein agreed to be made. 10. Subdivider warrants each portion of the work and material for a period of one year after_ acceptance of each .portion of the work referred to in this agreement by County. Fur- ther, County shall have a right to require the security or col- lateral provided by Subdivider to remain in effect in any amount, as determined by County, sufficient to cover any claims under this warranty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. ATTEST: By Clbrkkdt the Board of County Commissioners L •rn t� L L �i . COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and through its Board of County Commiss ers Y Dan Williams, Chairman Subdivider: IIIGII COUNTY CORD RRTION vice President -5- a EXHIBIT "A" HIGHLAND 14T]ADOWS FILING NO. 2 PUBLIC IL•11'ROVEMI;NTS FOR ROADS AND RELATED DRAINAGE WORK AND RE- VEGETATION AND RESTORATION OF AFFECTED TERRAIN Said improvements shall include excavation, embank- men-Ls, gravel, asphalt surfacing and construction and installa- tion of culverts; and restoration and re- vegetation of terrain disturbed by said improvements. All of the above as more spe- cifically set forth on the final plat for Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, and those public improvement maps, plans and specifications for said Subdivision as filed in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder and /or County Engineer and /or the Department of Planning and Development, respectively, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, all of said documents incorporated herein by this reference. r U lu EXHIBIT "B" PLAT RESTRICTIONS FOP, HIGHLAND MEADOWS FILING No. 2 Lots 1 through, and including 33 of this plat are subject here to the following restrictions: There shall be no sales, leases or any other form of conveyance of any of the subject real property, nor shall building permits be issued in connection with the subject real property, until such time as this restriction shall be deleted by the Board of County Comm lSS 4 oners in accordance with the terms of that , certain Subdivision Improvements Agreement affecting ' y i,. i a the su j ect property, provided, 1 ' o — we , 1J -L LU Zily permits or similar permits may be issued for any of the work or structures required pursuant to said Subdivision Improvements Agreement. I J_' --- s EXHIBIT "C" Excavation of Embankment (16,000 c.y. at $2) Road Rase (3,800 tons at $5) Asphalt (1,000 tons at $22) Culverts ( 2 10" 50' at $20) Re- vegetation $32,000.00 19,000.00 22,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 $77,000.00 41 398 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners-'3rd oay -_ °c t°ber -- -Term, 19_ _ - - 19 - Request: Review of a final plat. Location: Lot 1A, Eagle -Vail r2 Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this final plat review explaining that Mountain Stream Condos is the first phase of Tract B Condos and pointed out the location on the plat and adjoining properties. The entrance problems have been corrected for this final plat but the mylar is not yet returned. Commissioner Troxel moved Su- 2 -79 -F be tabled for a maximum of thirty days until the mylar is presented. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, opened the discussion of Blue Creek Road stating Mr. Hignett, Developer, is present and that a Preliminary Plan and Special Use Permit for cluster development have been submitted for the project to be heard November 13th. Mr. Boni stated Staff has met on site and there are certain improvements necessary to bring the road up to County standard and they are taking this opportunity to present an outline of how they are proceeding for Board input because the developer will begin to invest funds at this stage. The Board concurred the impacts on the road need to be met by contributions from the developers and how to formulate improvements among developers was discussed. Mr. Boni informed the Board that Staff has gone over the road from the top of the hill to the end of the project to identify areas of work needing to be done as they foresee this as a collector road. Mel Atwell, County Engineer, discussed his view of the road problems and stated that corrections have to be made to engineering, right -of -way, construction and then a total cost could be reached. How to attain the funds would have to be addressed but the original engineering would have to be borne by someone. After discussion the Board determined that improvements have to be made to the road, without County funding, before development can be allowed. Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented Roger Sauer's PUD pre - application conference pointing Creek Bauer: Lake out the position on the plat as being the south most private property existing on Lake Creek. Roger Bauer, applicant, nresent; stated Lite general concept is 16 units on 75 acres and that they will use their water rights for hydro - turbin water power for the project. t system and all 16 units will be totally They are also planning a solar aqua farm for a sewer treatmen self sufficient. Mr. Bauer stated the roads are good and the area is Resource zoned. Commissioner Troxel expressed his opinion of the impact of Lake Creek Meadows on the road at the bottom and that it needs improvements for further developement, the area is all ten acre tracts and this zoning sets a precedent for too much density. Tom Boni discussed the problems of using cluster development as being because it is inconsistant with the Master Plan, density and upgrading the road. Commissioner Grant moved to table the request of Clay Crossland for the release of collateral for the completed Sudivision Improvements of his Industrial Park until the roads are inspected. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. The Board directed the Planning Staff to contact the TV Association and the School District and set up a meeting to see if arrangements can be made so that Motorola could use the TV facility on a temporary basis with a Special Use Permit. There being no further business to come before the Board; it was moved, seconded and passed to adjourn until the next meeting of October 24, 1979. Chaff kwarn Su- 2 -79 -F Tract B Condos Mountain Stream Blue Creek Road Clay Crossland: Release of Collater TV Association/ School District/ Motorola Attest: Cl to the Board, �� .. 39 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners 23r1 — Oct —Term, 19 ,m- 144 -79 Request: To subdivide a duplex. lark Donaldson Location: Lot 24, Block 1, Eagle -Vail 1 -2 ( Deer Blvd.) Minor Sub- Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this request to subdivide an existing duplex pointing division out the location along Deer Blvd, one lot off Stone Creek Drive. Mr. Boni explained that this is a small duplex in comparision to others in the area, there is a plat restriction that no further buildings are to be built and the Planning Commission concerns were parking. The applicant suggests moving the parking space to the south; thereby conforming to the most recent Eagle -Vail Guidelines. Mr. Boni stated Staff feels it does not meet standards and the Planning Commission vote was three against approval and two in favor. Bryan Barn, representing the applicant, answered questions of set backs. Commissioner Troxel moved to approve Sm- 144 -79. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. j- 114 -79 -S Request: Review of sketch plan. he Valley Phase 6 Location: North Lion's Ridge Subdivision, in Section 12, T5S, R81W. Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this agenda item explaining there is no representative present and recommending tabling. Commissioner Troxel moved to table Su- 114 -79 -S be tabled; not to exceed thirty days. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. u- 123 -79 -S Request: Review of sketch plan for 10 units on 3.7 acres in an RSM Zone. German Ditmar Location: North of and adjacent to the Town of Basalt in Tract 47, Section 8, T7S, R86W. Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this sketch plan review pointing out the location as being immediately adjacent to the Town of Basalt. Mr. Boni informed the Board that the applicant is present and this area has previously been zoned RSM. Mr. Ditmar, present, explained that his intent for this location is to build three Triplexes on a single family lot and he requests this be considered under the cluster developement provision in the zoning code. Mr. Ditmar added some of the road is in reasonable shape, some is very bad which he plans to pave to County standards and explained the location of the buildings for minimum impact. Commissioner Grant questioned whether the Town of Basalt had given approval. Mr. Ditmar stated he had been to the Town for water hook -ups but they are not adequate so he has applied to Denver for well permits. Tom Boni read for the record a letter from the Town of Basalt: taking no position for or against but stating concerns over the road and town street, that this request is for 10 units on 3 acres and is zoned for 1 dwelling per acre not compatable with present zoning and area use and not assuring water. A letter from Mr. DiMaggio, adjacent property owner, objecting to the multi - family use and a letter from Joseph Dubino, adjacent property owner, objection due to road problems were read. The Planning Commission recommends the applicant go to Preliminary Plan Stage and address these problems. The Planning Staff recommends the applicant stay at Sketch Plan due to the sensitive problems with the Town of Basalt, until road problems can be technically evaluated and water problems addressed. Commissioner Grant stated the Basalt Mountain area has been down zoned already, this zoning is inappro- priate, access, water and density are problems and he would suggest annexing to the Town of Basalt. Mr. Ditmar objected that he had paid alot for the property and needed to go ahead with the Triplex con- cept to pay for the road improvements that would have to be done even for a single family dwelbing and water and sewerage to the property. Commissioners Troxel and Williams concurred that considering water, sewer and access problems they could not recommend proceeding with this plan. Cemetary Board Frances Samsosity and Rex Fleming appeared before the Board in regard to their resignations from the Cemetary Board and discussed the problems of a caretaker for the cemetary. Commissioner Grant stated that the County cannot appoint the County Caretaker for the cemetary as it is a district entity. Discussion followed concerning the third board member, appointment recommendations and the budget. Commissioner Grant suggested the possibility of the temporary appointment of Mick Kasher, Administrative Assistant, as custodian of the cemetary records. Chairman Williams ascertained that the resignations would take effect at the end of the month, expressed the Board's regrets and stated the Board would endeavor to find replacement people before the end of the month. Su- 126 -79 -S Request: Review of a sketch plan for 50 condominiums, 35,000 square feet of Retail /Commercial floor area West Vail Plaza and 42,000 square feet of Office /Commercial floor area on 6.6 acres in CL Zone. Location: Vail das Schone #4, Immediately east of Vail das Schone shopping center. Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this sketch plan review for a condominium /shopping plaza pointing out the location as the last section in the Vail das Schone Commercial area. Tom Bryner, Architect for the applicant explained the three story building to be built, use of the units, z dwelling and i commercial and discussed parking requirments. Commissioner Troxel questioned if this request has been before the West Vail Architectural Control Com- mittee, the road and traffic impacts and construction heights in relation to the elevation of dwellings in the back. Tom Boni discussed Planning Commission and Staff concerns of imorev'cus materials, allotment of parking spaces, back -up space, possible building size reduction and the ration of commercial to residential floor areas. Chairman Williams suggested they consider "no dogs" and strictly adhere to regulations concerning signs. Mr. Boni read a letter from the Town of Vail concerning problems they have with the project. The Board directed the Planning Staff to respond to this letter and directed the applicant to proceed to Preliminary Plan with direction from the Staff. Su- 127 -79 -S Request: Sketch plan review of 25 units on 4.4 acres Imperial Location: Adjacent to Gore Creek Drive (Vail Village West) and the Exxon station along the frontage road. Development Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this request for a sketch plan review and explaining the applicant was not present however, he suggests the Board proceed and notify the applicant by mail of recommendations. Mr. Boni pointed out the applicants desire to transfer density between parcels split by the County road, discussed the eight recommendations of the Planning Commission and stated the overall impression is that its cluttered, too tight and a reduction of density is necessary. Chairman 'Williams stated he did not want the "recreation area" because of traffic and that the County 396 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners __23rd Day 01 tpb _ — Term, 19— _ _ 19.79_ Request: Gallegos Minor Subdivision. To subdivide a duplex lot. Location: Lot 18, Block 6, Lake Creek Subdivision. Tom Boni, Assistant Planninq Director, presented this request pointino out the location of the lot in Lake Creek Meadows on the map. Mr. Boni discussed access, easements and stated that the duplex nature of these lots has already been approved by the Board. The file is complete, the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff recommend approval and everything is in order. Commissioner Troxel questioned the width of the easement and whether the road will be private. Commissioner Grant moved Sm- 139 -79 be approved. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Sm- 139 -79 Gallegos Minor Subdivision Request: To subdivide a duplex lot. err -79 J Location: Lot 60, Block 4, Eagle - Vail #2. erry Kokes Minor Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this request to subdivide a duplex in Eagle -Vail, Subdivision explaining the parking and stating the plat has been corrected. The Planning Commission and the Planning Staff recommend approval. Commissioner Troxel moved Sm- 140 -79 be approved. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Request: To subdivide a duplex lot. Sm- 142 -79 Location: Lot 33, Block 1, Eagle -Vail #1. Stroop Homes Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this request pointing out the location on the man and discussed parking, curb cut and basement with the Board. Mr. Boni stated there was a problem as there is not yet a mylar of the corrected final plat. Commissioner Troxel suggested this item be tabled until the corrected final plat has been received. Commissioner Grant moved Sm- 142 -79 be tabled, not to exceed thirty days, until the final plat is re- ceived. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. The final plat for Sm- 137 -79 Sinclair Minor Subdivision was presented for signing. Sm- 137 -79 Commissioner Grant moved that the Chairman sign the plat, Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and Sinclair Minor the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Subdivision The Chairman signed the plat this date; October 23, 1979 in the Presence of the three Board members; Susan Vaughn, Planner; Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director and Johnnette Phillips, Clerk to the Roard. Mary Bacino appeared with a petition from the residents of Sweetwater concerning the closing of the of the garbage pit; the consequences of which are that garbage is being dumped along the road and in the streams. Ms. Bacino informed the Board that BLM has offered land if the County will clear the land and maintain it or.that another alternative is the placement of a large dumpster in the area and requested County help in this matter. Commissioner Troxel stated that the land offer from BLM for a landfill maintained by the County would be too expensive and that a dumpster might be the better alternative. Commissioner Troxel volunteered to look into the matter with the trash company and if they don't con - tact her she should contact Mick Kasher, Administrative Assistant, for further help. Chairman Williams suggested the area residents look into the possibility of a private landowners dona- ting land, getting a Special Use Permit to operate a dump and the residents help maintain its cost on a non - profit basis. Mary Bacino: Sweetwater Garbage Pit. Request: To subdivide an existing duplex. Sm- 124 -79 Location: Lot 7, Block 4, Eagle- Vail #2. Lechner Subdivisior Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this request pointing out the location and explaining that parking problems had stalled progress for awhile but the plan has been revised. The Planning Commission and the Planning Staff both recommend aporoval. Commissioner Troxel moved Sm- 124 -79 be approved. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Beth Riggert, County Attorney, opened the Public Hearing on a Resolution for requested Amendments to the Dog Control Regulations by the Animal Control Officer. Ms. Riggert informed the Board this hearing has been published three times and went over the Amendments for the Board. Definitions have been added, certain phrases in Section 11 are to be changed and additions and changes in the Penalty Section were discussed. Judy Day, Dog Control Officer and Ben Cram, Assistant Dog Control Officer; appeared and discussed in- cidents of interference to the performance of their duty by the general public. Ms. Riggert pointed out the new section which deals with such interference and another new section which deals with threats to wildlife. Commissioner Grant moved to adopt the Amendments to the Don Control Regulation Resolution with the exception of corrections to Section it and Section 3 to be redone and with the additions of the new sections. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Public Hearing: Resolution: Amend- ments to the Dog Control Regulation Sp -9 - Request: Review of revision of preliminary 'plan. Meadow Creek Location: Between I -70 and Vail Intermountain, in Section 14, T5S, R81W. .. Tom Boni, Assistant Planning Director, presented this revised preliminary plan pointing out the location and explaining that the Planning Commission had concerns about the road and bridge construction and that = these changes are a result of these concerns. Carl Deitz, applicant, Present; explained changes to the plan in regard to the road, park, parking lot, ." school bus stop and bridge. Mr. Boni stated the Staff recommends approval conditional upon committments previously made being carried forward; i.e, parking spaces, circulation and improved road system. Commissioner Grant moved the Meadow Creek revised preliminary plan be approved. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. t_ Jim Williams, Zoning Inspector, asked permission to issue permits for Bridge Construction. { °= The Board agreed. Terrill Knight, Planning Director, appeared to discuss and clarify the Staff position on giving advice County Master Plan to prospective applicants according to the Plaster Plan which is the basis for Subdivision Regulations; 395 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners 23r1 p __October Term, 19___ ____ -197 ...___.__ - -- SPECIAL MEETING Present: Dan Williams Chairman Beth Riggert County Attorney Frik Edeen Health Officer Dale Grant Commissioner Johnnette Phillips Clerk to the Board. Keith Troxel Commissioner Mick Kasher Administrative Assistant This being the date set aside for a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the following agenda items were heard, to -wit: Unauthorized The morning was spent hearing Welfare and Environmental Health matters, to close an a request from Mr. Ridgeway, Property owner, present; Landfill Erik Edeen, Health Officer, presented unauthorized landfill on his property. being in Section 13, T5S, Range 84W adjacent to Salt Creek Road Mr. Edeen pointed out the location as is Public Nuisance and it has not been designated as a landfill. and recommends closing as it a Commissioner Grant moved to close this unauthorized landfill. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. issued the Road and Bridge Department will The Board concurred that a one time buring permit will be and cover the site. Chairman Williams sugqested that Mr. Edeen and Mr. Ridoeway review what needs to be reclaimed. Mr. Edeen requested a letter from the property owner to the County authorizing the closure. Other unauthorized landfills: Gynsum Creek Valley Road, the Booth Property and Sweetwater; were discussed. Erik Edeen then informed the Board that in regard to the Upner Eagle Valley Sanitation District at Squaw Creek; there was no aareement and that he has a letter from the Land Board stating that the Wilmore sugaestion. Lake Property is too valuable to use as a Sanitation District and they request an alternate up an apnointment with the Land Board. The Board directed Mick Kasher, Administrative Assistant, to set Discussion on the alternate site in Wolcott ensued. Resolution: Beth Riggert, County Attorney, presented a request from the Developer of Highland Meadows filing #2 West Filing #3. Vacate Vail Village requesting a Resolution that the Board vacate the previous plat, Vail Village insurance and that law provides when you do West Filing #3, Ms. Riggert explained there were problems with the title another plat, you should repeal the previous one. Resolution, Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the Chair- Commissioner Troxel moved to sign the man declared the vote unanimous. Resolution: Beth Riggert, County Attorney, presented a Resolution the Board has directed; takino $161.05 out of the Structures and transfering the Clerk & Recorder Clerk and Recorder's Special Bank Account for taxes collected on Moveable Moveable Struc- funds into the General Fund. Ms. Riggert explained that this tax is unconstitutional and is no longer being collected. tures Tax Account. Commissioner Troxel moved to anprove and sign the Resolution. the was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and vote Resolution: Johnnette Phillips, Clerk and Recorder, Presented a Resolution for the transfer of funds from the Con - computer Transfer of tingency Fund to the Clerk and Recorder's budget for emergency problems of dues and meetings and Funds services in the amount of $10,000.00. Commissioner Grant moved to approve and sign the Transfer Resolution. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Voting Machines Johnnette Phillips, Clerk and Recorder, requested direction from the Board concerning the possible charge for the voting machines which they will use in their elections. for the machines due to the fact that the Commissioner Grant stated he had problems justifyina a charge Towns pay tax. Commissioner Troxel suggested only a maintenance charge of $10.00. The Board concurred. State Highway Dept. Commissioner Grant moved to sign an agreement with the State Highway Department's Federal Aid Bridge Agreement Inspection Program, total amount $24,324.00, the County share to be $5,500.00. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Beaver Creek Mick Kasher, Administrative Assistant, presented the agreement for the Gaging Station at Beaver Creek. Interior Geological Survey for Gaging Station Commissioner Grant moved to sign the Contract for the U.S. Department of County will receive a total refund from Vail Associates the Beaver Creek Gaging Station at Avon from which the of $325.00. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Ratification of Commissioner Grant moved to sign the Ratification of the Articles of Association of the Northwest Colo - N.W.C.C.G. Articles rado Council of Governments. Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Commissioner Sm- 136 -79 Request: To subdivide a duplex. Wayne Trueblood Location: Lot a6, Block 4, Eagle -Vail this request for a Minor Subdivision in Eagle -Vail; pointinn out _r.e Susan Vaughn, Planner, presented location on the site plan as being along Deer Blvd. dunlex down the center and the Planning Commission and the Ms. Vaughn stated the pronosal is to split the 7; Planning Staff recommend anoroval. Commissioner Grant moved that Sm- 136 -79 be approved. the motion and the Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Commissioner Troxel seconded Sm- 137 -79 Request: To legally establish lot lines on single family parcel Sinclair Minor Location: Part of Tract 58, T8S, R87W, (Emma Area) ti-o for "legal no - - Pl. e,; Susan Vaughn, Planner, presented this request n e = .n in Eaqie county and Partiaiiy in PitKln County: ocanori as be: q .arc a,iy the result of early subdivision been denied a Buildinq Permit because this is not a legal parcel. The applicant has Jane Wilson Smith, representing the applicant exnlained there was no house yet as they must await the Minor Subdivision approval and reapply for a building permit. that Pitkin County claims no jurisdiction. Ms. Smith informed the Board AG REEi-1E,N THIS AGREEMEN is made and entered into this; T1 day of Seutember, 1980 by and bet Eagle County, Colorado by and through its Board of County Commissioners ( "Board ") and Paul Van __ sr'inkle ( "Owner ") . TN I T iv E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on iiay 23, 1978, High Country Corporation as "Subdivider" and the Board entered into a Subdivision Iii,LDrovement Agreement ( "Improvement. Agreement ") pertaining to the construction of certain improvements by the Subdivider with respect to Lots 1 through 42, Highland Meado,vs Subdivision, Eagle County, Colorado, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the Subdivider failed to construct a portion of the improvements called for under the Improvement Agreement; WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Improvement Agreement, the Board drew on a Letter of Credit in the amount of $63,000 which was delivered to the Board as security for the performance of the Improvelilent Agreement, and the Board is now holding the sum of $63,000; WHEREAS, Owner has en tered into a contract with Schmidt -Tiago Construction Company ( "Contractor ") for the construction of the remainder of the improvements to be constructed pursuant to the Improvement Agreement; WHEREAS, the Board is willing to release the remainder of the lots which are subject to the Improvement Agreement from the restriction deSCril)p , in Ex hibit ii to the li;iprov•_;tl�.. Agreement ( "Restriction ") upon tine terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THER- EFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Provided Owner and Contractor shall have entered into a contract for the construction of the remainder of the improve -meats to be const''llct :aJ_til rr'spect to Lot:-; 1 through f described in the In Agreement, in form and content satis- factory to the Board, the Board will release said lots from the Restriction at the ti:r.e of execution of such contract. 2. The contract between Omer and Contractor shall pro- vide for completion o= the work by a date approved by the Board, that Contractor's performance under the contract shall be bonded in an armunt equal to the contract price, that the bond shall name the Board as obligee thereunder and shall expire not earlier than one year following completion of such work. 3. The Board sha_11 di.sU rse from the $63,000 being held by it as a result of its drawing on the Letter of Credit, all sump to be disbursed by the Contractor pursuant to the contract between O and Contractor follo completion thereof in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor to the satisfaction of the Eagle County County Engineer. 4. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to obligate the Board under the contract between Owner and Contractor. 5. It is further agreed that pursuant to the provisions of Section 30 -28- 137(2), Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, that as improvements are completed, the Owner may apply to the Board of County Commissioners for a release of part or all of the sum of $63,000 held by the Board. Upon inspection and approval, the Board shall release amounts so requested. 7 If the Board determines that an%T of such improvements are not constructed in substantial compliance %:rith s�-`�cifi_cations, it shall furnish the Owner a list of specific deficiencies and shall be entitled to withhold collateral sufficient to insure such substantial compliance. b nartie:3 here I:;lltiil, "?lly agree that t— S be amended from time to time, provided that such amendment be in %tiriti and sigr�?d b all I. —i es 1 erF�to. 7. In the event suit is brought upon. this Agreement, O % hereby agrees to pay a reasonable attorney's fee to be fired by the Court if Judgment is rendered in favor of County, and Board agrees to pay reasonable attorney's fees if Judgment is rendered in favor of the k 8. Board shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, lo-s, or damage happening or occurring to the works specified -in this Agreement prior to the completion and acceptance of the same, nor shall Board, nor any - officer or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property in- jured by reason of the nature of said work, but all of said liahilit -es shall be assumed by Owner as Contractor. The Owner hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless t -_e Board, and any of its officers, agents, and employees against any icss_2 s, cl 'ms, dam: g or llabij ij tO -vihlch Board or any si -Ich C`- its officers, agents, or employees may become subject to, insofar_ as any such losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of or are based upon any performance by Owner or Contractor hereunder; and the Owner shall reimburse Board for an. and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by Board in con- nection with investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability, or action.. This indemnity provision shall be in addition to the other liability which the Owner may otherwise have. 9. It is further agreed that Owner shall at all times from the acceptance by the Board of County Commissioners of the roads offered for dedication up to the completion and acceptance of said - ::ork or improvement by Board, give good and adequate warning to the travel- ing public of each and every dangerous condition existent in said r:ds or any of them, and will take reasonable care to protect the trave�.ing public from such defective or dangerous conditions. It is understood and agreed that until the completion of all the improvements herein ac:reed to be performed, each of said roads not accepted as impro ec shall be under the charge of Owner for the purposes of this Agreeaent; and owner may close all or a portion of any street or road whenever it is necessary to protect the tra. public duri_nq the constructi_o^ or installation of the improvements herein agreed to be made. 10. Owner warrants each portion of the work and material for a period of one year after acceptance of each portion of the work re- (erred to in this agreement by Board. r ti EXECUTED as of the day and year first above written. PT'u�l Van Clink - le COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLOR? _DO By and through its Board of County Commissioners By: — By: By: EXHIBIT "A" SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS TS AGPEEMENT THIS AGn.i:rMENT, made_` and entered into this 23rd of may, 1975, by and between high Country Corporation, a Colo - ratio Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider", and th County of Eagle, State of Colorado, a body corporate and politic, by and through its Board of County Commissioners, here- inafter referred to as "County ", WITNESSETH. WHFREAS, the Subdivider, as a condition of approval of the final plat of highland Meadows Subdivision, desire, to enter into a Subdivision Improvements Agreement as provided for by Section 30 -28 -137, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the same authority, the Sub- divider is obligated to provide security or collateral sufficient in the judgment of the Board of County Commissioners to mare reasonable provision for completion of certain public improve- ments set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the Subdivider desires to provide collateral to guarantee performance of this agreement, including construc- tion of the above- referenced public improvements, by means of a plat restriction; NOW TPERENRE, in consideration of the following mituni covenants, conditions, and )rolllises the parties he.rnto agree hereby as follows: 1. suh'_livi d r hgreby ngrpe` , Wi tho "v cogt to th'' County, to arrange for the furnishing of all equipment and material necessary to perform and complete, in good workmanlike manner, all public improvements as shoe in the final plat docu- ments for the subject subdivision in accordance with all plans office O� the County I.nQine-er �1nd /03. thr' Depart_mo zit. Of and Development and to do <!I I wor }: i.ncidental Cher( : accord i n to and in complianc-' V.ith the follo�a:inq (a) All final plat document submitted prior to or at the tirle of final "I't approval.. (b) All laws Of the United Stags, State of Cc;lo- rado, Eagle County and its various agenclrs, its Zoning Resolution, aff-c>cted special districts or service districts. (c) Such other designs, drawings, maps, spe-i.f i- cE?tions, s�:etchcs and other matter subrli ttcd by divider to and approved by any of the above - reference governmental entities. 1111 said work shall be done under the inspection of, and to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and /or the Building official, re- spectively, of the County of Eagle, and shall not be deemed complete until approved and accepted as com- pleted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County or said Board's appointed designee. `rile estimated cost of said work and improvements is $63,000 for Lots 1 through 25 and $55,510 for LOt_ 26 through 42. See Exhibits C and D. (d) Lots 1 through 2.5 development will be com- pleted prior to Decembr~r, 1980. Lots 26 throuc;h 42 development will be completed prior_ to 2. To secure and guarantee performance of its Obli- gations as set forth herein, the Subdivider agrees to provide securitv and collateral in the followinq form, as approval here- in by the County: a plat restriction to be placed promi.ncntly on the final plat map for the subject subdivision containing the larc gage set forth o_ -:<hibi t "3" attached hereto and incoriPor ted herein by this reference. 3. It is mutually agreed, pursuant to the provisions of Section 30 -28 -137 (3) , Colorado nevised Statutes 1973, as amended, that the County or any purchaser of any lot, lots, Court t0 COmn• ^1 the C'afOrC' 'T(-nt C) lly subd].v1c >1'.)n ]_Iiiprov-i1Cnt:S aar: : .Cale T1t OT1 -he COa'Jr� -1 or trap sf( of aT ?'✓ SUC 10t:, lots, trac`_. Or trac Of lead O; of <Irl'.' oth -'r Y!r(;VL 10 :1 Of 1 o`_ 71rtic1 e 22 of =1. --1_ 30 of C.R.S. 1973. Such aut'lority sh'11 r :_SC�1S :i1_C)T1 O aIIy SalL'., :'Oa\,'C Or t nSfer of anv 10'.:, lots, trac Or tr,icts of land c0! :t =iar�' provisions of ai1,,' such restricti.Ons set forth In tht t.)I :I?. 01 :'j' separite rLGO_` :C1C'<I instrument, but ElI such action - ,II,!II I O CGS eil E.d prior to thn i suance of a building i ('Mit by Lhr' Count': where so re-,uirC�d. 4. It is further mutually agreed that pursuan`_ to th O`J1S1^n Or :1'Ct On 30- 2`3-1.3 / ( , ColoraC':C) TZC�TiS[ CI St.ltlli ".C' 1973 as amlended, that as ir.inrovementS are completed, the Sub- divider rlay apple to to r oard of County Co.:tmissicners for a re- lease of part or all of the collateral deposited c• :ith said Board. Upon insp and approval, the Board shall release said col- lateral. If the Board determines that any of such i.mprovenionts are not constructed in substantial compliance with specifications, it shall furnish the Subdivider a list of specific deficiencies and shall be e:ltitled to withhold collateral sufficient to in- sure such substantial coipliance. If the Board of County Com- i issi Oilers determines that the Subdivider will not or is unallAo to construct any or all of the improvements in accordance with all of the specifications, the Board of County Com iiissioners ma,' ,;ithdraw and plo: from the deposit of collateral such funds as may be necessary to construct the improve.,ent in accord- once .with the spec if i cations. 5. The County agrees to approval of the final plat O _ _ 'd C'c_ :> S! C1 ]_ 1 1 1, S' h ]L'Ct Lo t'le tC'r7" S � Cn :. di tionS of this agree :.tent. 6. Parties h,=to mutually agree that this ac:reement to ti! ,(`, pr0.' i ded th t such be in . and signed by all parties hcr.eto. 7. In the event suit is brought upon this 1`'.grecment, hereby C jrt -'e7 to pay it reasonable at torney ' s fee to be fixed b'J ttje Court if J11("C1mont is rend ^r( -d In fi1%'Or Of C011nt'r , 8. CoI]nty shall not, not Shall aPY Of Sicer or "N ;_,,.,_ thereof, be liable or responsible for any accKent., 1OS5 or fly m 1. ha ppeniny or occurring to U0 works specified in this t prior to the completion and acVQPtance of the S nor shal County, nor any of or employee_ thc"Mf he liable for nth" persons or property injured by reason of the nature of Said 4 cr: , but all of said 1_iabil.i.tA5 shall be assumed by Subdivider. The Subdivider hereby agrees to indemnif=y and hold hnrn less the county, and any of its officers, agents, and employ -os against any losses, claims, damages or liabilities to which or n su 1 _ a gents , or em ployees yes i. ay County .�_ a..- it o� i t s of c._ t_nt,�, i , n come subject to, insofar as any such losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof).that arise out of or are based upon any performance by Subdivider hereunder; and the Subdiver shall. reimburse County for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by County in connection wit!] investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liabil ity, or action. This indemnity provision shall be in addition to the other liability which the Subdivider may otherwise have. 9. It is further agreed that Subdivider shall at all times from the acceptance by the Board of County Commissioners of the roads offered for dedication in the subject Subdivision up to the completion and acceptance of said work or improvement by County, give good and adequate warning to the traveling public of each and every dangerous condition existent in said roads or any of them, and will take reasonable care to protect the travel- ing public from such defective or dangerous conditions. It is understood and agreed that until the completion of all the: ip- provements herein agreed to be performed, each of said road. not accepted as improved shall be under: the charge of Subdivider for the purposes of this ?:'vT eement; and Suhdi :' WOr P a Y c_I Osc Oil or a portion of any street or road whenever it is necessary to protect the traveling public during the construction or instal- lation of the improvements herein agreed to be made. 10. Subdivider warrants each portion of thn work an(' ..., .r T ai' a P o rind o f „_:�.' +,fir of _r "n p an PA lateral provided by S to remain in ojfecf in aAy nnownL as detormin-A KY County, suffi to " vor nn y this warranty. Attest: - -� F y n / /' � �_� /�% � �� C 1. o the Doi rd of County commissioners ATTE q , COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COWPADO By and through its Board cf County haves hereon to set tho i I hands and seals the day and year first above written. Attest: - -� F y n / /' � �_� /�% � �� C 1. o the Doi rd of County commissioners ATTE q , COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COWPADO By and through its Board cf County Commiss ners, By: Chairman Subdivider: IITGII COtJNTIIY 11 E'. M' C.F.O. Vice President 0 F,;:1I T F: T'� " A '' PUMIC ] `•1I'P0 E ;f'NTS FOR BOADS AND REL ATED lil:>>J^1_>>" YORK AND I I;('L:'.'A`i' f UN AND RESTORATION r ATION � ' IV C`I'ED �i't;i'itAM AND Iz.i;;" �'O � Said improvements shall include excavation, u'.'hank -- ments, gravel, asp surfacing and construction and in -st ll n tion of culverts; and restoration and of disturbed by said improvements. All of the above as mnFu _ p_.- cif . ca y set forth on the f inal_ PI O L for Ii1OWA M division, and those public improvom6nt maps, Glans and 5puc i f i - cations for said Subdivision as filed in the office of the CMA Cler and Recorder, and/or COUIlty Engineer and/or the Depar'= 1`.'' of Planning and Development, respectively, County Of L:agle, State of Colorado, all of said documents incorporated hercir by this reference. 14 I I T� V I T' x 11113IT p T�T"r T- ST S O'� D0 SuI)L)IV], tl ,) - -his pT h -� C c -�) 0, - , , �cliicling,42 of t at arc si t hc to th2 o ; restrict101IS: r,.0 1 e-jf7 or all Forl,-i -I, I 1_ }1( t I or shall the subject re a l pro-per until such time as this restriction shall J deleted by the Board Of C Com i n acc ,- )rc 7anc(- with the terms of that certain Sub ivision Improvements Agreement affecting the subject property provided, ho building per-m-its or similar permits may be issu(--d for any of the work or structures required prustiant to said Subdivision iI-.7Drover Agreement. EX;! T F3 TT " C " 1IJTGi COST El'-'P11 p(OAD 0': I V -P P0 UROMI ALPINE 'uv 'J.'0 C UPVE 3 AND AI,L OF ) E 00 T TE" DEISCIFUEPTIMT UNIT UNIT I Unclassified Excavation C. Y. 10,000 $ 1.50 $15,000 2. E;rban I fui - len t C.Y. 10,0()0 1.00 10 , c, 3. 18 CSP L. F. 250 18.00 if '50o 4. Gravel. Surfacing Ton 2,200 5.00 11,000 5. Asphalt Concrete Ton 600 25.00 15,000 6. Rip Rap C.Y. 5 20.00 100 7. Pervious Gravel Blanket Ton 200 3.50 700 8. Re-vegatation S.Y. 6,700 1.00 _6, 700 TOTAL $63,000 0 {iITL3IT "D" .IT GI1 i,�. ";D i'Ir.tlD�)I'7:7 =- - F - Ci: F_On[) COi:S`I'12tIC I'IOii LM US 1 T :I R.CjU , ',: ?'. 4 2 ) IV (- ,UDI VE R'IO?il R01, C ON! EC`PION TO ALPI'IE DP.IVB. 1 T ",'t DF. SCRIPTIO" UNIT UNIT QUP:IITITY P CO ST 1 Uncl.assi fied Excavation C_-Y. 18,500 $ 1.50 $27,750 2 Er1b__ nkMe C.X. 13,500 1.00 18,500 18" CS? L.F. 250 18.00 4,500 4 24" CSP L.F. 160 22.00 3,520 5 Gravel Surfac-ing Ton 4,150 5.00 20,750 6 Asphalt Concrete Ton 1,150 25.00 28,750 7 Rip Rap C.Y. 12 20.00 240 8 Pervious Gravel Blanket Ton 600 3.50 2,100 9 Revegat -at ion S.Y. 12,400 1.00 12, 400 TOTAL $118,510 0 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners — — day - -- - -term 19__ Oct ober 19' Regular ' 11 Present: Dan Williams Chairman .z° Planning Director Dale Grant Commissioner Terrill Knight Keith Troxel Commissioner Maxwell R. Barz Clerk to the Board Lance Beutel Administrative Asst. Johnnette Phillips Secretary to Clerk This being the first Monday of the month, reading of the minutes and approval thereof were tabled to a later meeting. Sp- 105 -78 Public Hearing of Highland Meadows Filing No. 2 P.U.D. Mike DeLtade and Tim Garton appearing, - 105 -78 Highland Mr. Knight advised that the Tech. Review Committee recommended county standard roads and that the access Meadows through Forest Service land show on the map among other items. The Planning Commission recommended approval providing Forest Service access shown on map, building sites j ibe identified, no commercial signs, a 'Y' intersection oorrecticu on Vercont Rd., 35' maximum height on (buildings, dog leash, and all utilities stubbed to lots to prevent road cuts. Letters were read from the Town of Vail, Colorado Geological Survey and Soil Conservation service with their recommendations. The Board, upon motion of Comm. Troxel, seconded by Comm. Grant, an declaration of subsequent unanimous Ii vote by the Chairman, approved Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, P.U.D. with the following conditions, to -wit: L All duplex lots 1600 sq. ft. or more, no averaging of lots allowed. 2. Forest Service access road shown on map. 3. Leash law included in covenants. 4. Building height maximurn of 35 ft will be on any point of building on site. li 5. Parking per unit and road cuts as per current County regulations. 6. All utilities stubbed to lot before roads are paved. j 7. Cul-de -sacs will be full 90 ft. except on Tabor Drive which will be 70 ft. All above items except paving to be completed before plat is signed. Mervyn Lapin appeared on landfill fees owed to Eagle County by Eagle County Trash Company. The Eagle County Trash Company sold to other parties on September 1, 1978. Landfill Fees Mr. Lapin stated that since few towns, if any, were paying land fill fees and many individuals were not. That of the $10,710.00 billed by Eagle County to Eagle County Trash Company for the period of January 1, 1978 through August 31, 1978, he felt that the sun of $8,000.00 could be a more realistic fee. Another reason mentioned that the company was unable to get a rate increase through the Public Utilities Commission in January 1978. The $,000.00 represents one -half fees from January 1 to May 1, 1978 and full fees from May l to September 1, 1978. Mr. Beutel_ suggested that letters be sent to municipalities inquiring about their fee payments. The Board, upon motion of Conn. Troxel, seconded by Conn. Grant and confirmation, of unanimous vote, by the Chairman, agreed with Mr. Lapin, because of his companv's inability to obtain full collection in the first part of 1977, due to P.U.C. rates, and accepted the $8,000.00 as payment in full for the period January I1, 1978 to September 1, 1978. The Board also directed the Administrative Assistant to write to all charge customers on the initiation I !of a cash only basis, and to contact the Board if any problem develops. Comm. Troxel brought up the S. O.S. grant and problems associated such as those landowners who are ('expected to quit claim rights -of -way to the County for the E1 Jebel hill road, one such land owner as yet i� unknown. Mr. Rosenberg advised that Stanley Dodson can not proceed without title work being completed, and the 'grant money will not be forthcoming if the road work is completed before the title and other paper work is complete. The Board determined to ask Stanley Dodson to appear and perhaps the S.O.S. grant money can be us (elsewhere. Mark Hefner with the State Mining and Reclamation Board, appeared as scheduled. Mr. Hefner the Board of illegal operation by Eagle County of one gravel pit. The County pit at McCoy does have a permit. Mr. Hefner advised that Reber Funston, Soil Scientist in the Denver Office, will work with the County for any permits or compliance plan, but the the County must submitt an application for a permit by the State State Mine & should not issue a lease and order. Boards October meeting or appear to show cause why the State REclamation Hd. In response to question and comments of Conn - Grant and the County Attorney, Mr. Hefner suggested that , la letter be written giving a timetable of schedule for compliance. After a brief recess during which Chairman Williams left for the rest of the day, the Board re-convened l as the Board of Dog Appeals with Comm. Troxel acting as Chairman pro -tern. j Cinema Vatson and 1 Elliott, Dog Wardens, appeared on dog bite matters. One offense was Conti to allow the dog owner to be present. v y p ii In the matter of 14 year old Ton y Da being bitten b y a female spayed ed collie owned b Christopher Hoes, ii the child only bruised and having received a tetanus shot and the owner advising that the dog was provoke Ruth Elliott Tinto leaving his yard, which is now being fenced; Dog Bite The Board, upon motion of Comm. Grant, seconded by Come. Troxel and the acting Chairman's confirmation I of unanimous vote, directed the dog be released with impound fees paid, a current rabies shot an license !iimposed.. In the matter of Lynn Woods being bitten on the back of each thigh requiring stitches, by a male golden 11retriever on Chamonix Road, and the owner, Kent Brenden admitting to this being a second of and the '.owner requesting prcrission to place the dog in the custody of his brother on a farm in New Mexico; The Board, upon motion of Corm. Grant, seconded Comm. Troxel. and his declaration of subsequent un- j'animous vote as acting Chairman, directed that the dog be neutered, i fees paid and removed from I Eagle County. it Acting Chairman Troxel adjourned the Board as Board of Dog Appeals ani re- convened same as the Board 1!of County Commissioners. Mr. Beutel advised the Board that the arrual. Highway Report had been tendered to the State, such being the County's en ty's recomlation on priorities for the State on construction projects within Eagle County, to -wit: 1. Highway 82 Basalt Frying Pan Road. Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners 2nd day— term 19— _ n—a -- 19 -78_ Airport Commissi^• Dog Ordinance The Board upon motion of Comm. Grant, secondtxi by Conn. roxe a of two present, as acting Chairman, set dog license fees for castorated and spayed animals at $2.00 and $5.00 for uncastorated or unspayed. Receipts to be in triplicate aril vaccination fee be included in the impound fee. The Board gave direction for Dog Control Staff to check on a flyer on rules on Dog Control. Al Alpi, Mayor of Avon appeared and thanked the Board for their cooperation in furnishing building inspector, road maintenance aril building permit services. Mr. Alpi stated that the town hopes to be able to provide their own law enforcement. Mr. Knight to help in advice to the new town and help them get their own programs under way. Comm. Grant moved to change the Basalt Polling place from the middle school to the Town Hall. Comm Basalt Po11in P1. Troxel seconded the motion and then as acting Chairman confirmed the unanimous by two vote. g Upon motion of Comm. Grant, seconded by Conn. Troxel and his confirmation of unanimous by two vote, as acting Chairman, the Board approved an application from State Bridge Lodge for expansion of space for their State Bridge liquor license. Lodge for a $564,000.00 grant for airport improvement. The Airport Commission meeting was changed from October 12, 1978 to October 11, 1978 at 7:30 o'clock P1. The Public Hearing on revision of the Dog Control Ordinance came on at this time. Amorg those present were veterinarians having businesses in Eagle County, to -wit: Dr. Park Eagle -Vail Dr. Rice Carbondale Dr. Jones Eag' Mr. George Breneman,.Manager of-Benchmark tirigl alorI2 with the dog control people, also appearing Discussion insued on license fees and the veterinarians were asked about requirements of the State on people administering rabies shots to dogs. Consensus of opinion was that the State does not support lay administration of rabies by uncertified persons. Veterinarians present agreed upon a standard fee for rabies shots to dogs of $7.00. T 1 rxl his confirmation of unanimous vote The Board agreed on an add in the newspapers on advising the public of the merits of the proposed County wide sales tax. The Board was advised of hearing on Rocky Mountain Airways Instrument Landing at the Avon Stolport with the F.A.A. on October 11, 1978 at 3:00 o'clock P. M. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, it was moved seconded and passed to adjourn until October 4, 1978. hairman Rocky Mtn. Airways Attest: ClerW to the Board RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR Co 0 * ,r 1876 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 839 -2611 August 25, 1978 JOHN W. ROLD Director I J/ V Mr. Terrill Knight Eagle County Department of Planning and Development Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631 Dear Mr. Knight: RE: Sp- 105 -78 PRELIMINARY PLAN/ HIGHLAND MEADOWS r42 We have reviewed all of the various geologic reports prepared for this proposed subdivision and /or portions of previous ones. This plan tends to avoid the areas that have been recognized as geologic hazards. As per the final Chen and Associates report, it will be very important that detailed foundation investigations be carried out on each building site and that the exact recommendations as stated in these reports be followed. This will require close inspection by the County Building Department. Sincerely, L. R. Ladwig _Engineering Geologist LRL /ds cc: Land Use Commission GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. B L. CO. August 16, 1978 Subdivision Meeting Members in Attendance Bud Gates, Ann Holland, Don Price, Dick Turgeon Arnold Nottingham Staff: Terrill Knight Susan Vaughn Chairman Price entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the 19 July Subdivision Meeting. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA ° Terrill Knight advised the Commission that the review of the 208 plan was extended to September - we do not have the revised draft. Draft letter written to the wildlife people was presented to the Commission. Letter is okay and it will be sent in its present form. The first meeting in September has been set to review additional major zone changes. Will advertise a public meeting in the paper. Meter #124 - Berry Creek Final Plat - 97 lots on north side of interstate - there are some changes from the preliminary plan. Plat was checked by surveyor and numerous errors were found. Staff has not checked plat as yet. Staff recommends tabling because of the amount of things that have to be corrected. Among some of things that are needed are: Water and sanitation system, design of the pond which is supposed to be a collection system, subdivision improvements agreement, street signs and lights. Signs are very important - lights might receive a variance. Fred Green, developer, wants approval and the corrections will be made prior to going to the Board of County Commissioners. Improvements Agreement has been turned in and the covenants with amendments have been turned in. Location of the Water tank may change, however, the design of the system will remain the same. A motion was made to recommend approval subject to staff resolving the problems before forwarding to the Board of County Commissioners. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA The Commission would like to see if the County Commissioners will approve something that would allow the splitting of ownerships of duplex, etc. at the time of the final plat. This way, when development takes place, each owner will not have to go thru the Subdivision procedure - only file a final plat. Meter #274 - File No. Se- 208 -78 - King Guest Ranch - 2 rural homesites out of 46 acres - one parcel of 15 acres and one parcel of 31 acres. Letter from Alf Gardner stating that they would not be able to have the information until 6 September. A motion was made to table the application to the 20 September 1978 meeting, MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: BUD GATES, VOTE: UNA Meter #284 Sm -41 -78 - Garmisch Townhouses Minor Subdivision - 5 -plex into 5 ownerships - West Vail, Lot 15, Block G, - Vail Das Schone Subdivision. Received a Zone Change in 1975 - specifically only 5 units could be built - also needs a variance from the setbacks which was obtained. Party wall agreement has been submitted - staff has no problem and recommend approval. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Meter #312 - Sm -42 -78 - Colby Minor Subdivision - confirm split of parcel of land improperly subdivided. 32 miles south of Gypsum on the Gypsum Valley Road. Final plat has been submitted. Was resurveyed so road does not overlap. This is another illegal subdivision, A motion was made to recommend approval. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: BUD GATES, VOTE: UNA -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. S. B L. CO. 16 August Subdivision Meeting continued Meter #369 - Sm -43 -78 - Zarlengo Minor Subdivision to split duplex into 2 ownerships with the lot held in common. Lot 7, Block 105 Vail Intermountain Subdivision. No snow removal areas or drainage is shown on the final plat. Staff recommends approval. Member Holland thinks it should be tabled for drainage and snow removal plans - this is a problem in the area and needs to be addressed. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: BUD GATES, VOTE: UNA Will be heard at the 20 September meeting. !_ Meter #423 - Sm -44 -78 - Eagle -Vail Townhouses - split of 4 -plex into 4 separate ownerships with parking lot to be held in common. Lot 1, Block 3, Staff has no problems and would recommend approval. A motion was made to recommend approval. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DICK TURGEON, VOTE: UNA Meter #433 - Sm -45 -78 - Prough- Western, Lot 58, Block 1, Eagle -Vail #2 to split an existing duplex into 2 separate ownerships with lot to be held in common. Final Plat has been submitted with corrections. Staff recommends approvel. A motion was made to recommend approval with submittal of landscaping plan prior to going to the Board of County Commissioners. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA Meter #446 - Sm -46 -78 - Sweany and Sm -47 -78 Phelps Minor Subdivision for lots 33 and 37 - Vail Village West #1 - adjacent lots - separate owners. This is to confirm the split of a lot into 2 lots which had been improperly subdivided. There are 14+ parking spaces - located on the right -of -way - do not meet the parking requirements. Have not received a final plat. Parking needs to be addressed. A motion was made to table the application for more information on parking, drainage, and submittal of a final plat. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND VOTE: UNA ^ Meter #468 - Ssp- 106 -78 - Blue Creek Ranch Sketch Plan for 70 single family homes on 560 acres - 45 Rural Residential lots - 15 clustered AR lots. Located south and southwest of Spring Park Reservoir on Missouri Heights along Upper Cattle Creek Road. Terrill Knight read the comments and located the property. Staff recommends that it stay in sketch plan stage - water needs further study - septic tank needs more information. Increased use of the Upper Cattle Creek Road is of concern. Harold Denton, architect said that they were trying to stay within the present concept of the area. This is a equestrian development . Debra Little, adjacent property owner read a letter of protect on behalf of another owner. Floyd Crawford claims that Blue Creek goes dry every fall and E1 Jebel gets its water from there. E1 Jebel road is very dangerous - cars are going off the road all the time. Water rights have to be cleared up. (C hange in Tape to Side II) Discussion by applicant and Commission on the water - dam - property line. THE TAPE RECORDER STOPPED WORKING AT THIS PO��NORKSPERIOD�CALLYE AS TO WHAT IS ON THE -TAPE AND WHAT IS NOT. WAS ABLE TO GET IT TO The common area is too large. Member Gates wanted to keep the application in the Sketch Plan Stage for more information on water and roads. A motion was made to keep the plan in sketch plan stage for more information. MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: DICK TURGEON, VOTE 4 -1 Gates, Turgeon, Holland, Nottingham for the motion Price - against the motion. Dave Kunkel and Harold Denton said they don't know what else they can show at the sketch plan stage. Meter #137 - Sp- 105 -78 - Highland "Meadows Preliminary Plan #2 Former Vail Village West #3 and land adjacent to Matterhorn. This is a preliminary plan and zone change. PUD for 66 units on 32 acres. Read letters in the file and located the property. Need better intersection design. Do want to hold to existing road pattern as much as possible. Price thinks the Y Intersection is good - Terrill Knight does not agree. Will correspond with setbacks in the PUD. Don Price suggested a blanket special use permit for lots in excess of 30 °0 - should be included # the n PUD + Section. R"There ry a Ce+I— r! N0 2 -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HOECK EL 8. B. @ L. CO. r 16 August Subdivision Meeting - continued sites need to be corrected - no signs for commercial home uses. A motion was made to recommend approval with the National Forest Access shown on the Final Plat, Building sites should be identified, 35' height for buildings, no commercial signs, Y intersection with stop sign and no right turn from Vermont Road. Include recommendation that no special use permit will be required for steep slopes and special engineering studies and soils studies will be required by the Building Department . MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: BUD GATES, VOTE: UNA Meter #331 - Zs -59 -78 - At the request of the applicant, the application has been continued until the 20 September meeting. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED- BUD GATES, VOTE: una Meter #332 - Zs -60 -78 - Ernst Glatzle Special Use Permit to build on a slope in excess of 30 %, Lot 20, Block H Vail das Schone #1. A motion was made to recommend approval if soils report is here and okay before going to the Board of County Commissioners MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM VOTE: 3 -2 Turgeon, Nottingham, Price - for the motion Gates and Holland - against the motion Zc -79 -78 - Zeke De Rose Zone Change from Resource to Commercial Limited approximately 2 miles west of Basalt - presented a petition from property owners (29 owners) in favor of the change. Staff recommended denial A motion was made to recommend denial for the Commercial Limited Use because it would be strip zoning. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: BUD GATES, VOTE: 4 -1 Holland, Gates, Price, Nottingham - for the motion Turgeon - against the motion Meter #389 - Zc -80 -78 - Kip Koski Zone Change from Resource to Rural Residential 40 acre parcel west of Aspen Mesa Estates - 8 lots on 40 acres. Mould also be possible to have 2 acre lots with this zone change. A motion was made to recommend approval MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA Pre - Application Conference - June Creek Ranch Co. (Miller Property) Rod Slifer - Fred Green - presented their plans for property adjacent to the Berry Creek Ranch. Will have an 18 hole golf course, Swimming Club - lakes Clubhouse density will be 2+ per acre. Homesites will be from 15,000 to 5 acres. Terrill Knight said that he felt that it was a little premature. Price wants openspace between Benchmark and Edwards - discussion on just where this might be ap propriate. Tape Reco rding machine was shut off at this point because it was not working pr operly . Zv -53 -78 - Miller Variance - Variance from the Minimum lot size in Vail Village West on Gore Creek Drive - no site plan. This is not a hardship case. Staff recommends denial. Applicant wants to build a duplex - has about 12,000 sq. ft. needs 16,000. A motion was made to recommend denial because of the size of the lot. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: BUD GATES, VOTE: UNA No further business - meeting adjourned at 1:15 A.M. Recorded on Tape #53 Side I to end of tape and continued on Side II - machine stopped worked on this side - so am not sure of the meter number. by: Katherine Peterson Recording Secretary LT:' 25� uceedings of the Board of County Commissioners__ is Day__ —Term, 19 - -_ August_ _19.?s- Special Meeting This being the regular monthly meeting established for disposition of Planning Department matters by the Board, the following were brought before the Bard; to -wit: Sm -41 -78 Garmmisch Townhouses by Fritz Schmidt, requesting a split of an existing 5 plex into five separate ownerships, located Lot 15, Block G, Vail Das Schone, Filing No. 2. Fritz Schmidt appearing in person and by his attorney Terry Quinn; Mrs. Vaughn, Planning Staff, related the various letters from Geological Survey, Sanitarian, Colorado Department of Health and Soil Conservation and with the exception of "off street parking not shown" and "details of drainage not shown" all other matters mentioned had been complied with. The road being substandard, Mr. Schmidt explained that he can do nothing about the roads until the construction is completed and trucks and building materials are removed. Mr. Rosenberg advised Mr. Schmidt that the letter of credit with date of December 19 for $5,000.00 can be called by the County if the road is not brought up to County standards. Mr. Quinn inquired as to an extension of letter of credit. Both Planning Commission and Planning Department having recommended approval; The Board, upon motion of Comm. Troxel, seconded by Comm. Grant and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, approved the split of ownership. Chairman Williams asked that the record show that the applicant has concurred that the road will be completed to County standard or get the letter of credit extended until the road is completed to the Bard's approval Se- 202 -78 Galligan Exemption, to subdivide six acres from 218 acres. To sell off original house. Located in NEi Sec. 29, T5S, R. 85W, approximately 3 miles South of Gypsum. Mrs. Vaughn advised that the plat has been checked and is correct. Both Planning Commission and Planning Department having recommended approval; The Board, upon motion of Comm. Grant, seconded by Conn. Troxel and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, approved the exemption. Sf- 102 -78 Berry Creek PUD, Review of a Planned Development Final Plat for 97 lots, 154 units on 90.52 acres. Located North side of I -70 east of Edwards Interchange. The Planning Commission still had problems in changes of Covenants and utility plans, but recommended approval on condition that items be taken care of before the Commissioner meeting. Mr. Knight advised that said items have been taken care of except the grade on road. Applicant wants to receive a variance on the road. Discussion ensued wherein Mr. Rosenberg read and discussed a subdivision agreement and Mr. Green made a suggestion on collateral and asked that all supporting documents to the final plat be recorded at the same time. Upon Mr. P.osenberg's statement that collateral of $320,000.00 appeared low, Mr. Green suggested $20,000 per lot. Conn. Williams inquired as to why water and sewer had not been discussed and Mr. Green advise that the water will be in a district and the sewer will be private and that the plant had been discussed. Mr. Rosenberg stated the water should be secured until the district covers it. More discussion ensued on water being included in the improvements agreement and other inclusions. Comm. Grant moved that Sf- 102 -78, Berry Creek P.U.D. be approved with a letter of credit on thirty lots at allow tthe agreement t h e subdivison 1, 1981 s igns s lights d date and allow variances as shown. Comm. Troxel stated that he had problems with the date October 1, 1981 since the developer may want to come in on changing collateral in which case the date may hold them to October 1, 1981 date. George Rosenberg advised that the date would only be a completion date and collateral could be substitu- ted anyr_ime. More discussion ensued on time limitation, graveling roads and asphalting later after a settling period. Conn. Grant withdrew his motion. Mr. Knight agreed to check on the amount of school dedication. Conn. Grant then moved to approve Sf- 102 -78, Berry Creek Property, subject to the approval of a subdivi- sion agreement discussed this date. Comm. Troxel seconded the motion. Chairman Williams asked that the motion include a road plan and variances of same. Both Conn. Grant and Conn. Troxel agreed to the inclusion and the Chairman declared the motion passed by a vote of "two ", himself abstaining. Sm -42 -78 Colby Minor Subdivision, requesting a split of a parcel improperly subdivided some years ago. Location 3, miles south of Gypsum, Galligan Subdivision. Letters of approval recommendations were read. The Planning Department had checked the exemption plat and had seen to corrections. Both Planning Commission and Planning Department recommending approval; The Bard, upon motion of Conn. Grant, seconded by Chairman Williams and declaration of subsequent unan- imous vote of two members present by the Chairman, approved the split. Comm. Troxel. was temporarily absent. Sm -44-78 Eagle -Vail Townhouses, Request to split an existing 4 ple;c into four separate ownerships with Vai -l. S Filing parking area held in common. Location: Lot 1, Block 3, Eagle- I `k�• All interested outside entities recommending approval arrl after certain items were comnleted, both Planning Commission and Planning Department concurring; The Board, upon motion of Comm- Grant, seconded by Troxel and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, approved the monor subdivision. Sm -45 -78 Prough Western Dupl.e:c, Frederick J. Brown, requesting a split of an existing duplex into two separate ownerships with the lot to be held in common. Located Lot 58, Block 1, Eagle -Vail Subdivision, r ?'o. 2. :s. Vaughn reported that certain items mentioned by the Tech Review Committee had been taken care of. 11,e Planning c,,-I x mission recommend approval subject to submiLtal of a landscape plan. George Rosenberg County Attorney Present: Dan Williams Chairman Maxwell R. Barz Clerk to the Board Dale Grant Commissioner Johnnette Phillips Secretary to Clerk Keith Troxel Commissioner Lance Beutel Administrative Ass't. This being the regular monthly meeting established for disposition of Planning Department matters by the Board, the following were brought before the Bard; to -wit: Sm -41 -78 Garmmisch Townhouses by Fritz Schmidt, requesting a split of an existing 5 plex into five separate ownerships, located Lot 15, Block G, Vail Das Schone, Filing No. 2. Fritz Schmidt appearing in person and by his attorney Terry Quinn; Mrs. Vaughn, Planning Staff, related the various letters from Geological Survey, Sanitarian, Colorado Department of Health and Soil Conservation and with the exception of "off street parking not shown" and "details of drainage not shown" all other matters mentioned had been complied with. The road being substandard, Mr. Schmidt explained that he can do nothing about the roads until the construction is completed and trucks and building materials are removed. Mr. Rosenberg advised Mr. Schmidt that the letter of credit with date of December 19 for $5,000.00 can be called by the County if the road is not brought up to County standards. Mr. Quinn inquired as to an extension of letter of credit. Both Planning Commission and Planning Department having recommended approval; The Board, upon motion of Comm. Troxel, seconded by Comm. Grant and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, approved the split of ownership. Chairman Williams asked that the record show that the applicant has concurred that the road will be completed to County standard or get the letter of credit extended until the road is completed to the Bard's approval Se- 202 -78 Galligan Exemption, to subdivide six acres from 218 acres. To sell off original house. Located in NEi Sec. 29, T5S, R. 85W, approximately 3 miles South of Gypsum. Mrs. Vaughn advised that the plat has been checked and is correct. Both Planning Commission and Planning Department having recommended approval; The Board, upon motion of Comm. Grant, seconded by Conn. Troxel and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, approved the exemption. Sf- 102 -78 Berry Creek PUD, Review of a Planned Development Final Plat for 97 lots, 154 units on 90.52 acres. Located North side of I -70 east of Edwards Interchange. The Planning Commission still had problems in changes of Covenants and utility plans, but recommended approval on condition that items be taken care of before the Commissioner meeting. Mr. Knight advised that said items have been taken care of except the grade on road. Applicant wants to receive a variance on the road. Discussion ensued wherein Mr. Rosenberg read and discussed a subdivision agreement and Mr. Green made a suggestion on collateral and asked that all supporting documents to the final plat be recorded at the same time. Upon Mr. P.osenberg's statement that collateral of $320,000.00 appeared low, Mr. Green suggested $20,000 per lot. Conn. Williams inquired as to why water and sewer had not been discussed and Mr. Green advise that the water will be in a district and the sewer will be private and that the plant had been discussed. Mr. Rosenberg stated the water should be secured until the district covers it. More discussion ensued on water being included in the improvements agreement and other inclusions. Comm. Grant moved that Sf- 102 -78, Berry Creek P.U.D. be approved with a letter of credit on thirty lots at allow tthe agreement t h e subdivison 1, 1981 s igns s lights d date and allow variances as shown. Comm. Troxel stated that he had problems with the date October 1, 1981 since the developer may want to come in on changing collateral in which case the date may hold them to October 1, 1981 date. George Rosenberg advised that the date would only be a completion date and collateral could be substitu- ted anyr_ime. More discussion ensued on time limitation, graveling roads and asphalting later after a settling period. Conn. Grant withdrew his motion. Mr. Knight agreed to check on the amount of school dedication. Conn. Grant then moved to approve Sf- 102 -78, Berry Creek Property, subject to the approval of a subdivi- sion agreement discussed this date. Comm. Troxel seconded the motion. Chairman Williams asked that the motion include a road plan and variances of same. Both Conn. Grant and Conn. Troxel agreed to the inclusion and the Chairman declared the motion passed by a vote of "two ", himself abstaining. Sm -42 -78 Colby Minor Subdivision, requesting a split of a parcel improperly subdivided some years ago. Location 3, miles south of Gypsum, Galligan Subdivision. Letters of approval recommendations were read. The Planning Department had checked the exemption plat and had seen to corrections. Both Planning Commission and Planning Department recommending approval; The Bard, upon motion of Conn. Grant, seconded by Chairman Williams and declaration of subsequent unan- imous vote of two members present by the Chairman, approved the split. Comm. Troxel. was temporarily absent. Sm -44-78 Eagle -Vail Townhouses, Request to split an existing 4 ple;c into four separate ownerships with Vai -l. S Filing parking area held in common. Location: Lot 1, Block 3, Eagle- I `k�• All interested outside entities recommending approval arrl after certain items were comnleted, both Planning Commission and Planning Department concurring; The Board, upon motion of Comm- Grant, seconded by Troxel and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, approved the monor subdivision. Sm -45 -78 Prough Western Dupl.e:c, Frederick J. Brown, requesting a split of an existing duplex into two separate ownerships with the lot to be held in common. Located Lot 58, Block 1, Eagle -Vail Subdivision, r ?'o. 2. :s. Vaughn reported that certain items mentioned by the Tech Review Committee had been taken care of. 11,e Planning c,,-I x mission recommend approval subject to submiLtal of a landscape plan. 167 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners 23 _ Day_ - Tenn, 19__ The Board, upon motion of Comm. Grant, seconded by Comm. Troxel and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, approved the minor subdivision. Sp- 105 -78 Highlarxi Meadows Filing No. 2 represented by Mike Dulude. Mr. Knight suggested the Board -set the required public hearing for preliminary plan and PUD zoning for 66 units on 32 acres, for October 2, 1978 to allow time for publication. Mr. Dulude concurred. The Board, upon motion of Comm. Troxel, seconded by Comm. Grant and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, set the public hearing for October 2, 1978 at 9:30 o'clock A. M. The appeal of an administrative decision on a building permit denial for Therese Price was continued at her request. Lester Douglas, Building Inspector, suggested that Jim Morris of Basalt be appointed Building Inspector for the Basalt Area. Department to do so. The Board determined that the vacancy be advertized and directed the Planning pa Mr. Landrum, Forest Ranger at Eagle, appeared and confirmed through the Board, that, the roads in the vacated Tenderwild Subdivision are public roads. Mr. Knight in process of getting a contract application out, brought up H.B. 1041 priorities and discussed them with the Board, being: 1. Housing 2. Treatment facilities for water and sewer. Mr. Knight advised that maps and contract for same with Johnson and Kinkel are about 41,000.00 less than estimated, but the final map would cost additional after sane discussion of the matter the Board determined to set a hearing for September 11, 1978 at 1:30 o'clock P.M. Mr. Knight advised that there were three responses for the Planning Commission from the Basalt area, being: Alfred Gardner, Lee Crossman and Dieter Sarder. The Board, upon motion of Comm. Grant, seconded by Comm. Troxel and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, appointed Dieter Sander as a regular member and alfred Gardner as alternate. Mr. Knight to notify. The Board concurred that Mr. Knight advertise for three alternate members for the Planning Commission from Avon - Edwards - Wolcott areas. Mr. Knight advised that a site plan has been presented for Ramada Inn, but that the parking was not clear- ly defined. Mrs. Vaughn advised that Mt. Meadows Subdivision approved May 26, 1978, has been reviewed by the County Attorney and there should be an extension of'time granted from the August 26, 1978 deadline, The Board, upon motion of Comm. Grant, seconded by Conn. Troxel and declaration of subsequent vote by the Chairman, extended the matter for 30 days. The Board, upon motion of Comm. Grant, seconded by Comm. Troxel and declaration of subsequent unanimous vote by the Chairman, gave favorable comment on an A -95 review for Skyline Six Area Agency Area Plan. The following Mobile Home Park licenses were signed by the Chairman, to-wit: 1. Floyd Crawford Mobile Home Park, E1 Jebel 2. D & B Trailer Mobile Home Park, E1 Jebel 3. Dreager Mobile Home Park, Basalt 4. Dowd Junction Mobile Home Park, Avon 5. Basalt Maintenance Yard, Basalt 6. Thompson Mobile Home Park, Eagle 7. Aspen Basalt Mobile Home Park, Basalt 8, Shooks Mobile Home Park, Hooks Bridge 9. Aspen Basalt Campground, Basalt 10. Seven Castles Mobile Home Park, Basalt 11. Maloit Park Mobile Hone Park, Minturn 12, Logan's Mobile Home Park, Edwards 13, Cross Creek Trailer Park, Minturn 14. Roybal Mobile Home Park, Avon The Plat for Sterker Development, Lot 39, Block 3, Filing #1 was signed by the Chairman. There being no further business to cane before the Board at this time, it was moved, seconded and passed to adjourn until September 5, 1978. airman Attest: Clerk CO the Board C� l" 142 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners 5 Day____ Term, 19 Jul y- _ _____ The Board reconvened at 1:30 o'clock P. M., the first order of business ring a public hearing on: Sp- 102 -78 Berry Creek PM for 300 units on 212 acres. Terrill Knight presented and showed the location of the proposed subdivision and advised: The Tech Review Carnittee had comments on requirements of water, sewer, access and dog control. Both the Planning Commission and Planning Staff recommended approval.. Soils report, some foundation problems. LeRoy Tobler, KKBNA, advised of the sewer plant plans. Fred Green elaborated and advised, it will eventually be hooked onto Squaw Creek site. Comm. Grant expressed concern on State regulations on wildlife hazard was satisfactorily explained by Fred Green. All requirements stated by the Tech Review Committee were satisfactorily explained. Cam. Grant moved to approve the zone change request. The motion was seconded by Corm. Troxel and Chairman Williams declared the motion passed by a vote of two, himself abstaining. Sp- 102 -78 Berry Creek PUD Highland Meadows, LeRoy Tobler requesting approval of a minor change not shown in the architect's drawing on a building. The County Attorney advised that there could be no building permit issued before specifications and plans for a new bridge to the area is approved. of structure under PUD and Subdivision Regulations. Comm. Highland Meadows Comm. Troxel moved to approve a minor change Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. The Board further concurred that no building permit will be issued until ownership of the bridge is determined and whether it is adequate to carry construction equipment. Conn. Troxel inquired whether the Planning Department is satisfied with the 35 foot height provision in the zoning regulations. Mr. Knight replied "no ", and that he felt a change is needed. A change was discussed. The Chairman adjourned the Board of County Commissioners and reconvened as Board of Animal Control. Mathews, Dog Control Officer, advised that on June 25, 1978, one Barbara Sky was bitten by Animal Control Gilberta a male retriever owned by one Kent Brenton. The dog now impounded for a first offense and not licensed. golden No charges were filed. Ms. Sky received a tetnus shot. Chairman Williams recommended the dog be returned dog any medical fees, also watch for any changes in the dog's to the owner, who shall license the and pay personality. Conn. Troxel so moved. Comm. Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. The Chairman adjourned the Board of appeals and reconvened the Board of County Commissioners. Dave Aragon, D. & RGWRR, Railroad Master and H. P. Keil, Trairmaster, appeared in the matter of the County Permit for gravel operation issued to Brush Creek and Eagle River Co. the history of the permit approved in November, 1977 and up for review in Brush Creek & Mr. Rosenberg reiterated November, 1978, the condition for proper access of the Planning Commission not having been extended through P gle Grave, the permit application. Mr. Kiel and Mr. Aragon both emphasized the hazard of a train moving toward a loaded truck on the private crossing. Mr. Rosenberg,that a proper right -of -way across the tracks should be secured. That the State Highway is condemning a right -of -way, but very necessary that the gravel operation cease. The Board concurred and directed the owners be notified to cease operations immediately and set a hearing for Monday July 10, 1978. Mr. and Mrs. Ray Miller appeared and complained about building under construction, under permit by Jesse Alberts, for an addition to another building. Mr. Miller states that it will cause a problem in visability at the railroad crossing and also snow Jesse Alberts removal. Terrill Knight and the County Attorney concurred that issuance of the permit was in error, that the permit should be revoked, the construction red tagged and notice the owner in for hearing. The Board concurred and set the hearing for July 10, 1978 at 2:30 o'clock P.M. Mr. Rosenberg advised the Board on matters affecting the County: Eagle Valley Telephone Co. has a P.U.C. hearing on rate increases, September 14, 1978 at 9:00 o'clock County Attorney A. M. The annual approporation Resolution made prior to January 1, each year needs tightened up as money must be appropriated on a line item basis, lock budget into Resolution. Mineral Leasing Resolution tendered. Comm. Grant moved, Cam. Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to sign the Resolution to be unanimous. (A copy follows these minutes) Dave Kunkel appeared to discuss the survey of Matterhorn Village. He advised that the date of July for is unrealistic and that he believed it can be completed by August 18, 1978. Matterhorn Village 25, 1978 be set completion His map drawing, upon completion, will show all value boxes, deed lines and improvements, also, lot Survey lines for comparison. A contract tendered by Mr. Beutel and worked out by himself and Mr. Knight was signed. There being no further business to cane before the Board at this time, it was moved seconded and passed to adjourn until July 10, 1978. —° Chia t.-mat Attest: Q4�0 +, , So /Clerk to the Board 133 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners 28 th— Day Term, 19 -- Jae 19?8- Hubbell Sm -35 -78 Hubbell Minor Subdivision Request: To confirm the split of a 1.55 acre parcel. Location: Adjacent to the El Jebel Mobile Home Park partly in lot 16, Section 24, T7S, R8714 and partly in Tract 39, Sm -35 -78 Minor Subd. Sec. 3, T8S, R87W. Mr. Knight discussed the history of the property in question which was sold in 1964. Mr. Carl Hubbell, present, owner of property, stated that he would aquire water and sewer taps from Crawford Mobile Home Park. Comm. Grant moved that Sm -35-78 be confirmed as a split. Conn. Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. Sm -36 -78 Seipel Minor Subdivision Request: To subdivide a 10 acre lot into two interests. Location: Eagle on the Brush Creek Road in Tracts 72 and 73, Sec., T5S, R84W in the Mosher Subdivision. 6 miles south of John Seipel, present, co -owner of the property explained the division and stated there were no plans for 3m -36 -78 Seipel selling it, but the split would make it easier to get a loan. It would not increase density and he did not Minor Subdivision feel he would be setting a precedent. Barbara Abrams, adjoining property owner, requested the Board deny the subdivision as she felt there was a precedent being set and the Subdivision covenants forbid the split of the 10 acre parcels. Mrs. Vaughn advised the water is from the City of Eagle, and there is a septic system on the site. Both Planning Commission and planning Staff recommended denial as division of the parcel would set a precedent in an existing subdivision. Comm. Grant stated he did not wish to go against the covenants. Cann. Troxel moved Sm -36 -78 be denied. Comm. Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. Comm. Grant directed the Planning Department to investigate the burned building and determine the status. The Board concurred. SSp- 105 -78 Highland Meadows #2 PUD Sketch Plan Request: Review of a sketch plan for 33 duplex1,ots on 32.3 acres. Location: The area formerly known as Vail Village West Filing #3 in the Southwest Corn of SsE 105 -78 lli&land Section 12, T5S, R85W. Mr. Knight discussed the P.U.D. Sketch Plan that was submitted and offered the following comments: Meadows 1. The Applicant has taken previous geological studies into consideration but should have a geological and soils review, updating and consolidating the three previous reports. 2. The soils and geologic consultant should review the roads. 3. The density and use is consistant with the area and a general improvement over previous Plat. 4. Dog Control is necessary. 5. There should be open space areas that are more generally useable. 6. The ratio of lot slopes vs. lot sizes should be determined. 7. The appropriateness of 1074 grade on the existing roads is questionable. Tim Garton, developer, present, discussed the density of the subdivision, stating it was not excessive. from Elmore invited the Board to review the subdivision He advised the road situation was inheritated and roads. Comm. Grant moved Ssp- 105 -78 be approved with the condition the roads be brought as near as possible to County standard without too much distubrance to surroundings and the Technical Review comments be adhered to. Conn. Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unianimmpus. G -54-78 Lot Line Vacation - Craddock Request: vacation of lot lines. Location: Vail Das Schone Subdivision - lots 1, 2 & 3, Block C, Filing #1 & Lot 1 filing #3. M. Knight reiterated the history of the lots and Mr. Byers' request for an extension on the injunction. G-54-78 Lot Line with t Cam. Troxel moved to approve the request for a vacation of lot lines, he stipulation that a new Vacation "Ramada lot designation be given to the new large lot. Inn Site" Cann. Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. Curtis Cleveland appeal of a Building Permit denial. Mr. Knight advised the building permit was applied for and denied because it was to be built on an easement and the subdivision plan does not conform with the plat. The lot being lot 29 of Aspen esquistrian Mesa Estates. The lot is different than on the approved plat and no access of lot. Curtis Cleveland Bld. Mr. Cleveland being present and advised that the County recognizes ownership of the lot since he is being Permit Appeal taxed, but can not build on it and feels it is a hardship on him. The Board directed Mr. Knight to work with the applicant to help him find a solution. Robert Stemmwedel, Attorney for the Brush Creek and Eagle River Company, appeared to advise the Board of minor problems to straighten lot lines on possibly 5 or 6 exemptions. Brush Creek and Eagle River Company wants to acconodate the buyers, but it will be done with the same existing zoning. Mr. Stemmwedel explained that the exemptions are upcoming and wanted to receive the commissioners reactions and suggestions. applications be done parcel by Chairman Williams told Mr. Stenwedel the Board p3eferred the exemption Brush Creek & Eagle parcel, each one seperately. Mr. Stemaedel invited the Commissioners to take aion site review of the pending Special Use Permit property River Company applied for by Brush Creek and Eagle River Company which goes to the planning commission on July 19, 1978. for review of the Special Use Permit Land. The Board agreed July 27, 1978 at 4:00 o'clock P.M. an on site Mr. Knight presenteu -or tine Fender School Lard Dedication fee in the amount of $49c.3j, which Fender School Land represents z of the payment. The check was given to the Deputy Clerk for transfer to the Treasurer. Dedication George Landman of the U.S. Forest Service, Eagle Office, appeared as scheduled to discuss the National Enviornmental Immmpact Statement for RareII. He presented a marndal for the Commissioners review. Mr. Landrum U. S. Forest Service introduced Diane Honig and Terry Sconehiem of the U.S. Forest Service which helped in the presentation. The three alternatives were discussed, the possible acerage to be included and what the Board was expected to do: The Commissioners agreed to review the material and send their comments back by October 1, 1978. 9 5 to answer and volunteered to meet Mr. Landrum announced an open house on June 30, 1978, to questions again with the Board if they so desire. Mr. Knight advised the Board of a 208 meeting the next day, Jame 29, 1978 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. and wished 208 Meeting the Boards comments so the Planning Commission could be taken to the meeting. Commissioner Grant moved that the County be the designee and proportion the funds out to the Towns. Conn. Troxel seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. Reudi Shores Subd- RuA: Shores Subdivision, Jean Ingham Developer, Building Permit denials. ars. In M Knight discussed the validity of the Subdivision stating it has been in effect for several ye 1971. the County vacated all subdivision roads, in 2nd filing by Resolution, they being dedicated in error. 134 Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners 211 th Day. __ Term, 19_ __ June 19'B_ Mr. Ingham explained the resolution and reason for the vacation. He also discussed the well pump, Rudi Shores Subd . underground storage and sewer, stating they haven't been hooked up because of no activity. George Rosenberg, County Attorney, recommended this Subdivision be started through the process as if a new new application, that water and sanitation approvals are not valid indefinately. Mr. Knight advised the Planning Department would have to deny any building permits until questions have been resolved. Comm. Troxel recommended the Planning Department put a moratorium on the subdivision until a revised plat is received, showing connecting sewer, perk tests and access roads into and around that particular subdivision. The locked gate entering the subdivision was brought to Mr. Ingham's attention. Corn. Troxel moved that the current plat as shown can meet all the County Standards on, water, sewer and access it will be accepted, if not a new plat will be necessary. A moratorium on Building will be in effect in the Subdivision. Comm. Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous. Comm. Grant advised that Dolf Hamby is resigning from the Planning Commission Board, as representative from Basalt. Comm. Grant had requested Arlie Moore to mail in an application stating his qualifications, but it has never been received. Comm. Grant recommended Deiter Sanders. Mr. Knight agreed Mr. Sanders would be a good choice, having worked with him. Come. Grant moved to appoint Dieter Sanders to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission Board. The motion died for lack of a second. Comm. Troxel moved to temporarily appoint Deiter Sanders, if he would accept the temporary appointmen *.. After discussion, Corm. Troxel withdrew his motion. Comm. Troxel moved to advertise in the papers for two weeks for applications to serve on the Planning Commission Board. Chairman Williams seconded the motion and the subsequent vote was 2 to 1, Corn. Grant voting "no ". The Board directed Mr. Knight to write a letter to Mr. Sanders requesting he send a letter of intent. Dolf Hamby Resign tion T ^rence Quinn appeared ani adviseJ the Cornissioners that after talking to some of the residents in Faving Upper Kaihal Upper. Kaibab Subdivision and Claude Gerard, he found it was preferred to chip coat the entire area's roads to aleviate the dust instead of the one mile paving as scheduled for this s.cmer. The Board determined to go ahead with the Upper Kaibab Subdivision paving as scheduled. Mr. Knight discussed the Matterhorn Village Survey. The property owners are awaiting Building Permits and the present moratorium on the Subdivision. The Board concurred that the Survey should proceed, with the understanding that the cost would not exceed the bid submitted by Johnson & Kunkel. Mr. Knight then stated Byron Brown, Lake Creek Meadows developer has requested the County release the lots held for collateral. Mr. Rosenberg suggested the collateral not be released until certain improvements in the subdivision have been made. Chairman Williams suggested Claude Gerard, Planning Department Representative and George Rosenberg make an on site review of the Subdivision to acquire a detailed list of needed improvements. Chairman Williams directed Lance Beutel to write a letter to John Hamby commending him for his work and service to Eagle County. Matterhorn Village Lake Creek Meadows Complaints have been received that the Mt. Sopris Service Station, a gas station in E1 Jebel, has a gas truck parking on County Right -of -Way causing a traffic problem. The Sheriff's Department has been Mt. Sopris Service notified, but the truck is still parking on the County right -of -way. Station After much discussion, on tickets, towing the truck or fencing the property, the Board determined that George Rosenberg should contact, Gay Johnsons, owner of the station and try to resolve the problem. The E1 Jebel Landfill and property adjacent to it was discussed. Comm. Troxel suggested the County consider buying it. He related to the Board that Mr. Floyd Crawford maintains he had offered to make a deal with the County for the property, but the attempt was foiled by the County Administrator. Comm. Troxel. El Jebel Landfill requested the Deputy Clerk search the minutes for any reference to such an approach to the County. Lance Beutel, Administrative Assistant, brought up the following matters: Remodeling of the Vail Clinic and the area used by the County Health Nurse was discussed. The Board Remodeling of the directed Mr. Beutel to contact the contractor to obtain a bid for the remodeling of the room. Vail Clinic The need to have the auditor's certificate signed: Comm. Troxel moved that the Chairman sign the certificate by local government presented by Bill Barnes, County Auditor. Comm. Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unan- imous and signed the Certificate. The need for Coi,rado Counties Regestration fee: Comm. Troxel moved to send $95.00 for the Colorado Counties REgisteration. Comr:. Grant seconded the motion and the Chairman declared the subsequent vote to be unanimous and directed Mr. Beutel to obtain the check and have it mailed. Craig Colby presented the Blue Cross /Blue Shield Contract, which was signed by the Chairman. There being no further business to come be'ore the Board at this time, it was moved seconaea am passed to adjourn until June 29, 1978. C ChaZrman Attest: T CTerk to the Board . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HOECKEL R. B. & L. GO. 21 June 1978 Subdivision Meeting Members Present Don Price, Ann Holland, Bud Gates, Arnold Nottingham Attorney: Geo. Rosenberg Staff: Terrill Knight Susan Vaughn Chairman Price entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the 17 and 18 May 1978. MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: Ann Holland, VOTE: una The previously scheduled field trip has been cancelled, will be rescheduled for July 11th, if everybody can go. Member Dolph Hamby submitted his resignation from the Planning Commission, also, submitted a replacement name to the Commissioners. Zoning Review Zcu -4 -78 - Reimers /Kaufman Conditional Use Permit to operate a hand crafted jewerly business as a home arts and crafts business. Located 14 miles from Dotsero up the Colorado River Road. Terrill Knight read a statement from the applicant. The Conditional Use does not have to go before the Board of County Commissioners. A motion was made to approve the Conditional Use Permit. The permit will be a five year permit with no annual review unless problems are brought to the attention of the County. After five years, the permit will have to be renewed. MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA Meter #201 Zs -53 -78 - Phillips Special Use Permit - lot 6, Block C, Vail Ridge - Special Use Permit to build on slopes in excess of 30 %. Building plans have been submitted. Staff recommends approval provided that all condition5in the soils report be followed. Also, the building plans must be followed for the single family home. A motion was made to recommend approval with the condition that the structure be build in accordance with the submitted plans and that the soils report be followed. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: BUD GATES, VOTE: UNA Meter #220 Zs -54 -78 - Special Use Permit - Pierce - Swanson - to build a duplex on a lot with 42% slope - lot 11, Block 3, Eagle -Vail #1. Need parking for four cars. Discussion between applicant and commission on building plans. A motion was made to recommend approval pending soils test and architectural control committee approval prior to going to the Board of County Commissioners. MOTION: Ann Holland SECONDED: BUD GATES VOTE: UNA Meter #275 Zs -55 -78 - Sanner Special Use Permit - Received letter of withdrawal from applicant. The applicant does not need the special use permit and the $50.00 fee will be refunded. Meter #287 - Zs -56 -78 - D and E Towing and Zc -75 -78 - Zone Change and Special Use Permit. Zone Change from Resource to Commercial General and special use permit to establish and operate a storage and salvage yard. Located on 2 acres of land West of Wolcott about z mile - between Hwy 131 and Hwy 6. Read statement from applicant and letters indicating approval or a need of such operation from the Town of Minturn, the County Sheriff, Colorado State Patrol and Town of Vail. Jim Nimon from the Highway Department said that if it falls within 1000 feet of the Interstate a permit will be needed and some sort of screening. Staff recommends approval of the zone change. Access might be a problem - applicant is talking to the BLM - would need a right -of -way permit from the BLM. Special Use Permit - 8 foot fench might be required - Chairman Price recommended that the item be tabled and an on -site inspection be made. Commission and County Commissioners want a site plan for all zone changes and special use permits. A motion was made to table the item until the continued meeting of 22 June (both applicantions). MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA �T :' 12 -2 A motion was ma e MOTION: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: 1 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 21 June Subdivision Meeting - continued Meter #383 - Zs -57 -78 - Brush Creek and Eagle River - Read letter from applicant asking for a postponement until the July 5th meeting. Commission motioned to table until the meeting on 19 July 1978. MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE UNA Meter #391 - Zc -73 -78 - Mosher Zone Change from Resource to Agricultural Residential - 6 miles So. of Eagle on Brush Creek Road - 40 acre parcel to allow 10 acre parcels. Staff recommends approval because the density is consistent with the Master Plan. A to recommend approval. Ann Holland and Arnold Nottingham - for Don Price - Against 1 - for against abstained Meter #436 - Zc -74 -78 - Flagg Zone Change - Resource to Rural Residential - 1 mile northwesterly of the Edwards Interchange. Parcels are now nonconforming in the Resource zone. James Kemp is the owner of the property which is near the "Scottsville" area. Staff has recommended denial. Mr. Flagg said that he would go along with that decision but would like to know what the problem is with access. Does not want a tabling or continuance - wants action now. There might not be legal access to all properties. Chris Ihen - adjacent property owner said that the water could be a problem, also access. A motion was made to recommend denial of the zone change because of the water and access. MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA Meter #496 - Zc -76 -78 - Hobbs Zone Change - Resource to Residential Suburban Medium - Western boundary of the Town of Eagle adjacent to Brush Creek and US Hwy 6. To expand and improve an existing mobile home park, balance of Griffin Park. No particular problems and a motion was made to recommend approval. MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM VOTE: UNA Meter #526 Zv -49 -78 - Richard Dilling Variance from sign regulations - want 2 price signs in addition to signs already on the property. Tract B, Vail Das Schone #1 West Vail Texaco. Staff recommends 2 signs not to exceed 12 feet each. A motion was made to recommend approval of a price sign not to exceed 12 sq. ft. MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: 2 -2 no action Arnold Nottingham and Bud Gates - for the motion Ann Holland and Don Price - against the motion Meter #547 Zv -50 -78 - Peter Larrowe Variance from minimum lot size requirement in the Rural Residential Zone. South of Paseo Road and West of the Upper Cattle Creek Road. Staff has recommended approval providing they meet all other requirements such as parking, etc. A motion was made to recommend approval subject to the staff recommendation "all other requirements are met and that proof of the ability to provide an adequate sewer system is submitted." MOTION: BUD GATES, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Zv -47 -78 - Dodson - Swanson variance referred back from the Zoning Board of Adjustment because applicant also needs a floor area ratio variance which has already been advertised. A motion ,4as made to recommend approval. MOTION: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, SECONDED: BUD GATES, VOTE: UNA CHANGE IN TAPE TO SIDE II Meter #037 - Sf -96 -78 Los Pinones Final Plat - Located along the Upper Cattle Creek Road east of Aspen Mesa Estates. Staff recommends approval subject to correction of minor errors on the plat , and the addition of a special note on the plat. A motion was made to recommend approval of the final plat subject to the correction TO _ 13 -3- FORM 50 C. F. ROECKEL B. 9. @ L. CO. 21 June Subdivision of the minor errors are required on eac MOTION: BUD GATES, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Meeting continued and the addition of a note on the plat that profile tests h lot prior to issuance of a septic tank permit. SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA No further business meeting recessed - will be continued on 22 June 1978 beginning at 7:00 P311. Adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Recorded on Tape #50 Side I Meter #138 and continued on Side II to Meter #063 Continued Meeting - 22 June 1978 Members Present Dick Turgeon, Ann Holland, Don Price Arnold Nottingham Zs -56 -78 - D and E Towning and Zc -75 -78 - Special Use Permit and Zone Change tabled from the 21 June meeting for an on -site inspection. Member Price, Terrill Knight , Susan Vaughn, and Jim Nimon went on the site to review the project. Discussion took place on possibly amending the zone change. Zone Change would be 6nly for the area that will be used and the balance of the property would remain as is. Would need a new legal description identifying the upper bench area - edge of rim to north. Right -of -way into the property has to be taken care of from the BLM. Could have hauled in water and portable sewage system. A motion was made to recommend approval pending accurate legal description amending the original zone change area. This motion for the zone change only. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DICK TURGEON, VOTE: UNA Special Use Permit - George Jouflas, adjacent property owner opposed the special use permit and the zone change - devalue the area would be unsightly to area. George Burens - Bellyache Ridge property owner - people in the area object to Industrial area located nearby. Previous project for the area was not approved. The applicant stated that this is a project that the entire County needs. Have checked into the BLM and they do not have any land available at this time. Phil Glaze - Vail Springs - opposed to a junk yard in the area. Terrill Knight said that they might have to look into the County working out an agreement with BLM for this service. Up until now, the County has not gone into the junk yard business. A motion was made to table the application until the 19 July meeting and look into the possibility of a different area. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Meter #229 - Sf -89 -78 - K and T Development - final plat of a 4 -plex - lot 7, Block 5, Eagle -Vail #1 - Preliminary Plan was approved in August 1977. Building Permit has been issued. There are several corrections(17) to be made on the plat. Applicant Paul Ecklund wants approvel with condition that the correctionsbe made prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting. A motion was made to recommend approval subject to the 17 errors being corrected prior to being presented to the Board of County Commissioners. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM VOTE: 3 -1 Ann Holland - against - Don Price, Arnold Nottingham and Dick Turgeon, - for. Meter #277 - Se- 202 -78 - Galligan Exemption to subdivide 2 acres from 218 acres to sell original house. Located 3 miles south of the Town of Gypsum. Terrill read a letter from Mr. Galligan and also other letters in the file. Staff has recommended approval with the requirement that no further subdivision be allowed until a plan for the entire area has been submitted. Representative of the applicant stated that the family was in financial difficulty and want to sell this parcel. House, septic system and water are available. A motion was made to recommend approval subject to no further exemption or subdivision until a total development plan has been submitted. Also, the rural homesite provision of the Zoning Resolution has been used up for this parcel. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Peter #345 - Se- 203 -78 - Nunn Exemption - 2 acre rural homesite from an 80 area parcel. Located on Cooley Mesa Road, Glenn Schmidt property. This could be in NT? 14 -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM <G C. F. HOECKEL B. S. & L. CO. 22 June continued Planning Commission meeting - continued the zone 2 noise level if the airport expansion takes place. Staff recommends approval. The well is not located on the property. A motion was made to recommend approval with a plat restriction stating the possibility of a zone 2 noise level. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Meter #432 - Sm -31 -78 - Ziegler Minor Subdivision - 7,47 acre lot into two new lots - 3 acre lot and a 4 acre lot - no buildings on the land now. Staff recommends denial - covenants state no parcel maybe resubdivided. Applicant had a letter from the homeowners association approving the split. Need to check with the attorney or with the association to find out what % is required of signatures for approval of changes to the covenants. Chairman Price asked the applicant if he would request a continuance until the covenant matter is cleared up. Applicant request such a continuance. Meter #505 - Sm -32 -78 - Luycks Minor Subdivision - .48 acres into two new lots each to have a duplex. Lot 18, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, approved 4 -plex lot. Staff recommended tabling - final plat has not been submitted. Chairman Price would like to have it tabled because there could be a floor ratio problem. Would like to see plans. A motion was made to table the application until plans on what is going to be AM built have been submitted, also, covenants should be submitted. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: DICK TURGEON, VOTE: UNA Meter #552 - Sm -33 -78 - Harroun Minor Subdivision - 1 acre lot into 2 interests, Lot 70, Block 4, Eagle -Vail #2. Building has been started. No particular problems. Member Turgeon did not participate in the hearing because of a conflict of interest. Should have the plat restriction on replacement of duplex in case of destruction. A motion was made to recommend approval with the added plat restriction. MOTION: ANN HOLLAND, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Meter #562 - Sm -34 -78 - Stenson /Sherer Minor Subdivision to confirm split of 18.2 acres for building. Located 4 miles south of Hwy 6 and approximately one mile west of West Lake Creek Road. Commissioners determined that this was not subdivided property. There has been no final plat submitted. A motion was made to table the application for 30 days so a final plat can be =' submitted. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA Meter #573 - Sm -35 -78 - Hubbell Minor Subdivision - split of 1.55 acres adjacent to the El Jebel Mobile Home Park. Will have water and sewer serviced by the Mobile Home Park. Letter has been submitted from Floyd Crawford granting access. Mrs. Hubbell said that the road would be widened if access became a problem. A motion was made to recommend approval with the condition that if traffic becomes a problem, applicant will widen the road. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Meter #599 - Sm -36 -78 - Seipel Minor Subdivision - 10 acre lot into 2 interests - 6 miles south of Eagle on Brush Creek Road, Mosher Subdivision. Final Plat has been submitted and checked - staff recommends denial - feel that it should stay like it is. C HANGE IN TAPE TO #51 SIDE I Applicant Seipel said that the reason for the split is to get proper water and sewer to the property and to allow him and his brother to have their own piece of ground. Mrs. Abrahms - adjacent property owner is opposed to the Minor Subdivision this would make it easier for other in the area to split lots. There are covenants to the property, but not sure if there recorded. A motion was made to recommend denial of the request because it would be setting a precedent of splitting lots in the area. Covenants also state no subdivision of lots. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA NO. 15 �' ariR �isiHw� - "`� °. 'rn'ti .•ay _ vfw -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 10R4 50 C. F. HOECKEI 0, 0, 0 L. CO. 22 June continued Subdivision Meeting - continued Meter #077 - Ssp- 104 -78 - Vail Springs Sketch Plan tabled from the 18 May 1978 meeting. 130 residendial units on 1523 acres sket '- ohavvetclusteredtmorea- feel along Bellyache Ridge Road. Resubmitted P that this is a very workable plan and recommend they proceed to next step. Read letter from Bill Heicher, Division of Wildlife on wildlife requirements. The new plan is excellent for wildlife - letter is in the file from Heicher. Will have to have final information on water - geologic at preliminnary plan stage. The information submitted is sufficient for the sketch plan stage. The Commission agreed that the applicant should proceed to the preliminary plan stage. Meter #127 - Ssp- 105 -78 - Highland Meadows #2 PUD Sketch Plan - 33 duplex lots on 32.3 acres formerly the Vail Village West #3. Road standards need to be revised. The Sketch Plan submitted is sufficient and it was recommended that the applicant proceed to the preliminary plan stage. A motion was made to recommend that the applicant proceed to preliminary plan stage. Since this is a PUD under the `-` Zoning Resolution, the sketch plan action has to go to the County Commissioners. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Tim Garton and Leroy Tobler would like to Commission to visit the site. Meter #193 - G -54 -78 - Lot line vacation - Vail Das Schone Lots 1 -2 and 3, Block C #1 and Lot 1 #3 - Ramada Inn site. Need this to apply for a building permit to build on the site. Don Byers represented the applicant. A motion was made to recommend approval MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA No further business - meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Recorded on Tape #50 Side II to end and continued Tape #51 - Side I - Meter #242 by: Katherine Peterson h Recording Secretary M �T� 16 4 -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 10R4 50 C. F. HOECKEI 0, 0, 0 L. CO. 22 June continued Subdivision Meeting - continued Meter #077 - Ssp- 104 -78 - Vail Springs Sketch Plan tabled from the 18 May 1978 meeting. 130 residendial units on 1523 acres sket '- ohavvetclusteredtmorea- feel along Bellyache Ridge Road. Resubmitted P that this is a very workable plan and recommend they proceed to next step. Read letter from Bill Heicher, Division of Wildlife on wildlife requirements. The new plan is excellent for wildlife - letter is in the file from Heicher. Will have to have final information on water - geologic at preliminnary plan stage. The information submitted is sufficient for the sketch plan stage. The Commission agreed that the applicant should proceed to the preliminary plan stage. Meter #127 - Ssp- 105 -78 - Highland Meadows #2 PUD Sketch Plan - 33 duplex lots on 32.3 acres formerly the Vail Village West #3. Road standards need to be revised. The Sketch Plan submitted is sufficient and it was recommended that the applicant proceed to the preliminary plan stage. A motion was made to recommend that the applicant proceed to preliminary plan stage. Since this is a PUD under the `-` Zoning Resolution, the sketch plan action has to go to the County Commissioners. MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ARNOLD NOTTINGHAM, VOTE: UNA Tim Garton and Leroy Tobler would like to Commission to visit the site. Meter #193 - G -54 -78 - Lot line vacation - Vail Das Schone Lots 1 -2 and 3, Block C #1 and Lot 1 #3 - Ramada Inn site. Need this to apply for a building permit to build on the site. Don Byers represented the applicant. A motion was made to recommend approval MOTION: DICK TURGEON, SECONDED: ANN HOLLAND, VOTE: UNA No further business - meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Recorded on Tape #50 Side II to end and continued Tape #51 - Side I - Meter #242 by: Katherine Peterson h Recording Secretary M �T� 16 / 7 REC EIVE m OPENING IN CURB TO CONTROL FLOW INTO FILTER GALLERY 10' SQUARE OVERFLOW FROM MAJOR STORM PARKI °�G LOT MINOR STORM UTFLOW 1.5' GRAVEL RIP RAP SLOPE — PROTECTION 4" SAND 6" GRAVEL BLANKET TYPICAL: GRAVEL- FILTER GALLEY DESIGN DAT (1) APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE THAT CAN PASS THROUGH FILTER: 10 MICRONS. (2) APPROXIMATE RATE OF DISCHARGE: 2 gal./ min./ square foot. (3) APPROXIMATE STORAGE CAPACITY: 2000 gallons. l� G -7 S 5 4 " Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners '-0 --Day Term, 19_ Fury_ 19 Special Meeting Vail Village George Rosenberg, presented a request to vacate a Subdivision Plat, Vail Village West, Subdivision, West and filing III and Highland Meadows, filing II, owner being Vail City Corporation and David Elmore. The request Highland included; vacating plat, terminating Improvements Agreement and returning the $35,000 letter of credit, held Meadows for collateral. Commissioner Grant moved to sign the Resolution to Vacate the Plat, terminate the Improvements Agreement r and return the Collateral on Vail Village West, filing III. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. The Board reconvened in the afternoon for Staff Meetings. Personnel After meeting with Sheriff Haynes and Craig Colby, Personnel Director; the Personnel Committee appeared Ca+mittee, to discuss paying overtime to the Road and Bridge Department and Comp. Time to all other employees. The Overtime Pay Personnel Committee was requesting a uniform policy. t Commissioner Grant explained that with constant snowstorms and extra effort and long hours the Road Crew a3 had put in to keep the roads open, he wanted to see that they were paid for their overtime in cash. After discussion, Commissioner Troxel moved to pay all employees time and a half for any overtime worked. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Amendment to Next on the agenda was discussion of the Amendment to the Personnel Policy. Mr.Colby recommended changing the Personnel the sick leave accumulated days from 250 to 720. Anyone who has accumulated more than 720 hours would be Policy able to use down to the 720 hours. Commissioner Troxel moved to amend the Personnel Policy from 250 accumulated days sick leave to 720 days maximum sick leave. Discussion on paying retiring people or those 65 years of age for half their sick leave was held. The Board concurred not to pay any employee for sick leave. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, it was moved, seconded and passed ua. to adjourn until. the next meeting of February 22, 1979. I Attest: Clorkl o the Board._-' Chairman n Present: Dan Williams Chairman George Rosenberg County Attorney Dale Grant Commissioner Susan Vaughn Planner Keith Troxel Commissioner Jim Williams County Inspector Terrill Knight Planning Director Johnnette Phillips Clerk to the Board This being the day for the continuation of the Berry Creek Zoning Hearing. Berry Creek Terrill Knight, Planning Director, gave a summary of the action taken thus far and itemized the variances concerning the roads. Fred Green, Developer, discussed re- configuration of filing of the Subdivision and re- construction of the roads to meet County specifications. Mr. Green stated he has had long discussions with consultants on the road designs. Tom Boni proceeded with the P.U.D. document regulations on R.S.M. standards. Fred Green reviewed the Resolution pointing out recommended changes. Commissioner Troxel moved to approve the Preliminary P.U.D. for Berry Creek Ranch Phase II. A Resolution to be drawn up by the County Attorney concerning this matter. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Chairman Williams recommended the Planning Staff and applicants work together on the road design and have a work session with the Board, prior to final platting. Terrill Knight introduced those people who appeared to discuss the 208 Water Quality Plan; Tom Elmore, Jerry Dahl JoAnn Diggen and Erik &teen. Tom Elmore, presented a brief history of the plan. Jerry Dahl, Attorney, stated there were two sets of massive applications, East Slope and West Slope, t and he would like to take the Coimty's ideas back to a C.O.G. meeting. hfr. %lit advised the Board that our area is suffering from run-off problems and existing water polution problems. Four maps were resented, Stud Area Overview Water Quality, Vegetation and Soil Disturbance and Runoff P P Y > Y, g Y$ Factors and Influences. George Rosenberg, County Attorney, advised the Board they should support the plan and help implement the plan and discussed the drafted Resolution. Commissioner Troxel moved to have the Chairman sign the Resolution. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion. The Chairman declared the vote unanimous. Vail Village George Rosenberg, presented a request to vacate a Subdivision Plat, Vail Village West, Subdivision, West and filing III and Highland Meadows, filing II, owner being Vail City Corporation and David Elmore. The request Highland included; vacating plat, terminating Improvements Agreement and returning the $35,000 letter of credit, held Meadows for collateral. Commissioner Grant moved to sign the Resolution to Vacate the Plat, terminate the Improvements Agreement r and return the Collateral on Vail Village West, filing III. Commissioner Troxel seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. The Board reconvened in the afternoon for Staff Meetings. Personnel After meeting with Sheriff Haynes and Craig Colby, Personnel Director; the Personnel Committee appeared Ca+mittee, to discuss paying overtime to the Road and Bridge Department and Comp. Time to all other employees. The Overtime Pay Personnel Committee was requesting a uniform policy. t Commissioner Grant explained that with constant snowstorms and extra effort and long hours the Road Crew a3 had put in to keep the roads open, he wanted to see that they were paid for their overtime in cash. After discussion, Commissioner Troxel moved to pay all employees time and a half for any overtime worked. Commissioner Grant seconded the motion and the vote was declared unanimous by the Chairman. Amendment to Next on the agenda was discussion of the Amendment to the Personnel Policy. Mr.Colby recommended changing the Personnel the sick leave accumulated days from 250 to 720. Anyone who has accumulated more than 720 hours would be Policy able to use down to the 720 hours. Commissioner Troxel moved to amend the Personnel Policy from 250 accumulated days sick leave to 720 days maximum sick leave. Discussion on paying retiring people or those 65 years of age for half their sick leave was held. The Board concurred not to pay any employee for sick leave. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, it was moved, seconded and passed ua. to adjourn until. the next meeting of February 22, 1979. I Attest: Clorkl o the Board._-' Chairman n DETACH AND BRING THIS PORTION OF CARD TO BLDG. DEPT. AT MUNICIPAL BUILDING 0 . 47 . 4& � /<� ;anon .................................. ............... ..... .....G.. to .........4 f ..2.Z/$. .......... ............................... Buildin nspector ;Office of Building Official, TOAIL, COLORADO rTWTM Incorporated Consulting Engineers 7456 'Nest F fih Ave r•ue Denver Cobrao� 80226 303 232 6050 Telex 45 -4370 INDEVCC -VR Founders E Ve ^en n _, '9. V"-aCi, ©,ne!! %o ^avc D r— A J Ryan (1908 -ib67p - February 19, 1981 Principals ::r.• K �7anc, C. - Ga^ T P'le Ydi�!arn Fs J' , Dor.a:a ber %ci F D�nSar Leroy E - 1„_ m Rune.! D 5;. are. •v ,t R. B-cr... ; Mr. Jack Cook Schmidt -Tiago Construction Company P.O. Box 487 Arvada, CO 80001 Dear Mr. Cook: Asso:.,.ite Principals !:�^•,e :. R Ears ! ire, Emkson RECEIVED FEB 231981 EAGLE COUNTy As per our conversation in December, 1980 regarding pavement thickness in Highland Meadows Filing Plumber Two, High Country Corporation is withholding payment of 1090 tons of asphalt at S3,.8,00 per ton in the amount of $41,420 until your subcontractor, Pueblo Paving, meets with the Eagle County Engineer. An acceptable resolution must be achieved with the Eagle County Engineer and the Town of Vail Public Works Director before any payment is made to Schmidt- Tiago. Our computations for asphalt placement indicate the average surface thickness is 2 ". Field measurements of compacted asphalt indicate thickness from 21/4" to 2 ". Eagle County requested Alpine Cul -de -Sac be paved 3" thick, and no reference was made to this paving which also was completed. Please advise us of the meeting with Eagle County so we can advise High Country Corporation to see if the solution is acceptable to them also. Sincerely yours, / -Z' '_1 , Leroy Tobler, P.E. Princ pal LET /nd Attachment Lade "ngilieer Vail Public Works Director Mr. Garton Mr. Mann #6473.01146 ds .A a. 1 %/ `0p7 U 1 2" 7 V `- EAGLE, - COLORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ext 241 AD ".^INISTRATION Ext 241 December 16, 1980 ANIMAL SHELTER 949 -4292 ASSESSOR Ext 202 Leroy Tobler BUILDING IN KKBNA INSPECTION 7456 W. 5th Ave. Ext 226 or 229 Denver, Colorado 30226 CLERK & RECORDER Ext 217 COUNTY Re: Roads in Highland Meadows #2 ATTORNEY Ext 242 ENGINEER Ext 236 On December 12, 1980, Eagle County took samples of the asphalt ENVIRONMENTAL paving on the roads in Highland Mead0ws Subdivision. Three samples HEALTH Ext 238 were taken, one of which is enclosed. EXTENSION (enclosed) Sample #1 1.6 Inches average thickness AGENT Ext247 #2 1.8 inches average thickness #3 1.7 inches average thickness LIBRARY Ext 255 As you know, an asphalt thickness of 2 inches was required by PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle Ext 252 the subdivision improvement agreement. The roads within Highland Vail 476 -5844 Meadows will probably be officially annexed into the Town of Vail in the near future and I am sending a Copy of this letter to the - PLANNING Ext 226 or 229 Director of Public Works for Vail for his files and possible action. PURCHASING/ PERSONNEL If you have any questions, please contact this office. Ext 245 ROAD & BRIDGE Ext 257 SHERIFF Yours truly, Eagle Ext 211 Basalt 927.3244 Gilman 827 -5751 SOCIAL SERVICES "' / + E. A+ , 1 328-6328 riel -c-n �b,e 1 Eagle County Engineer TREASURER Ext 201 MEW /jks cc: Errin Pub. 1..1l,c Dir Tom Boni Board of County Coilxnissioners Doug Pilcher kd� C.,.e e\kO ��OGe a o25 5l , � a ,a• es� 0a � I ECEiVE OCT z 4 1980 ►GLE COUN October 23, 1980 Beth Whittier County Attorney Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Dear Beth, Please find enclosed Corporation. As the November 30, 1981. the letter of credit for High Country letter states, the expiration date is Please let me know if you will require any additional information on this matter. Best regards, `Gina Kauer GK /dp drawer 1048, vail, colo. 81657 (303) 476 -2466 EAGLE COUNTY EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ext 241 ADMINISTRATION CERTIFIED MAIL P23 0253217 Ext 241 ANIMAL SHELTER October 15, 1980 949 -4292 ASSESSOR Ext 202 BUILDING IN High Country Corporation INSPECTION 1860 Lincoln Ext 226 or 229 Suite 100 CLERK & Denver, Colorado 80203 RECORDER Ext 217 COUNTY Re: Extension of completion date of public improvements - ATTORNEY Highland Meadows Filing No. 2 - Subdivision Improvements Ext 242 Agreement - County of Eagle ENGINEER Ext 236 Dear Sirs: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH On October 14, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners, Ext 238 County of Eagle, Colorado, extended the completion date EXTENSION of those public improvements referred to in the certain AGENT Subdivision Improvements Agreement entered into and between Ext247 the County of Eagle and yourself as Subdivider of Highland LIBRARY Meadows Filing No. 2 Subdivision, from November 30, 1980, Ext255 to August 1, 1981, conditional above the submittal of a PUBLIC HEALTH new and /or extended irrevocable Letter of Credit in the Eagle Ext 252 amount of $ 85,000.00 with a due date of August 1, 1981. Vail 476 -5844 PLANNING Ext 226 or 229 PURCHASING/ PERSONNEL Ext 245 ROAD & BRIDGE Ext 257 SHERIFF Eagle Ext 211 Basalt 927 -3244 Gilman 827 -5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 328 -6328 TREASURER Ext 201 o . Thus, when this County receives said new and /or extended Letter of Credit, I shall forthwith release the original Letter of Credit. Note should be made that the above substitution must be completed on or before November 30, 1980, or this office will be left with no alternative but to draw on the original Letter of Credit. If you have any questions, please contact this office at 328 -7311 or P.O. Box 850, Eagle, Colorado 81631. Sincerely, Beth A. Whittier County Attorney BAW /da cc: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Tom Boni, Acting Planning Director Kathy Peterson, Secretary - Department of Community Development Mel Atwell, County Engineer Pis Beth Whittier County Attorney P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Dear Beth, C (3R R As previously discussed with you on the telephone on October 6, 1980, High Country Corporation would like to have the County extend the due date of High Country's letter of credit until August 1, 1981. The roads will be substantially completed by November 1, 1980 but due to factors beyond High Country's control; i.e. Pedetto lot over excavation, some finish work may have to be completed in the spring of 1981. We could appreciate any help you can give us in this matter. I will be available at 476 -5075 if you have any question. Best regards, A 14 na Kauer GK /dp U �, v EAGLE CO UNTY EAGLE COUNTY BUILr PERMIT -APPLICATION FI NAL: C/O INSPECi,JN, LANDSCAPE INSPEC N ARM Review Routing Form ( ) Primary Routing ( Rerouting Date Referred Applicant I�7,5 Permit No. Location Planning Commission File No. Review and return to the County Building Official within 6 working days Planning: Complies with: Subdivision Regulations Zoning Regulations Site Plan (Landscaping) Comments: Yes El El County Engineer: Roads ❑ ❑ _ Grading ❑ ❑ Drainage ❑ ! 2 �2 El Recommend Approval: Comments: �j� , '' >: : ` ter:;;' �, ✓�', `i County Health: Water ❑ ❑ Sanitation Perc . test 1 ❑ ❑ Comments: Final Inspection: C/O Recommend Approval Comments: Final Inspection: Landscaping Recommend Approval ❑ Comments: C/O I ssued C ' Reviewed by: Recommend Approval: Recommend Approval: Date: by D ate Final Filing Date EAGLE COUNTY BUILr`IG PERMIT APPLICATION FINAL: C/O INSPECT. JN, LANDSCAPE INSPECTION ( RM Review Routing Form ( ) Primary Routing 0<) Rerouting Date Referred Applicant Permit No. Location Planning Commission File No. Review and return to the County Building Official within 6 working days Planning: Complies with: Yes No Subdivision Regulations ❑ ❑ Zoning Regulations ❑ Site Plan (Landscaping) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: Reviewed by: Recommend Approval: County Engineer: Roads ❑ ❑ Grading ❑ ❑ Drainage ❑ ❑ Com� nts ; 1.."_ Recommend Approval: County Health: Water Sanitation Perc. test Comments: ❑ ❑ ❑❑ -- ❑ _ ❑ ❑ ❑ Recommend Approval: Date: Final Inspection: C/O Recommend Approval Comments: E Firtal Inspection: Landscaping Recommend Approval ❑ ❑ Comments: C/O I ssued by Date Final Filing Date BUILDING DIVISION P. O. BOX 179 PHONE: 328-6339 DATE JOB NAME TIME RECEIVED AM PM CALLER INSPECT ..3N REQUEST EAG COUNTY 1�7S ti ❑ OTHER MON TL COMMENTS: ❑ PARTIAL. LOCATION READY FOR INSPECTION WED THUR J, F1 APPROVED ❑ D I S A P P R O V E D ❑ REINSPECT UPON THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS: CORRECTIONS DATE FRI AM PM BUILDING COVER 'PLUMBING MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL FOOTING INSULATION HOUGH VENLATION Tr TEMPORARY FOUNDATION SHEETROCK STANDPIPE HEATING ROUGH FRAMING VENEER- FINAL W D C S HOODS FINAL FINAL ROOF SMOKE DETECTOR PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL A=ATtdN. LOCATION: LOCATION. LOCATION LOCATtON: ❑ OTHER MON TL COMMENTS: ❑ PARTIAL. LOCATION READY FOR INSPECTION WED THUR J, F1 APPROVED ❑ D I S A P P R O V E D ❑ REINSPECT UPON THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS: CORRECTIONS DATE FRI AM PM BUILDING DIVISION INSPECT.aN REQUEST P.O. Box 179 EAGLE COUNTY PHONE: 328 -7311 DATE JOB NAME TIME REC AM PM CALLER • Lr- El OTHER ❑ PARTIAL. LOCATION READY FOR INSPECTION MON TUE WED THUR COMMENTS: "APPROVED F DISAPPROVED OUPON THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS: CORRECTIONS FRI AWPM) [:] REINSPECT DATE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICA TION Jurisdiction of Applicant to complete numbered spaces onl JOB ADDR E55 /� � Z - zz- pu l ! y 6- Y& 10 1 1,11 t LOT NO. !LK TRACT LESCR _ 1 U L SPECIAL CONDITIONS: OWNS DORE55 CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS V Division ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER jj MAIL ADDRESS 4 Size of Bldg. 1100 Sq. Ft. ENGINEER ji q ,y MAIL ADDRESS > No. of Stories MAIL ADDRESS LENDER 6 USE OF UIIDING 7 �1]� 8 Class of work: 9 Describe work: 10 Change of use from Change of use to EW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE D� D L D D m W 11 Valuation of work: $ I� V�� 111 PLAN CHECK FEE �, PERMIT FEE G SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Type of _Sr Const. ,7(-- Occupancy Group Division 77 1(Total) Size of Bldg. 1100 Sq. Ft. No. of Stories Max. Occ. Load Fire Zone Use Zone Fire Sprinklers Required ❑Yes o APPLICATION ACCEPTED By PLANS CHECKED By APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY No. of Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: Covered Uncovered NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB- ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC- TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER S OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. Special Approvals Required Received Not Required ZONING HEALTH DEPT. FIRE DEPT. SOIL REPORT - OTHER (Specify) - SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OOAUTH AGENT (DA E) WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS S PACE) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH PERMIT LIDATION CK. M. 0. CASH &U i �E A'J/'C ED SHE ET) // A ZIP - P RTTR'E ) CCA WR E LICENSE NO. PE LICENSE NO. HON PHONE LICENSE NO. BRANCH INSPECTOR nn 1 1.77 BUILDING DIVISION P. O. BOX 179 PHONE: 328 -6339 DATE JOBNAME TIME RECEIVED AM PM CALLER - 71 T ) INSPECT r..�N e (MUEST EAGLE COUNTY ❑ OTHER ❑ PARTIAL. LOCATION READY FOR INSPECTION MON TUE WED THUR FRI AM' PM COMMENTS: 0 " ROVED ❑ DISAPPROVED ❑ UPON THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS: CORRECTIONS ❑ REINSPECT DATE BUILDING COVER PLUMBING MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL FOOTING INSULATION ROUGH VENTILATION , TEMPORARY FOUNDATION SHEETROCK STANDPIPE HEATING ROUGH TRAIVIING" VFNE R vv 0 C S FINAL HOODS FINAL SMOXE DETECTOR FINAL,. ROOD PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL LOCATION; LOCATI[ONi LOCATION " LOCATION: LOCATION: ❑ OTHER ❑ PARTIAL. LOCATION READY FOR INSPECTION MON TUE WED THUR FRI AM' PM COMMENTS: 0 " ROVED ❑ DISAPPROVED ❑ UPON THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS: CORRECTIONS ❑ REINSPECT DATE ELECTRI ,.AL PERMIT APPLIC .-JION 3 O 0 Jurisdiction of > a o a Annlirant to rmmnlote nnmheied SOaCEs on1v. JOE ADDRESS Vail Villa e West Sierre Drive ?nest Vail LEGAL 1 DESCR. LOT NO, ELK 22 TRACT DSEE ATTACHED SHEET) OWNER MAIL ADDRESS 2 Bitetto ZIP PHONE CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. 3 Independence Electric P.O. B. 1831, Vail 926 -3916 1171 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS 4 PHONE LICENSE NO. ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS 5 PHONE LICENSE NO. LENDER MAIL ADDRESS 6 BRANCH USE OF BUILDING 7 Residential 8 Class of work: IMAIEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR s Describe work: Temporary Power PERMIT FEES Total RECEPTACLE Outlets LIGHT SWITCH No. Each Fee SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Total LIGHTING Fixtures FIXTURES APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY PLANS CHECKED BY APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY RANGES CLO. DRYER WTR. HTR. NOTICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. / 7 a4 8 GARBAGE DISP. STA. COOKTOP DISH. WASH. CLOTHES WASH. SPACE HTR. STA. APPL. 42 H.P. MAX. MOTORS: H. P. NO. TRANS. SIGNS NO. LAMPS TEMP. POWER ❑POLE ❑UNDGO. SERVICE ❑ NEW ❑ CHANGE 0 -200A 201 -400A 401 -600A 51 NATURE OF CONY ACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE) OVER 600A PERMIT ISSUING FEE S TOTAL FEE $l z . 00 SIGNATURE OF OWNER IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT 1 Z) / PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH PERMIT VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH Form 100.3 -77 INSPECTOR County of Eagle ELECTRICAL PERMIT N°- 1557 Building Valuation $---------------------------- Electrical Valuation $...12.0 .............. JobName ------ DOn -- Bitetto ................................ - - -- -- - ---- ------------- ------ - -- -- Date of Application. -. August 9 ............................................. Ig..79 ............ --- Electrical Contr actor.. I. ndeperideace.- Electric -------------------------------------- - - - - -- Applicant------------ - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -. Signature APPROVALS Permit Fee Inspection Fee Total Fee $---------------------------- $---------------------------- ---- - - - - -- ------------------------- -- - ------- - -------------- - - - - -- ......-- ......------ ......----- Plan Checker Date --------- - - - - -- -------- - -- --- --------------------------------------- Chief Building Official Date THIS FORM IS TO BE POSTED ON JOB SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION $...12. QQ.......... Date Paid ------ ............... Received BSS- K. - -. Peterson ................... . . ... Receipt # 5433 Bldg. Permit # 1475 48 HOURS ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS ELECTRKAL PERMIT APPLICPkTION v D p =m Jurisdiction of m D a a m Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. O " JOB ADDR ESS 1 40 Sierra Trial West Vail Village LOT NO. BLK TRACT [I]SEE ATTACHED SHEET) LEGAL 1 DESCR. 22 MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE OWNER z sir. Bitetto P.O. box 3625 Vail 8165 4 7 6 - 3 1 5 4 PHONE LICENSE NO. MAIL ADDRESS CONTRACTOR 3 Electric P.O. L. 1831 Vail 926 -3916 1171 Independence ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. 4 Donaldson MAIL ADDRESS ENGINEER PHONE LICENSE NO- 5 MAIL ADDRESS LENDER BRANCH 6 USE OF BUILDING 7 Residential 8 Class of work: NC: 7 ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR 9 Describe work: One family dwelling - 4, 000 sq. feet PERMIT FEES Total RECEPTACLE Outlets No. Each Fee SPECIAL CONDITIONS: LIGHT SWITCH Total LIGHTING Fixtures FIXTURES APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: PLANS CHECKED BY. APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY RANGES CLO. DRYER WTR. HTR. NOTICE GARBAGE OISP. STA. COOK TOP DISH. WASH. CLOTHES WASH. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS SPACE HTR. STA. APPL. 1 /2 H.P. MAX. AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. APPLICATION ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS MOTORS: H. P. TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS NO. TRANS. NO. LAMPS TEMP. POWER ❑POLE ❑UNDGD. SERVICE 0 -200A 201 -400A , 401 -600A � 8/20/79 ❑NEW ❑CHANGE OVER 600A SIGNATURE OF ONT T R ENT (DATE) PERMIT ISSUING FEE s I s TOTAL FEE . OO OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) SIGNATURE OF OWNER IF WHEN P ROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT ��p0 PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH PERMIT VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH e INSPECTOR / Form 100.3 11 -73 REORDER FROM: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS • 5360 S. WORKMAN MILL ROAD • WHITTIER, CALIF. 90601 County of Eagle ELECTRICAL PERMIT N° 1606 Building Valuation $ ............................ Electrical Valuation $—..— -------------------- Job Name -------------- RQ.ug._Btetto ---- -. Lot- -22, -- Tract - -1 -,_ "Jest Vail_ September 11 79 Date Application----- - - - - -- - ---- ----- -- --------- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - - - - -- ---- 19 ------------ .... - - - -- Electrical Contractor ...... Independence E1 ectri c ----------- - - - - - - -- ----------------- ---- - ----- Applicant - -- - - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------- Signature APPROVALS Permit Fee Inspection Fee Total Fee $---- - - - - -- 45 . 00 .--- - $---------------------------- 45.00 $-------------------- - - - - -- Date Paid -------- Se.p- tember.. 1979. Received By---- -Sancy .Ga- rcia -------- - - - - -- - Receipt #5605 Building Permit #1475 - -- -- - - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- .................. - - - - -- ................................ Plan Checker Date ...... Chief Buildin 6ffici Pate THIS FORM IS TO BE POSTED ON JOB SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION 48 HOURS ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS EAGLE COUNTY Engineer Department Box 850 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ext 241 ADMINISTRATION Ext 241 ANIMAL SHELTER 949 -4292 ASSESSOR Ext 202 Doug Bitetto P. 0. Box 3625 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Bitetto: November 5, 1979 BUILDING IN Inspection of your building site - Lot 22, Tract 1, INSPECTION Ext 226or229 West Vail - has revealed a situation that disturbs me greatly. Apparently, the extensive excavation for your CLERK & RECORDER dwelli has e a spring which is p resently flowi g p p g p y g Ext217 water and which has begun to undermine the roadway above. COUNTY ATTORNEY I strongly urge you to bring this unstable situation Ext242 under control immediately. If the undermining continues, ENGINEER the roadway above will be in jeopardy of collapse and Ext 236 such a collapse may trigger a much more massive earth ENVIRONMENTAL movement that could endanger lives and property below HEALTH your existing excavation. Ext 238 EXTENSION Les Douglas, Eagle County Building Inspector, informed AGENT you of the need to rectify the situation on September 24, Ext 247 1979, but little has been done up to this time. It LIBRARY must be pointed out that you may be liable for any and Ext 255 all damages caused by your excavation and /or its effects PUBLIC HEALTH on the surrounding properties. Eagle Ext 252 Vail 476 -5844 Yours truly, PLANNING Ext 226 or 229 � PURCHASING/ PERSONNEL Melton E. Atwell Ext 245 Eagle County Engineer ROAD & BRIDGE Ext 257 MEA /ncm SHERIFF Eagle Ext 211 Basalt 927 -3244 cc; Beth. Riggert , County ,Attorney Gilman 827 - 5751 Eagle County Planning Department SOCIAL SERVICES 328 -6328 - TREASURER Ext 201 The f elevant excerpts from the official minutes of the Board of County _ ear rcnced mia—ter: r, s c;fltr S fry � �� I n�S re l atl �� t0 �hC au��' -r flay 3, 1973: The matter of Highland P•leado'ws application for approval of PUD, co ✓enants and preliminary plan with subdivision agreement, came before the Board having been continued from January 18, 1978, for time to address concerns of the planning staff and Board. After discussion of these matters, Commissioner Troxel Roved to approve the preliminary plat with subdivision agreement and petitioners to pave Vermont Road in it's entirety and Alpine Road to access to the County Road to be p- and if motion is approved to be considered the same as conditional approved (3 years), The motion passed. fir'.Rosehberg.advised that the subdivision agi•�eeu en t may be provided with cash deposit', letter of credit, performance bon l or plat restrictions, flay 24, 1973: Mr. Rosenberg advised that the entire subdivision will be under plat restriction, the Subdivision Improvements Agreement to be recorded at the same time as final plat. Commissioner Grant moved that the final plat be approved with the foilo, conditions: 1. T }ie subdivision improvements agreement has been reviewed by the County Attorney. 2. A plat restriction be added stating that no sales; leases or other conveyances be allowed and no building permits will be issued for this subdivision until the terms of the subdivision improvements agreement are complied with and the Board lift this plat restriction. The motion passed. June 12, 1978: final plat signed. June 2, 1972: Highland Neado, Fi 1 i ng `2 : This was a sketch plan review and after discussion of certain items, Commissioner Grant moved to approve the sketch plan with the condition the roads be brought as near as possible to county standard wihtout too much distrubance to surroundings and the Technical P.eciew co:,i vents be adhered to Motion passed. �- Lily -97 °. Discu sion U4 : -, q l of n-r! bri ,r i, l P,ugust 14, 1978: Nr. Knight brought up the Vail Intermountain Association - i Highland Meadows, letter of credit concerning Lots 1 thourgh 25 presented by Tim Garton. Mr. Knight stated the letter of credit GIaS aCC�ptable as far as th ° Planning Department ':.as concerned, but requested the County Attorney i'eVi2': °1 1t. •y r � � LI�J 11 -� Terrill V�,ni;ht,yiannina Director~ sGb,ect: Highland Meadows Filing M and -2 'el r,t:lel 1 , County Eng i neer Subdivision Improvements Agreements — — =rpm: ---- 1 Beth A. - - - - -- -- tihittier, County Y1 Attorney file No.: Date: July 7, 1980 The f elevant excerpts from the official minutes of the Board of County _ ear rcnced mia—ter: r, s c;fltr S fry � �� I n�S re l atl �� t0 �hC au��' -r flay 3, 1973: The matter of Highland P•leado'ws application for approval of PUD, co ✓enants and preliminary plan with subdivision agreement, came before the Board having been continued from January 18, 1978, for time to address concerns of the planning staff and Board. After discussion of these matters, Commissioner Troxel Roved to approve the preliminary plat with subdivision agreement and petitioners to pave Vermont Road in it's entirety and Alpine Road to access to the County Road to be p- and if motion is approved to be considered the same as conditional approved (3 years), The motion passed. fir'.Rosehberg.advised that the subdivision agi•�eeu en t may be provided with cash deposit', letter of credit, performance bon l or plat restrictions, flay 24, 1973: Mr. Rosenberg advised that the entire subdivision will be under plat restriction, the Subdivision Improvements Agreement to be recorded at the same time as final plat. Commissioner Grant moved that the final plat be approved with the foilo, conditions: 1. T }ie subdivision improvements agreement has been reviewed by the County Attorney. 2. A plat restriction be added stating that no sales; leases or other conveyances be allowed and no building permits will be issued for this subdivision until the terms of the subdivision improvements agreement are complied with and the Board lift this plat restriction. The motion passed. June 12, 1978: final plat signed. June 2, 1972: Highland Neado, Fi 1 i ng `2 : This was a sketch plan review and after discussion of certain items, Commissioner Grant moved to approve the sketch plan with the condition the roads be brought as near as possible to county standard wihtout too much distrubance to surroundings and the Technical P.eciew co:,i vents be adhered to Motion passed. �- Lily -97 °. Discu sion U4 : -, q l of n-r! bri ,r i, l P,ugust 14, 1978: Nr. Knight brought up the Vail Intermountain Association - i Highland Meadows, letter of credit concerning Lots 1 thourgh 25 presented by Tim Garton. Mr. Knight stated the letter of credit GIaS aCC�ptable as far as th ° Planning Department ':.as concerned, but requested the County Attorney i'eVi2': °1 1t. •y r � � ,h l'n d '�. °a 0'; ; 7 uly 7 1 i 'ei , �0 ? "a CCnt. :gorge Rosen'erg c'r,ecked and approved the letter of credit. ;-Ir. Garton re' jested the Board lift the restrictions on lots 1 through 25 and replace tre collatera :iith the letter of credit. CC.7.issiongr Troxel roved to remove the plat restrictions as appears on the plat anrIj s letter of credit in the amount of S63,000.00 concerning improver,ents in ' e i ghl rr.d ,;gado :.s Subdivision. Piotion passed. nJeust 23, 1973 public hearing set for Highland Heado :is Filing ado. 2. C0; `°- -._ r 27, _a7D: diSCuSSIOn Of proposed ridge, Cctober 2, 197x: Public Hearing on Highland i•'eado+:js Filing NIo. 2. Conc;itionally approved. Oct 25, 1978: Highland Meado::s Filing No. 2 - final plat for 66 units on 32 acres. ;-1r. F.osenberg found no problems with the improvememts agreement. Commissioner Troxel roved that said plat be approved with the follo, , conditions: 1. Treasurer's signature of taxes paid. 2. Lighting fixtures added to road plan. 3. The addition of a plat restriction preventing any form of conveyance of the lots included viithin this subdivision. No building permits will be issued in connection riith the subject real property. Upon receipt of a financial guarantee that the public iF!provements tiiill be cc ,p' ted by i;ovamber, 1980, in the amount of x34,500.00 this plat restricticr; :ril? be removed. Plotion passed. Dece,;ber 27, 1972: !-Ir. Rosenberg stated the letter of credit the County is holding is due Thursday, January 4, 1979 in the amount of S35,000.00; letter of credit . be called if '.r. El does not appear on January 8, 1979. January 8, 1979: Improvements Agreement for righland ilieadows and a $85,000.00 letter of credit with the Century Bank and Trust in Denver was discussed, George Rosenberg, County r,ttorney, found the letter of credit in order. Commissioner Troxel moved to approve the letter of credit as substitute collateral. Restrictions on the Highland "ea o:rs plat be removed. i'oti on passed. Improvements Agreement was signed. (.';Ote shoild bg mace that I have said letter of credit in my possession.) If you have any questions, please contact this office at Extension 242. cc: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners EAGLE COUNTY EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ext 241 ADMINISTRATION Ext 241 CERTIFIED MAIL ANIMAL SHELTER 949 -4292 September 9, 1980 ASSESSOR Ext 202 High Country Corporation BUILDING IN INSPECTION 1860 Lincoln Ext 226 or 229 Suite 100 CLERK & Denver, Colorado RECORDER Ext 217 COUNTY Re: Final Plat approval of Highland Meadows Filing No. ATTORNEY Ext 242 - uvision Improvements Agreement- Count of Eagle bidi 2 g y g S ENGINEER Ext 236 Dear Sirs: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Ext 238 On January 5, 1979, an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $85,000.00 was issued by the Century Bank & EXTENSION Trust, Letter of Credit No. 1074, for the account of AGENT Ext 247 yourself in favor of the Board of County Commissioners, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, for the purpose LIBRARY Ext 255 of guarantying construction of public improvements required by the County of Eagle pursuant to that certain Subdivision PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle Ext 252 Improvements Agreement entered into and between Vail 476 -5844 the County and yourself as Subdivider of Highland Meadows Filing No. 2 Subdivision and as a condition PLANNING Ext 226or229 of final plat approval of said subdivision. PERSONNEL Pursuant to said letter of credit, all drafts drawn Ext 245 thereunder must be drawn on or before November 30, ROAD & BRIDGE 1980. Thus, all public improvements required as per Ext 257 said Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the specifications SHERIFF and plans submitted pursuant to said final plat approval Eagle Ext 211 must be completed to the satisfaction of the County Basalt 927 -3244 Gilman 827 -5751 prior to November 30, 1 980. Since this due date is rapidly Gilma SOCIAL SERVICES drawing near, I would suggest that you contact the 328 -6328 County Engineer and /or a staff member of the County Department of Community Development to discuss the TREASURER status of said public improvements. Ext 201 Emphasis should be made that all public improvements a, must be satisfactorily completed and approved by the n Tf Ti1 ?$ is Page Two September 9, 1980 High Country Corp. prior to said due date, I shall be left with no other alternative but to present said letter of credit to the bank for payment as provided thereunder. If you have any questions, please contact this office at 328 -7311 or P.O. Box 850, Eagle, Colorado, 81631. Sincerely, Beth A. Whittier County Attorney cc: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Niel Atwell, County Engineer Tom Boni, Acting Planning Director TRANSMITTAL LETTER X0180 AIA DOCUMENT 0810 "ngt e1- Planning � Bevei PROJECT: ARCHITECT'S `�' Courrt�, fhtn (name, address) BITETTO RESIDENCE PROJECT NO: TO: /) Drawings ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples ( ) Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles ( ) Product Literature ( ) Change Order ( ) LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST FILING 1 r EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Eagle County Building Department Eagle, Colorado ATTN: L Les Douglas J WE TRANSMIT: herewith ( ) under separate cover via _ ( ) in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: V approval ( ) distribution to parties ( ) review & comment ( ) record ( ) use ( ) THE FOLLOWING: COPIES DATE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE 2 9 -17 -80 Site Plan, Foundation Plan and Details for the Bitetto Residence at Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing 1 ( SHEETS Al AND S2 ) AC:IIUN A. Action indicated on item transmitted D. for signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS CODE B. No action required E. See REMARKS below C. For signature and return to this office REMARKS COPIES TO: (with enclosure El El ❑ X MORTER FISH ARNOLD, AIA ( ) information DATE: September 17, 1980 If enclosures are not as noted, please inform us immediately. If checked below, please: ( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures. ( ) Return enclosures to us. AIA DOCUMENT G810 • TRANSMITTAL LETTER • APRIL 1970 EDI ION IA® COPYRIGHT © 1970 ONE PAGE THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1785 MASSACHUSETTS A NU ; "N.V VVASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 C� To: Kathy Peterson S ubject: Extension of Letter of Credit - Department of Community Development Highland Meadows Filing No. 2 From: �, Beth A. Whittier, County Attorney '4 4 U File No.: Date: October 7, 1980 High Country Corporation, Subdivider of Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, has requested an extension of its letter of credit in the amount of $ 83,000 which becomes due on November 30, 1980. Said letter of credit was submitted to the County as collateral to guarantee completion of certain public improvements set forth in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement dated November 22, 1978. I have placed this matter on the planning agenda for October 14, 1980, under "other ". Unless there are objections, I shall assume that said matter shall be considered by the Board on the above date, and that any comments you may have shall be submitted to this office prior to said date. Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact this office at Extension 242. Thank you. cc: Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Tom Boni, Acting Planning Director Susan Vaughn, Planner Mel Atwell, County Engineer EAGLE COUNTY BU: -(D - PERMIT APPLICATION FI C/O INSPECTION, LANDSCAPE INSPECTION FORM Review Routing Form ( ✓) Primary Routing ( ) Rerouting L ate Ref r ed Appl i nt Permit No. Z Loca ;4(t7 on �� Planning Commission File No. Review and return to the County Building Official within 6 working days Planning: Complies with: Yes No Reviewed by: Subdivision Regulations ❑ Zoning Regulations ❑ ❑ Site Plan (Landscaping) ❑ ❑ Recommend Approval: Comments: e_ .5 v LC AI" Date: i • County Health: Water ' Sanitation Perc. test Comments: F1 1:1 ❑ ❑ J R ❑ Recommend Approval: L[ / /'e Final Inspection: C/O Recommend Approval ❑ ❑ Comments: Final Inspection: Landscaping Recommend Approval ❑ ❑ Cornmer its: C/O Issued - by Date Fin-fl Filinn Date County Engineer: Roads ❑ ❑ Grading ❑ ❑ Drainage ❑ ❑ Ext 217 COUNTY ATTORNEY Ext 242 ENGINEER Ext 236 At their Public Hearing on 24 May 1979, the Board of ENVIRONMENTAL County Commissioners approved your Special Use Permit. HEALTH Ext 238 If you have any questions, please contact this office. EXTENSION Department of Planning and Development P. 0. Box 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 BOARD OF COUNTY 25 May 1979 COMMISSIONERS J m Williams Ext 241 Zoning Inspector ADMINISTRATION Ext 241 Ext 226 or 229 Victor Mark Donaldson ANIMAL SHELTER P. 0. Drawer M 949 -4292 Vai 1 , Colorado 81657 ASSESSOR Ext 202 cc: Board of County Commissioners; BUILDING'IN Planning Commission INSPECTION Ext 226 or 229 RECORDER Re: File No. Zs -86 -79 - Special Use Permit Ext 217 COUNTY ATTORNEY Ext 242 ENGINEER Ext 236 At their Public Hearing on 24 May 1979, the Board of ENVIRONMENTAL County Commissioners approved your Special Use Permit. HEALTH Ext 238 If you have any questions, please contact this office. EXTENSION AGENT Ext 247 LIBRARY Ext 255 PUBLIC HEALTH J m Williams Eagle Ext 252 Zoning Inspector Vail 476 -5844 PLANNING Ext 226 or 229 JW /kp PURCHASING/ PERSONNEL Ext 245 cc: Board of County Commissioners; ROAD & BRIDGE Planning Commission Ext 257 SHERIFF Eagle Ext 211 Basalt 927 -3244 Gilman 827 -5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 328.6328 TREASURER Ext 201 �N Department of Planning and Development P. 0. Box 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 3 M 1979 BOARD OF COUNTY CC iv "„ ". "ii S10ivERS Ext 241 ADMINISTRATION Ext 241 ANIMAL SHELTER The Vail Trail 949 -4292 P. O. BOX 10 ASSESSOR Vai 1 , Colorado 81657 Ext 202 BUILDING IN INSPECTION Ext 226 or 229 CLERK & Notice of Public Hearing RECORDER Board of County Commissioners Ext 217 30 May 1979 COUNTY ATTORNEY Ext 242 ENGINEER Please publish the attached Notice of Public Hearing as a Ext 236 Legal Notice in the 10 May 1979 publication of your paper. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Please bill and send affidavit of publication to this Ext 238 office. EXTENSION AGENT Ext 247 LIBRARY Ext 255 PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle Ext 252 Vail 476-5844 Thank you / / r PLANNING ! "") Ext 226 or 229 PURCHASING/ PERSONNEL_ �K therine Peterson Ext 245 Office Manager /Secretary ROAD & BRIDGE Ext 257 SHERIFF Eagle Ext 211 Basalt 927 -3244 Gilman 827 -5751 SOCIAL_ SERVICES 328 -6328 TREASURER Ext 201 �A 1 f F y� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COUNTY OF EAGLE, COLORADO Notice is Hereby Given that the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing beginning at 9:00 A.M. on 30 May 1979, in accordance with Section 6.01.02(b) and 6.01.03 of the Eagle County Zoning Resolution. Said Hearing will include the following: File No. Zs -86 -79 - Doug Bitetto Request: Special Use Permit to construct single family residence on slope greater than 30 ", Location: Lot 22, Vail Village blest Filing #1 File No. Zs -87 -79 - Ellison /Fitz Request: Special Use Permit to construct single family residence on slope greater than 30% Location: Lots 10,11,12, Vail Village best Filing 41 1 This Hearing will be held in the Commissioners Meeting Room #103, McDonald Building, 550 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado. Persons being affected by a decision on this request are invited to make comments to the Board by appearing at the Hearing, or by submitting written comments in person or by mail thru the Planning Department. Further information may be obtained or comments submitted by contacting the Department of Planning and Development, 550 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado (P. 0. Box 179, Phone 328 -7311) by: Johnette Phillips County Clerk and Recorder L gle County, Colorado SPECIAL USE PERMIT as authorized by Section 6.,00, Zoning Resolution of 1974 File No. Zs -86 -79 Bitetto Planning Commission Action: Date of Public Hearing 2 May 1979 Recommend approval X conditions: As�itUnt Director of Planninq must give a favorable recolr>rnendati on on the soils study Department of Planning anci Developinent P. 0. Box l9 FAG �_E, ��Q_�?E ADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/320- 7.311 3 May 1979 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ext 241 ADMINISTRA - rION Ext 241 Doug Bitetto /Mark Donaldson ANIMAL SHELTER Drawer rawer M Vail, Colorado 81657 ASSESSOR Ext 202 BUILDING I1V INSPECTION Ext 226 or 229 RECORDER Re: File No. Zs -86 -79 Special Use Permit Ext 217 COUNTY ATTORNEY Ext 242 ENGINEER Ext 236 At their regular meeting on 2 May 1979, the Eagle County ENVIRONMENTAL Planning, Commission recommended approval of your request for HEALTH a special use permit to build a single family residence on Ext 238 a slope in excess of 30 %, subject to the County Engineer's EXTENSION favorable review of the soils study which was presented at the Gilman 827 -5751 and subject to the determination by the Assistant Director E xt 47 m eeting Thomas Boni that all requirements have been met. LIBRARY cc: Board of County Commissioners Ext 255 This recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County PUBLIC HEALTH Commissioners at their Public Hearing on 30 May 1979, beginning Eagle Ext 252 at 9:00 A.M. in the County Commissioners Meeting Room -#103, Vail 47G -5844 550 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado. PLANNING Ext 22so;229 If you have any questions, please contact this office. PURCHASING/ PERSONNEL Ext 245 ROAD & BRIDGE Ext 257 Susan Vaughn SHERIFF Planner Eagle Ext 211 Basalt 927 -3244 Gilman 827 -5751 SV /kp SOCIAL SERVICES 328 -6328 cc: Board of County Commissioners TREASURER Ext 201 1 t e h ar 14GL COUNTY DEPT. OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - Box 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 BOARD OF COUNTY CO .... ISSIONERS ` Ext 241 ADMINISTRATION Ext 241 ANIMAL SHELTER April 19, 1979 949.4292 ASSESSOR Ext 202 BUILDING IN INSPECTION Ext 226 or 229 CLERK & RECORDER Ext 217 COUNTY ATTORNEY Ext 242 ENGINEER Ext 236 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Ext 238 EXTENSION AGENT Ext 247 LIBRARY Ext 255 PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle Ext 252 Vail 476 -5844 PLANNING Ext 226 or 229 PURCHASING/ PERSONNEL Ext 245 ROAD & BRIDGE Ext 257 SHERIFF Eagle Ext 211 Basalt 927 -3244 Gilman 827 -5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 328 -6328 L Doug Bi-tetto /Mark Donaldson, A.I.A. Drawer M Vail, Co. 81657 RE: File No. 'Zs -86 -79 At their meeting on 18 April 1979,'the Eagle County Planning Commission tabled your request for special use permit to May 2, 1979, to allow you to submit a soils study for adequate review of this request. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Susan Vaughn Planner SV /jk cc: Board of County Commissioners TREASURER Ext 201 chen and associates, inc. �® CONSULTING ENGINEERS ML t FOUNDATION 96 S. ZUNI DENVER, COLORADO 60223 303/744 -7105 E N 6 1 N E E R I N 6 1624 EAST FIRST STREET • CASPER. WYOMING 82601 • 307/234 -2129 May 1, 1919 Subject: Subsoil Investigation for Lot 22, Vail Village West Subdivision, Filing 11, Eagle County, Colorado. Job No. 18,234 Victor Mark Donaldson, Architects P. 0. Drawer M Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: The field investigation phase has been completed for a subsoil investigation for the proposed lot 22, Vail Village West.Subdivision, Filing /1, Eagle County, Colorado. Laboratory testing is being performed on typical samples of the subsoils. A complete report will be prepared by our company providing soil- related information suitable for general design and.planning upon completion of the laboratory testing. Briefly, based upon our field investigation, the building can be founded on spread footings designed for a maximum soil pressure of 3500 psf. The final report will be submitted as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By Hans Froeschle HF /rs timothy michael Boyle / structural engineer 949 -5420 / post office drawer f -100 20 eagle road / avon, Colorado 8'620 May 1, 1979 Mark Donaldson - Architects . Drawer M Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mark This letter is in reference to the foundation design for the Bittetto Residence, located on Lot 22, Filing 1, Vail Village West Eagle County, Colorado. The design enclosed herewith is based upon soils tests pre- pared by Chen and Associates, Soils Engineers, and relayed verbally on April 30, 1979 by Hans Froeschle of Chen and Associates. This verbal information consisted of the following: 1) The ultimate bearing capacity is 3500 pounds per square foot. 2) The equivalent fluid pressure is 45 pounds per cubic foot. 3) The maximum anticipated differential settlement is 3/4 ". 4) The maximum anticipated total settlement is 1 ". These are the criteria upon which I based the foundation design. Should you have any further questions, feel free to con- tact me. Sincerely yo rs, Timothy M. P. E. TMB /d n OICH 14965 ;m �q ;'oMAtE�cQ`�O� Deis. - tment of Planning and Development EAGLE BCC; ORADO 81631 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ext 241 ADMINISTRATION Ext 241 ANIMAL SHELTER 949 -42.92 ASSESSOR Ext 202 BUILDING IN INSPECTION Ext 226 or 229 CLERK & RECORDER Ext 217 COUNTY ATTORNEY Ext 242 ENGINEER Ext 236 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Ext 238 EXTENSION AGENT Ext 247 LIBRARY Ext 255 PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle Ext 252 Vail 476 -5844 PLANNING Ext 226 or 229 PURCHASING/ PERSONNEL Ext 245 ROAD & BRIDGE Ext 257 SHERIFF Eagle Ext 211 Basalt 927 -3244 Gilman 827 -5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 328.632.8 TREASURER Ext 201 Editor Eagle Valley Enterprise Eagle, Colorado 81631 Re: Notice of Public Hearing Eagle County Planning Commission 18 April 1979 26 March 1979 Please publish the attached Notice of Public Hearing as a Legal Notice in the 29 March 1979 publication of your paper. Please bill and send affidavit of publication to this office. Thank you erinee P� ete on Office Manager /Secretary NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING uoUNTY OF EAGLE, COLbRADO Notice is Hereby Given that the Eagle County Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing beginning at 7:00 P.M. on 18 April 1979, in accordance with Section 6.01.02(b) and Section 10.04 of the Eagle County "!_oning Resolution. Said Hearing will include the following: File No. Zs -12 -79 - Holy Cross Electric Request: Special Use Permit to build an office - warehouse facility on land leased from State of Colorado and construction of taro employee housing units Location: First property east of and adjacent tQ Rio Grande Motorway, lying on south side of U.S. Hwy 6 and 24 and north of I -70, more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land described in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder, Eagle County, State of Colorado, entry number 115544, recorded in Book 219, Page 904 and described as follows: A tract of land in the Northwest One- quarter (NW4) of Section Sixteen (Sec. 16), Township Five South (T. 5 S.), Range Eighty -one West (R. 81 W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), in Eagle County, State of Colorado. Said tract being more particularly described as follows: (This description being taken from an on- the - ground survey made in 1970 by Robert C. LeFevre, a registered land surveyor for Colorado -Ute Electric Association.) Beginning at the southwest corner of said tract, which is a point on the north right -of -way line of U.S. Highway I -70 and which point bears North 10 °27'48" East a distance of 1,602.06 feet from the west one - quarter corner of said Sec. 16; Thence North 09 0 34'17" East a distance of 159.12 feet to the northwest corner of said tract, being a point on the south right -of -way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 and No. 24; Thence South 80 °36'00" East along said south right -of -way line a distance of 487.28 feet to the northeast corner of said tract; Thence South 01 0 47'35" East a distance of 212.40 feet to the southeast corner of said tract, being a point on the north right -of -way line of U.S. Highway I -70; Thence North 80 °21'00" West along said north right -of -way line a distance of 16.95 feet to a point; Thence continuing along said north right -of -way line on a bearing of North 75 °06'30" West a distance of 514.38 feet to the point of beginning, being the south- west corner of said tract; Said tract containing 2.145 acres, more or less. :ill A parcel of land described in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder, Eagle County, State of Colorado, entry number 117098, recorded in Book 221, Page 417 and described as follows: A tract of land in the Northwest One- quarter (NW4) of Section Sixteen (Sec. 16), Township Five South (T. 5 S.), Range Eighty -one West (R. 81 W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), in Eagle*County, State of Colorado; Being more particularly described as follows: (This description being taken from an on -the- ground survey made in 1971 by Robert C. LeFevre, a registered land surveyor for Colorado -Ute Electric Association.) Beginning at a point on the north right -of -way line of U.S. Highway I -70, which point bears North 29 0 13'10" East a distance of 1,648.59 feet from the west one - quarter corner of said Sec. 16; Public Notice - page 2 Thence North 01 °47'35" West, along the west boundary of said tract and along the east boundary of the existing Colorado -Ute Electric Association, Inc. sub- station site a distance of 212.40 feet to the northwest corner of said tract being a point on the southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway 6 and 24; Thence along the southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway 6 and 24 (for the next three courses) South 80 °45'00" East a distance of 34.35 feet; Thence South 73 0 59'35" East a distance of 108.00 feet to an existing highway right -of -way monument; Thence South 78 °05'00" East a distance of 152.00 feet to the northeast corner of said tract; Thence South 49 °05' West along the easterly boundary of said tract a distance of 246.50 feet to the southeast corner of said tract being a point on the north right -of -way line of U.S. Highway I -70; Thence North 80 °21' West along the north right -of -way line of U.S. Highway I -70 a distance of 94.80 feet to the point of beginning, being the southwest corner of said tract. Said tract containing 0.894 acres, more or less. Excepting that portion of said parcel described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north right -of -way line of U.S. Highway I -70, which point bears N29 °13'10" East a distance of 1,648.59 feet from the West one - quarter corner of said Section 16; THENCE N01 0 47'35 "W, 34.6 feet; THENCE N49 209.0 feet; THENCE S78 °05'E, 125.5 feet; THENCE S49 °05'W, 246.5 feet; THENCE N80 °21'W, 94.8 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 0.57 acres, more or less. File No.Zs -83 -79 - Wally Dallenbach Request: Special Use Permit to operate a Guest Ranch with six additional cabins Location: Two miles up the Frying Pan River from Basalt, more particularly described as follows: Tract 51 in Section 4 and 9, T8S, R86W of the 6th P.M. File No.Zs -84 -79 - E.E. Perkins Request: Special Use Permit to construct single family residence on slope greater than 30% Location: Lot 17, Vail Village West, Filing #1 File No. Zs -85 -79 - A.V. Tezla Request: Special Use Permit to construct duplex on slope in excess of 30% Location: Lot 2, Block A, Vail Ridge File No. Zs -86 -79 - Doug Bitetto Request: Special Use Permit to construct single family residence on slope greater than 30% Location: Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1 Public Notice - page 3 Location: Lots 10,11,12, Vail Village West Filing #1 File No. Zs -87 -79 - Ellison /Fitz Request: Special Use Permit to construct single family residence on slope greater than 30% File No. Zc -7 -79 - John Siverly Request: Zone Change from Residential Suburban Medium to Residential Multi Family Location: Matterhorn Area of West Vail, more particularly described as follows: A parcel. of land in the Southwest Quarter (SW1 /4) of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado according to the Dependent Resurvey of said Township and Range approved by the U.S. Surveyor General in Denver, Colorado on September 13, 1943. Said parcel of land being more particularly des- cribed as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly Right -of -Way boundary of Matterhorn Circle from which the Center of said Section 12 bears N.44 ° 32'09 "E..637.58 feet distant; thence 121.50 feet along said Right -of -tra boundary on a curve to the right having a radius of 431.48 feet, the chord of which bears S.31 ° 02'24 "W. 121.10 feet; thence leaving said Right -of -Way boundary S.49 ° 40'48 "E. 230.78 feet; - thence 14.05 ° 53'46 "E. 187.18 feet; thence N.76 ° 30'00 "W. 73.362 feet; thence N.50 ° 58'24 "W. 79.04 feet to a point on Matterhorn Circle, the place of beginning. Said parcel of land contains 25,197.112 square feet or 0.5784 of an acre, more or less. File No. Zc -97 -79 - Samuel Grange Request: Zone Change from Resource to Agircultural Residential, Rural Residential, and Commercial Limited Location: On Missouri Heights, located southwest of Spring Park Reservoir, between the Kings Row and the Red Table Acres Development, more particularly described as follows: Area to be Zoned RI: All of the South One -Half Northwest One- Quarter, North One -Half Southwest One- Quarter, Southwest One - Quarter Southwest One - Quarter, Northwest One - Quarter Southeast One- Quarter of Section 22; and the Southeast One- Quarter Southeast One - Quarter of Section 21; and the Northwest One- Quarter Northwest One- Quarter of Section 27; and the North One -Half Northeast One- Quarter of Section 28; all in Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, EXCEPTING therefrom: 1) A 4.01 acre parcel located in the Northeast Corner of the Southeast One - Quarter Northwest One- Quarter of said Section 22, as described in that certain deed recorded in Book 218 at Page 504 of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Public Notice - page 4 2) A 20.0 acre parcel to bw 'Zoned AR and is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of the Southwest One- Quarter Northwest One - Quarter of said Section 22; thence along the North line of the Southwest. One- Quarter Northwest One -- Quarter, East 950 feet:.; thence South 1250 feet; thence West 450 feet; thence South 200 feat; thence East 150 feet; thence South 750 feet; thence West 250 feet; thence South 350 feet; thence West 150 feet; thence South 500 feet; thence West 250 feet; thence along the West line of the Northwest One - Quarter of said Section 22, North 1450 feet to the point of beginning. 3) A 149.0 acre parcel to be Zoned AP. and is more particularly des- cribed as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the North line of the North- west One - Quarter of said Section 27 with the Westerly boundary line of Red Table Acres Subdivision; thence along s"id Westerly boundary line on the following four courses: 1) S.23 0 45'37 "E. 160.00 feet 2) S.00 °05'40 "W. "W. 769.2 feet 3) S.31 °58'01 23.38 "E. 13.8 feet 4) S.12 ° 59'40 feet to the point of beginning. "W. 352.5 feet thence along the Northerly Right -of -bray line of Eagle County Road ~� S -13A N.87 0 27'47 "W. 800 feet; thence N.02 ° 32'13 "E. 275 feet; thence N.87 0 27'47 "W. 460 feet; thence S.02 ° 32'13 "W. 275 feet; thence Pqn- tinuing along said Northerly Right -of -Way line N.87 0 27'47 "W. 2000 feet; thence N.21 ° 58'37 "E. 901.39 feet; thence East 559.91 feet; thence N.505 feet; thence N.52 ° 55'23 "W. 220.7 feet; thence along the East line of King's Row Subdivision N.00 ° 44'40 "E. 1041.98 feet; thence along the North line of the Southeast One- Quarter. Southeast One-Quarter of said Section 21, East 300 feet; thence South 300 feet; thence East 1180 feet; thence North 211 feet; thence East 1060.59 feet; thence along the West line of the Southeast One- Quarter Southeast One - Quarter of said Section 21,5.00 °54'39 "W. 654.94 feet; thence S.65 ° 33'29 "E. 55.95 feet to the Northwest Corner of Red Table Acres, Filing No. 2; thence along the Westerly boundary line of Red Table Acres, Filing No. 2 on the following four courses: 1) S.09 ° 53'49 "W. 328.41 feet 2) S.00 °54'39 "W. 255.78 feet 3) S.04 0 13'52 "E. 23.38 feet 4) S.23 0 45'37 "E. 21.20 feet to the point of beginning. 4) A 2.90 acre parcel to be Zoned CL and is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Section 28 from which the Northeast Corner thereof bears North 2329151 feet distant; thence N.87 °27'47 "W. 4.49 feet; thence S.02 0 32'13 "W. 275 feet; thence along the North Right -of -Way line of Eagle County Road .S -13A S.87 0 27'47 "E. 460 feet; thence N.02 °32'13"E. 275 feet; thence N.87 0 27'47 "W. 55.51 feet to the point of beginning. The remainder to be Zoned P.R,.contains 199.8 acres, more or less. „ Public Notice - page 5 F i l e No. Mp-- 1 -79 -P Mal pai s Mobile Home Park - George Morrison Request: Preliminary Mobile Home Park Application under PUD section of the Eagle County Zoning Resolution Location: Approximately 4z miles west of Gypsum; Colorado containing 14.9 acres + more particularly described as follows: PARCEL I A parcel of land situated in Section 4 , Township 5 South, Pang- 86 Ws -_>st of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, being pact of the Lava Placer at.d of the Vesl:viu.s Plac r, acc ording to tha lndep "nd= nt 1,esu-vey of said TOCvnshtp and Ranee approve by the StirYTeyO �7E nom" =c91' S office cn Juna 20, 1922 and a _- cepted by the G:nn_r_-? Lund Office on Jun; 6, 1923, described as follows: Beginning at a n:onuma L m�r'ked "U.S.L.M. L.O." which i s Corner No. 1 of said L -va Placer a_- is c Corner No. 1 of said Vesuvius Place, o" Point 1 1 of tract 55, said section 4, bears N 66 37' dl. 2262.43 feet; thence S. 31 ° 15' E. 974.101 sect; taanCa S. 02 ° 55' W. 335.13 feet to a poi�_t on the li-_M� oi U.S. Yiclftway No. 6 & 24; thence N. 74 ° 55' W. along tha Norti line of said nighway; thence N. 11 ° Z5' E. 1 -73.0'7 feet; thence S. 81."15' E. 422.57 feet to the rionu.mer_t raarkad "U.S.L.M. L.O.." the point of beginning. The above -- described parcel of land contains 8.23 aces, more or less. PARC'F.T. TT Aparcel of land situated in Section 4, Township i South, Range 86 Vlest of the 6t la Principal_ Maridi an bain -a part of the Lava Placer according to the Indap n.dent Resurvey of sa id tocanship and range approved by t.?i� Surveyor Gene:—al' office June 20 1922, and accepted by the General Land Office June 6 1923, described as follows: Beginning at Corner No. 4 of said Lava Placer; thence S. 17 ° 00 1 00" W. 413.42 feet to a point on the ;;or_therly right- - of -way line of U.S. 1ii_ghway 6 - 24; thence N. 74 ° 55 1 00 11 W. 686.19 feet along the Northerly line of said higlro;ay; thence N. 02 ° 55'00" E. 335.15 feet to a point w "U.S.L.M. L.O." bears N. 31 ° 15 1 00 1 1 i4. 974.61 feet; thence S. 81 E. 775.39 feet to Corner No 4 of said Lava Placer, the point of beginning, containing 6.22 acres, more or less This Hearing shall be held in the McDonald Building, County Commissioners Meeting Room # +103, 550 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado. Persons being affected by a decision on this request are invited to make comments to the Commission by appearing at the Hearing, or by submitting statements in person or by mail thru the Secretary. Further information nay be obtained and comments submitted, by contacting the Eagle County Department of Planning and Development, 550 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado - Phone 328 -7311. by: Terrill Knight Secretary, Eagle County Planning Commission ° UVL ✓'. n '. - , r P N OD r� co N w p N n N W p j N N O 7 C K 7 { ��J j j ° .�•. O 1 •C yr -•j m O (f O p 7 O p O tr O C f• / c c n m ! (A 0 n n 7 n u In O n° 0 3 3 0` s 3 3 o 3 o �• -1 N J N 1 m w m d 1 1 S D N D J J • N N N J 4 0 0 C 1 d m D_ O o. o a V J '� /. w 1 -• Z Ci V. 7 N SIT V w E m C '� V d �- ++ 10 O .... rD rf m Q-10 CT J 1 m f0 1-r N N -�• w w b •* S f0 C'r C �• O_ 1 0 tO r� a M< 1 o o rr 1 N .• o a 7 -h w x m J c m w N 3 -+N 7 -•• 0. E •• O -r m In W .. d D er o w J 'o a w r •• V S 1 -'• m J J o 7 N 1 O a rr �• J m w N C+c O•Z N wwp�rwon In ��•.fo w mmco as Nd I< O w O D S M O a 1 m J w n w S to 7U w N S n 3 ]7 O_ to a 0 n -•. 7 C"1 - O �• C m rr - O P m rr a �d Q 7-••o � -h m p m O X m H N O m V •d 7 gn - • .w tnJw nw m J O NtL] O O n n n O K n X 1mnl-roDwAZ N •--• J 3 O w w y V1 �p -+. 7 y 0 n 10 3 t+ C J O to N 7 '1 w m S 3 O O 7 a rr a K S m P n d N O O D I w m m S 3 7 O 'f m 1 1 ] 'f -+. N 3 7 m -h P n b 7 rr m S m 7 N m S n J m rr m m to m o n o W �• m 0 O - O n m 7 w 3 b N C 7 m m N 7 v rr J 1 J O L 0 7 1 c 7 7 1 a O_ 0. N -•• d 1 d J r 7 w C m 1 7 ---1 an d < C m 1 m n an . •� N w w m 1 O P `--� O q i 0 10 O m Q. 0- S m • a `-1111 - M � n --•• P 1 w fl - 1 a 7r •+• m m -1 rr < a r r d m m 7 7 w v 03 • o In n • 7 w J m S ^• a n -+ m 7 v. In 1 -1 m 7 --1 m N 1 O O 1 w j -+, 7 In Z • 1 •10 m n 2 o A 7 •+ In n -h 7 w n n 0 w S �• 0 rr W O O J •-' �• m 1 ' w rr m 0 10 n r J£ N o < J w.. w-S N ••'• 7 3 C m N O 1 m m 0 7 w .... W J 7 J C 7 n S O N J m OD �• O d P A 7 w D m-- � + 7 rr • O e•r �• 0- O rr n o ^ O M -1 r+ F a 7 -' �i. W 7 C m 2 �• rr d U3 ... � --1 . C'r N 1 O N m �• 7c' In " P 7 C • S - w O M % N - O 7 O (D rr 3 7 N m 1•r a J m W C m O O O 7 J m. n CL tO w 1 'r O 7 p Tr r m 1•* W In O G n N N -h m O. £ D+ v 1 n m m a 0 m F m - 1 C+ O O -• - r E w e O. N O ?r 1 1 X 1 moo _ O O -� < F v n < O to m 0 C C £ F N O m • C 7r m rr �• In til < 1 I !JO N m m m �• D 3 0 W 0 -� D J w <m+ 7 h a N jam w-h0 ➢ Q a m s ��N � W q n m m •� H .+ O. � N «+ O min 7 O.. O O QO N m « nrno C b 7 a O O w rr � w fD o •� a �7 w a 7 C+ -�. e•r N O O N 7 J m N m m V 1 C to N J 7 CG ey 7 w m n 3 10d d - . 0 Om O- A rr a ►+ -•• N 7r w 5- £ t•r N O N m 1 1 ..•. M 3 W 7 1 t+ J a N N rr 1 O —O bO O O r N m m 1-r vl m rr O 1 N m O w-< N 0 7 -q 7 V 7 O m 1 S J pp O In w• K 7 d 3 7 on m O. r) m a - 1 r+ '--' IO V1 e'f N 1 a J A n 1 w J w � o.mm .... p aC p0 m 10 O Cr + m N d N N m ae - 1 1 m 0 J N pC* m N rr 00 J v rrCw�. 1 O mN E a O -S f0 i� .. m yl at m 1 rr 3 w O O. C 1 N N n r M m Sd 00 WJ M m-�Ino n tnO1 Oe+ wmn3 H ma rra rr J m m w S °, J N m u O w G-+7 rf d a J w O. 7 n 7 O. a 1 0. 1 O 7 c O m N M Io 1+ u er J �* � w m M 7 1 m N O N O 10 N 1--I 1-•• N N ►+ N 0% N 1--• K A fp rr w 3 M p N m n N W p:2 N W y - Ln d N d d C d w m It m - C7 nD � w n-0 w •�+• n .0 -h na -+ m nD m w 7r c m -h 7r C m In N •-h b N 'h -h 10 N CO N N= d Z 2 2 C•r 0 A 2 e* O .a m O C+ O p O rr O C. .a O Cr 0 p m C n C .�+. M L o m 9. C 6� C 9 ��' C Gj C to -n M Gw J 3 IO 7 w n ➢ w OJ m < o, m m m C7 -- 7 w 0 �• • �• 1 7 M n£ w �. 1 1 J C % � C 11 C•1 n 1 7 � N d C+ -•- n K J •--1 I 0. - •• m � V O. 3 3 • ao S O O 5� � 0 0 7 0 w 5.5- �• i0 w -•mb v wm� �.F IO w1a� -a < aa m0 7 I!] N N I rr 7 n w N 1 rt m cLa N �• 1 . r' Cf �• In 1 m a ID w In S •--' rr T' � 0- ! In• O N -•• m 10 0• S 7 a 1 N a J fD m N O.tO V w A N O�_ d l O m 7 O 1 1 7 3 1 G U. �• N ID �• 11 •• N w 1 7 CT 7 d w C w 1 7 It 0 S N T a a R -. w J w •. w O 3 9 IG In S O J -0 7 1 •< .. w 7 w 3 1+1+01 n w CD N rr 0. 3 - 1 0 0. w rr m -1 m J C 0 N N 1 w O 1 N n w m 0 N a d Ira m m S m n m 7 �. a S I n n 1-r n m P IO m to a C J w p 0 1 J 0 J a .a 7 O C a 0- m rr 7C -h 1 O p m O_ O 7 m n£ N N a s m rr d P O. O J a •. m< m O m rr w w 3 �• p C << N W rr w 7 w �• n m �• w 7 w rr 7 1n 7 w O. n J O n n S O E 7 < N m -•- n n J -• • rr m £ < 7 • d O w n w rr In m N rr O N .+ n O w V1 n < 0 4 Ct O. "10 < S O co 3 O J >• w J n �- m 1 n -• p fD m N ---• w v 7 O w •--• rr w _d •O w w J N 3 In CD m 1 m M< m J a -J J 7 V O w m d 7 v Z w O m S 3 w VI n m f •S w v a C7 0 m-< 7r m m m F m N N 3 m I< . m 1 d a m N O. 7 1 < rr w n a S e J w m m➢ N 1 a J 3 J O m d -•• 7 t0 M >r 0 w •• O. m I < J w v c J w 7 0� w n 1 m to m t0 a 7 m 1 rr N to 0. d J 3 -' O o 7 In Jan mJJ <a <wo.• = X n m 1 m 1 O Z -• mJ < c 0 c 1 w N 0 D. �7wa- �.a- •.nm <o �.-1. C) -S n nown m �* dS Cr S �N a rrO. mr <<CnwS v — NN w d a -'1 � n N w3 a .•. >r O rr O a d -h m a a s d P w r+ < 3 m -• w n 0. d O � 1 N w -� 1 N -1 3 O a N m 1 m -� -• P �I 1 0 3 m A to 7 V 7 1 S 7 a to O n O a w w 1 1 m P a S m P m a 0 1 m --' J C m 7 -11 m Cf b 7r S -d 1 -h 2 . m O m 0. 0 1 rr 70 m n 0m0 < w n 1 1 rr -• 7 n ar oo mNd nm< n�• o -n-S 00 m .1 < <oo-oJ In 1;;- _ J r r 1 •-• J10 �•w ja of J1 •n 1w M <c 0cg O O G �. 7 Srrn m�•n 13 w O. O w m< 7 d O.10 t0 • M m O --1 er 7< 7 -h S w .. 1 9 O. d 10 m N rr 1 01 7 m w rr m 7 n In n 1 e - r �• K N O IO 3 7 C w m 3 - + 1 m < m - h -- a m 3 p .+ n •• -• • O m n+ Mg J -h w a t7 (n In n 00 �- O W A J N 7 7 GG 3 •--' J --' w 1 1 C . 7 0 a 0. 1'< J w -' 7 -* N rr w E 10 rr m G C n 1 < N O 1 n 0 n 6 w q a 1 Io 2 0 n C (f G 0 N P w MN j m 7 w m e o r m g 1 7 •m S w b 7 m c o V. --h o m - h n rr m •• '• M O 7 U. �. �. �• a Q. I< C J F J 1 O. O. m 0 1 2 L -•• w P � �+• 1•r m J S� n� Q. O. - h n w G 7 j'O m P C • S -1 D. m 7 0 N O 1 m O. 3 �• Cr • d 1 1 r 0 0 rr 7 7 m 7 m C w m �•a O M m to 0. m �• O rr 1 O N n d e+ E 1 O n 7 7 O '+ r -. U. v rr N 7 0 m X J O ^ N -'• Ci 0 d I< n N 7 w N m m F S w d << O N 1 m _ -�. N 1 1 �• d w N �. w to O a r O Co K - O E J S �• n .3.. a w 0 tf 7 n "'• O N K t1 J C1 n m n O w P n e rr -'• n N rr 1 C c O 7 << C+ S O C'r 0 m 7 --• P J 1 P p 0 S m r 1 n w 3 w O S tT I' 0 O O n O r C m 0 rr 5 • m• r C 7 7 1 3 fS m n O O 7 n a rr n -' O In w to n D O S a 0. a m S. 1 3 do n 1➢ N n P n 10 n ➢ m 0_ - O 1 d m 7 - %0 -W< 0 1 1 n w< 1 C x -1 M m m 0 f •-. O. - 1 - S7 S O M 0 In In m+ d n K •.•• m O O -1 . C O m < C 7 7 • N w �. 7 .f a m 3 N r w a w< �. m In m c �. m N J Q. •+• M S -'• TJ -1 O- P N .. m rr m O 7 7 m 7 W -'• P J O. w O t0 m -+ -+• 1 C7 N •'• w O N m 0. O d d �r n St0 a N O -+• 7 d 0 N 1 -•• m N K -+ C d 7 N A J N d m rr 0 7 • Co 1 < m m 1 w 7 J In 5 rr I< 10 P 1 w fr J O N n n t'T �• A N w 0 0, S C --• m -� O -�• m t0 S m O m 10 N 1'r a m N 7r w w 7 0. to J m n a N 7 =.a S V. J O m m w 1 n h w d N N -ia 10 a O. p 0 m -h J• m •--• d m m m O 7 O •--• < .0 n O. -h - • e•r S 0 < O ID S a 9 m 1 CT \ c �• O K 10 w\ d 1 w rr C 7 w m J rr t♦ 7 P w Cf w 7 C 7r d S + w S O O -h — a < C n w 10 S N w r+f0 1 n m -1 G -� w a n 0 P N� S m C+ N O -• w 1 m J 06 S w r w f+1 m 1 w J m 1 = d m r1 ('f 1 7r m c to a m 0 --• -h •+• 7 m N w v 1 rr IO --1 �. �. J �. d m m O P -h m m 0 r' O t 1-r 7 1 0. to d £ o 1 no --1 N m Cf w 0 w m S 0 -• w Cf X L m O N C -•� E Cr a m n J 7 n -� �• m rr w U. 1+ O. I< n 0. m m m n c m 1 m m n h Haw w << O V N w J N< K J N S - rr m w m n W N m n 7 K N N N �• 1 S 0 • C m N m m N b d m O. r N 7 1 d N N d rr rr --• < n f'1 O m a m d w O m r 0 O W n J �C 6 �' d 0 w m In In 7 " N 3 "w R w m •+ R a m -+ rt w m rt a m rt w N -+ rt w m � a n n -� '! C m c I D a -A n n •� F C m a n n -+ -11 F C: m a n a -• C m m Z O R O A O R O O R O A O R O A O R O A O R O N co ;,a T A m C •• m C .. m C •. m C .. m C .. m C .. . R a m •-•. n J 6N�tln AAn7 7 1 6 S 14 1 1 A J 10 6 C�� 3 n J ryry n 33 6 CO 1 60 r, -A - O i 3d 3 c R O rt m 3 m W m a m W m m m W m Z V m - �+ m '1 710 R'O m w S 1n w J V w J D m 1 A m C .. •'' J O' N V D . m n c --+ •--• n VI N I 7 n n N 7 n A -+- 1 J O' �• rt D N n W d m J S R �• I -•• £ 7 •-i m -• n N 7 O 2-al O I N -+. 7 A ---1 w m o 1n n O S -� V S l J v O I m �• d A C o 6 N 7 �v+a �.6aln A R J -•. Odv J - 10 am0Wwv anvl min w n - 10 c •<w� 7 wF nv A S1p 3w .--� O Aw rt •-•m a NS •• " _R -•m •S �. d m - ' - ' m m MW O MO Z �• n I w l 1 1 O B O �, N -+ C I O 10 VI C I O n x n J C 1 m v w C I c , n rt O J w O v \ 7 7 m -1 o m 10 (n J ^ --1 a < a 7 7 •• S -� (p rt •. ;0 O a u1 m D 7 7 •• N �. N 7 m m J •• rt + -+. n N �• N a S m a 7 w 1 T g� a •. 'S m O m 2 n 0 c o J n Z -'• 3 a .. m d m v a A w D N N to .. rt g S -'• 6 m �• w O W V f S -� 1 a -• O N w In M Z 3 -i £ Q. v1n v� a rt O cavm O R Jam �v - J-• m �rv 'sv m �-w3 7n vl�.�cao -nm rtwrtu+vo.� m J A -' O w m A m d J m A J C a m -' '< O A --' - w -'• m << - S J .) Qp 't A d �• rt 0 J O m N �• c m 0 �7 7 7 O J m J m £ In n R - 7 '--' O V "S a 1 W m w R N N -} m rt m 10 N N< O£ m (� n a O 0 D S n m rt N O VI N !n -+. m 3 R Z O 3 O n O F w Q10 rt w m S -'• 3 Z O m c rt 0 1n a ') -� r+ m V O v N O a -•. N C 7 In S w G) C n a 7-C O •• w+ V N c a w m J w F 6 Cl 1'� a F 3 m J m - c v. R 7 N -� w lT 'S --•f< n 1 m a c 6 n N VI m o A w m< �• 'S a n J m 7 0 R rt w O m G 7 7 d n N ++ -. 0 O 7 Cu 7 d o .--• ++ -� S A O m N N m 7 -'• 7 o m rt 7 �• rt m m J N m 7 -+• d 10 a m G I J a 7 1n R 10 m V m y O R Z N CI O. '0 O -. 6 7 N 0. rt -'• 7 O J 6 m N n D J .--•� n J �• m m C W n V n O -� O �{ F n < X O• a o n R m 0 N 7 n O M a n 0 m n O a w X n a f -� to w 7 a f rt J n '0 C m 1/+ a - S O a m 't n N m n n �• £ a' m O n• '1 a O O N C w M.0 •• 7 m C J V R D£ •-'• 6 n m� v m a 7 n S O n m S n w 'S a A 7 -+. m O w 3 R 6 n < W 7 V R N a m rt 1n �. n J m a 3 m v VI -• 1/1 7 "S •--• m m rt -� •+ m T J 7 D n 7 6 m w w n w 0 R -+• N m J Z 7 c. rt n c n C n O �• a < Z rt R n C O < m •--• VI w -• n 1. 10 7 X S a S< 2 0 m w rt< C N n c N C- In 0 0 7 'S o O N 3 7 Z m -•- 0'a O R n a m -+ n a S l 'S 10 a w D a -.-%0 Z £ � •c •,. n •S S w O' �• -h �c m 6 o a -i J O �• J C N D d 7 7 g w 1n (* a N N r In v o .� r-•I v -n s R a o R m 7Qn 0. =C -) n • z �. --•o m� << m�•s vnRV N .+ 0 0 R N 6 7 N C R m d c £ O �• w IT O< 3 ' J 7 •--f C n Z S w - 1 S R n O - f m In m£ C - rt v In -+• 7 w N m 0 �• -' m 6 N rt - w -+ n 6 m 1 < O m m C -% -' = r rt r N -' • A w m 1-•' a m£ n m l w 10 Z 10 S rt -, O S C < N a R 7 £ m 6 a w .0 -+ 6 3 Z G) £ D -+• ;; 3 m a F v w m m. w N N �. N n O. w N m m J m X 7 -+ m +^ O n 0 7 5 . 7 n v 01 00". £ m O J m N A o VI • N m 0 7 0- 0 O O O OD N 7 6 -1 C << O Z �'+ O R b - %0 W -• 6 6 A S w J 7 a J O w O m 7 7 w 0 c m C m 7 R -+ 0 0 N r+ n co < w m - 1 0 w a - 7 til Q J b it R << 7 m n �. w CD j 6 l R d n 6 -1 m � m 7 3 1n O A 0 C lO n w c -4 m !! m w 7 m 7 �• 7 < m w -+• I••• O 1 •C 4- m C l. S 7 m O -• S a m v J n' a R A co N w m N F 3 << m A S o O 7 S •--I S N m• N C 6 7 0' _ =M - n 6 m 7 1 N N A m R R R w m -•• 3 n O Cl. 7' J A O O v a m m 1 < b w 10 w to N •1 V O• O V m 0 3 G 0 7 R W O £ -� N 10 O 7 x C N N 0 '0. 'f R R R R O;• j m £ • 7 • 7 m 7 N •s m 1 01 ^ �•+- 7 -+• a O . c m - I �• n O C O 7 > m 7 R t0 O m m O O 7 < 0.0 O R O O a O p 7 N fD -' 7 'S w m N + G R N 7 N C O-n m 7 O R :0 1 00 l -• N m n 7 . 5. . t Z C R 7 7 m 1'' 3 n A v =n 6n 0. R7 0+ o o .0 n 1a3 a �In m =r a amr� m mm m 6b 6 3 n sue• u n N m 0 cm t7 c m m m S cbu+m -J + m < % m - 3 1 < 6 X D -+ J m 6 b 6 7 N F e"� t+ OI N N N •-11 m w n o m 7 0 -'• - f m N w m R 6 m O b O• C N •-•• _ m 7 vl 0 m M R R C') £ c N �• O m Z R m O Z A n •1 b w O O 10 A N N !D - O 10 -'• 70 7 0 m O - T u+ m w m Q R n -+ 1< + m n C R M to 6 310 o 7 SN N m Inv m n C n bm 7 N 06m K m N m V M N O m m m 6 N R -0 'S R 0 C• 0 6 R7 m m O N 7 R 7 W 0 O 0 • O n C R VI a '-{ O a + A R m v n J m c -•• m N m m �• w w 7 m O R '1 ' O m + a C 6 R 1 0 O - W O C O 0 D R o• n w a VI £ O c• - - R ti, In M v w 7] 1 G -i a2 C w a m m b - 7 1 7 0 O 6 m C < J 7c d m m 0 �• N O w R a 10 W � N 3 m R 7 7 7 10 Z 0 -% O -1, N N 7 O 7 R 6 N 7 1 O 10 R £ S 0 1 \ m O _ m 6� H S m 3 C CL N 7 Z w 7 7 a O O m 7 << N N - N j 7 ''• � R m m m 7 N m 6 N N 6T1 A N W R 3 N N IN W m R b m N W A .Tj. n a d A d - -h F -0 -+ F C m r, 10 C m N -r -% F G m A N 2 7D O 1n Z R O m G R O N 2 A R O M n 7 6 nAN •• OLnN nn 9 n10 NN VI 1n 7 N m l 7 D 1 a£ D i 6 7• R O N_ n V m Mf 1 R 7 V 6 (A b n O\ O n m w rt A w w m V w m m = 7 'S N a f 10 R m 0 w V ' O F N v -, 10 O 6 Z -5 m o R w m m R -•• m w V - f I+ v 0 m � S � 10 v on 0 0*0 7cw1n c 1 •7-Sv, <om C R C 1 w 7 F 7 n 7 7 R t0 710 Z -'• m •• to 1O w N w 7< 6C nm m M J m . N S H m w £ •• 6R ( J D c 7 m 0 • n m A a 7 6 A S-'• w A •--• 6 C w •S m C) a m R m - O 0. 'V C R A 7 2 d • W m 10 C. 7 m 7 +0 a O n 0 < W m N -S S m W R m O n N W 710 00 m m 0 3 m O • 7• aY 3 0 m m 3. (D w < S R A 3 n R w 7 rt m m m 3 m m - S v T ti, a m R 7 N< m w R -+• Z m m R< R R w O R w 7 n �• 6 O n m 7 6 m J O R Z F N rt 0 Z 7 N O J �m A 6 n 7 O n 7 10 R V1 C R R 7 1 < own a Q rt n w m rt 0 0 O 7" N 7 n N R a O =0 a �• E b 6 Y 0 0 � S .TE 7 co 1 Q N . <• w 7 N 0� w J w rt VI J Q {a D 3 1n 7 d •-1, -• VI {0 -+. R 1 w a n 0 7 R 7 w 7 m 7 '1 m y Q rt w- 6 -M N-1 w 0 7 R 10 3 w Sl/110 n 10 7 C - O -•• l a C -+ O' w n O a v n R O w In 7 rt 67 --m O c m 10 7 n 2 C b m R ' 6 NNN (f C J o 10 7 7 V R O E 7 C 5 F C R N R N O R Q C N O 7 0 .1 m 0 , C, 9 ((AS a 6< 7 m £ I 3 n R m 7 w 7 3 7 R n m n -' 6 m S M R N m 1 < 0 n R S R m M 0 m 7 w - + -I m 0 • VI O N N < N m 6 7 VI m R O R m C m < O m R 1+ m m -+ < 5 6 -41 6 • 3 J C f w v 7 w S m O v m S J ' m << • Z n t3 R ---r 7 m _ w C 6 R •+ 7 w C w w m b N 7 h N R 6 N n no m R S 7 w t0 - R O' m R 6 N m e C O 7 O N w m C N R R D 7 N R O V m 6R0 6 7 w rt 1 < w m N N C+R R d 6 O m 1 •C m • R w 7 rt m R 'S 00 t7 m 7 6 7 m n n S 9 6 m N In N ar O m • 3 S R P m m m n 0 w 3 w b m w m 7 6 7 -'• ) D m N 7 a J m J 7 6 Nd J w n C 7 V1ID w n C 1 • n O'c N O m N VI N d m m 6 n n R R m m n m m N C 0 • 7 O O 6 O R C: w d 0 C O C 7 m 10 J m R v "1 >• m m • m R w R m R 6 m m '1 111 Department of Planning & Development - Box 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 811331 BOARD OF COUNTY COI.1;"ISSIONLRS 328 -6809 ADMINISTRATION 322 -6674 ANWAL SHELTER 349.4292 ASSESSO R 328 -6593 BUILDING INSPECTION 328 -63'39 CLERK & RECORDER Eagle 328 -6377 Basalt 927 -3244 COUNTY ATTORNEY 3x8 -5674 ENGINEER 328 -6337 ENVIRONMENTAL KEALTH 328-7718 EXTENSION #GENT 3,28 -6370 VJBRARY 3128 -7737 PUBLIC HEALTH &9le 328 -6594 Wail 476.5844 RLANNING 328 -6338 ROAD & BRIDGE 3x8 -6591 WERIFF Nagle 328 -6611 8Wsalt 927 -33244 (91man 827 -5751 SVCIAL SERVICES 328 -6328 TIREASURER 328 -6376 F ' To: Mark, Terry and Charles Medved NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COUNTY OF EAGLE, COLORADO File No. Zs -86 -79 In accordance with the provisions of Section 6.01 of the Eagle County Zoning Resolution, this letter will serve to advise you that an application for ( ) Conditional use, or, ( ) Special use permit has been made for a use on land in the vicinity of your property. For details, please refer to the attached copy of the application. If further information is desired, contact this office at the phone number and address given above. The Planning Commission shall hold a preliminary p�l� c hearing on the B A application beginning at 7:00 P.M. on p The Board of County Commissioners shall likely conduct a final public hearing approximately 40 days after the Planning Commission hearing; additional notice will be given of further hearings, if any. All hearings are held, unless otherwise announced, in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, 550 Broadway, McDonald Building, Eagle, Colorado. Your comments and recommendations on the proposed use are invited and should be submitted, in writing, to this office, or, at the Public Hearing, so that they may be fully considered before anv decision is made. By: Terrill Knight Director of Planning Date Mailed 9 April 197 B Ka thy Peterson c> '77 �:4. ,aar�ltrt�ct F t to a� € asp► s er bm - h Colcro4o, s� s to oLm*tiV_4. L portion 6f )at. :zradit 10 thsr asornt of ^F0 .4 Soaa *a security for the perEors.anoe a� the Board is now :folding tee sus 01 iut.ends to enter into a contract with ' Company S. Contractor ) for tht asn..;. -cn X 14 tba ' isprcvex&nts to be construct -d _ 4 a. ant Alre rAmt. ; * y ~t,M Board is willing to release the # ar$ #Ubjoet to the Improvement Agre*m*nt from rho plat CtSQn,•+�ese 1l�Bd in Xxhibit t to the Impro rvment Agreer ant _ s 11oA ") upa the teams and conditions hereinafter set fort. pM Tun !'04'L, the parties hereto do .tf— ebY agrse as _A VOV1494 Owner and tcatractor shall have entered gau tr&Ct tov the constru:;tion of the resiaindsr of the ,� VAN" Aa ho cetlstructed in accordance with the plans and r; ltd ty ' *d; ravr4 by the board pursuant to the i:.provs� eats j .trftls s+ spect t3 .L✓OtO 1 tt►sovgb 42, Highland Meadows, in Jpi�{3sjav:agy W this Board, t he Board will releaas x y t y # ii f , Y'{ at H 1 N - � M 4S vide t J IM 4 '" � - .tkmta�`act4r' • x �i�!1,t �. g � AQgpt , et4u�al ' ► t4,, "00 0ttis ': x moar4 as ob3i .t r�►v is < -* .n ► � gr�tr foilo�[� h�istl�a�+ .• �`�• �L Mss ip6iF - !it' ttui `be+jia�f rnq $+t�i fatic .�f� '�� a �. k y , > ii• r w Ye^ t ,TF+R{K a. g as senor ireYSiar, thef. sgt'e�ss Ihs � s `y A y,� Aeld it OR a Y"esukt a y i t# !h`y►i�tiq - to` S, t , : „ =� of Credit until the ou®+paetion of tba t* xe »ir«t rte, ; Y. and approial thcrto! by the board. " Nothing contairAd twrein shall be deeaed to 4 b�l�1► ti 4. the Poard under the contract betw+e MA Contractor. L within this contract shall be Goastrug4 at 6somd to be oeastta44 as creatiaq a Contractual relatiogehWh llito 6116 51� an the the Soa�Cd of County Lion ccatpany S. It is further agrssd - purs"nt W the psonii�ipn F of Section 30 -26- 137(2). Colorado %eVised btatgtes 1f that at the time of OOMPletion of the ieprovewonts ,aired b1�Cb t { and acceptance thereof by the tcsard, the board shall te2easd } H , :: .; S$3,000.00 being hold by it. If the board deterIniaes tit arty -such isprovewnt8 are not cons'..ructe3 in substantial vos llanClt » wir!! specifications, it shall furnish the owner a list of spaoitia " deficiencies and shall be entitled to withhold - Collateral suttfio #ent� to insure such substantial compliance•, 6. Parties hereto mutually agree that this agreement be amended from time to time, provided that such amer►dstetst bIt iY� f r 'writing a_'1d signed by all parties hereto. a this AgrocfwdstRi u 7. In the event suit is brought � .: 4 �QM%jr hereby agree-s to pay a reasonable attaosneY's fee tq b11 y � `` the Qoutt if judgment is rendered is favor o! Ooustyr q ,a 's tees tp pay reasosable attorney t! ,wMnt is 4 W . k A'f ..r��. -et .PCs a F � • 'i !' '� ~ � �, ,�' ..... -r Y]i� - E. Board shall clot, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, rte 1101 or relponsible for any accident,. loss or damage happening at occurring to the works specified in this Agreement prior z ; to the completion and acceptance of the same, nor shalt Board, not any officer'or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property in•`.' jured by reason of the nature of said work, but all of said liabilities shall be'assu"i by Owner as Contractor. '< Ibe Owner herdby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the a" an of its officers, agents, and employees against any toss$$, Claims, damages or liabilities to which 'board or any such of u ' its officers. agents, or employees may beocome subject to, insofar as r =�s any such losses, Claisas, da%agea or liabilities (or actions in respect a thereof) that arise out of or are based upon any performance by Outer or Contractor hereunder; and the Owner shall reimburse Board for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by board in con - nectian with investigating or defending ativ such loss, claim, damage, liability. or action. This indo=ity provision shall be in addition t " to the other liability which the Owner nay ocherrise have. 4. it is ft *ruler agreed that )wner 3'.ia1 l at all times r c- K from the acceptance by the board of County :;o=issioners of the roads offered for dedication up to the completion and acceptance of raid wort <Y, or Improvement by board, give good and adequate warning to the travel e ing public of each and every dangerous condition existent in said soaai or any of these, and gill take reasonable care to protect the traveling public from such defective or dangerous conditions. it is understood _ r. and agreed that until the completion ct all the improvements herein a agreed to be performed. each of said roads not accepted as improved shall be udder the charge of Owner for the purposcs of this agreement; and Owes may close all or a portion of any sheet yr road whenever it >a is necessary to protect the traveling public during the construction or installation of the improvements herein ayrecd to be made. 10. Owner earrants each portion of the work and material for +. a period of one year after acceptance of each portion of the work re- lerred to in this agreement by Board. ,rep S � A �, s • ,�, � ay S >, ,.�" �Ei .. �* t . -' tE_i- A,, .< .y %s`'- y, - '� 'r ' ' S g�� y EXECUTED as of the day and year first atzve vri en. �f Paul Van Winkle iy x- SliNED ANT) DELLVEKEU this 24 day of PT Jul 1 : Lea , :4r . v a-u I :. flan Winkle STR.F OF COLOKADO ;; OF a i"he foregoi?zg AGREEMENT was acknowledged before me this c t Ia or r ►� - 19&, b !ham+ m._ ':? w1�KF .....«. � t' r 4;i.nesa Ty hand and official Seal Iv co- =i,asion expires: j (seal) ;,otar,; i'uhl is A \.O.1NTY Or EAGLE. STATE OF WUD dy 1nJ nrauEh its Board of iountg� lark ,ads er �nB t it ai M . - soaoivistow T1112 AG*CENM, ftade and entered into this 23rd day of Mar, 1910, by and between High Country Corporation, a Culo- ta4ci Corp*ration, hereinafter iraferr*d to as *SubdividvIr". and **Aty 6f 9aql*, State of Colorado, a bcK.y corporate and by SrA throiNh its Noard of County CotmLssvoners, here- Aj;4fti!r- ftf*rrea to fs 'County% WITNESSETIf! �x - WhrVMS, the Subdividoco as condition Of Appruval Of the final Plat of Highland Meadow. Subdivision, desires to *ft Or Into a SmMiylsion lopmvments Agreement as provided for by sectlun 3n -7w-137. 1 _"ol6tado Revised statutef 1173, as am-ndodj to the tame authority. the Sub- , _., - $., ' divtdgt lt PtVVide security or collateral sufficient �: in the )UAVftent- Of the 20*rl Irf CWinty Commissioners try make rt.4 so"bl V V:rovi*100 for cil"pletion )f :t. p41-il zvmprov--?- •I.t * ,, t r forth in Eshibit atta mo t tl hervo ini; Lncctpe�ratea 6U.110FAS. the Subdivider _0 quararttl** P-1 f OmAnce t-,f this a it r tTW &!XW9-re mewis of A at rost r i• i 1:m, A it r it►tj#j -tvemints. -r.r i;t t� 'Id "I h :et-- ^Vw t r by mtt. r -0 1 -tit tiji% 4 j eras m4tef i'l I fvvii - 4 SAt Y t s; std ? r '1 1r.•9 :oI W Ike amr-iner. All Public as shl wl the Oat -0� AeftV role V"l ewbjtc• all plans LVr the subje-vt 4-it-t!t lii in the A office of the Gbont�t ►"I '' o 4t �! and nevnlopment and to do aii woo �Zd tbisaeto Jt $ t to and in compliance with t�a ; ft17a�3r►�� i - (a) All fUMI p2a � Swotde s Atr�bNisttad. c ' a� x or at the tLai lit lInal 'J4,4t 6"3 fb) Ail laces of tho *t to ui't ". � r �- Lado, taJ1e Comity fit# d4dXtitVS.,iitst edt ;y its zoning Aesoluticft, efleetsQ "iil 4-istd�f or service districts. ;r �• •. � fir, frt.. (a) such other desigM. ftwim", ju►1f . .. r' cations, sketches and othbt,retter •t�M1lEted +' divider to sad approval► by say of Ow above - governmental entitiss. All said work shall tii 40W t under the inspection of, to the satisfaati" opt F, the County Enginctr and /or the Building Offlew yM ' spectively, of the County of Eagle, and shall hot deemed c lets until ap proved pprgved a,ul a cce pted as efts )Meted by the hoard of Codetty Commissioners of the county or said Board** appointed dosignea The estimated cost of said work and improvements .1 $63,000 for Lots 1 through 25 and $SS,S1a for Loth` 26 through 42. ace Exhibits C and D. id) Lots 1 tr.rougb Is development will be coo ' pletea prior to ' 1 tots 26 through 41 klevcic•J'Ment will be completed prior to roesesiMa�t') ; + "Try secure and guarant" performance of its obli gar Fans as spt forth heroin the Bu ivider agrees to pravit'e sircuritv -vid coiiateral i the following form, as approved here -, :+y 1'1 :! .'nunt.y: a pint raatriction to be placed prominently 1 ,x,,1 p' at map f:,r tile subject subdivision containing the' et forth on Vxhlbit 'a* attached hereto and incorpora- t {�l nnrii_r, y thin refurence. t 1t i mutu agreed, pursuant to the prOVisio" =° 01 i rct ic.n 3j- 28-137 fl). Colorado Novised Statutes 1913. as amen ded, tiiwt the Lo unt.y or any p6F,9UVet say lot Xot*s. tract or trartt of land subject tO a plat restrietioA iohloti ilk T the ,security portion of a eubdiv to shall have the authority tB bie*� � �►4' .'. � e k 4 •aaBL _`'��f :' .rx 8l..si`e, 4 „why fi R•`c .,« !..f �s r � a �Ar.Y. ;t PI x � • "�,� w . � fit. • t � t �.r ; f " � � xf ,�� •e'� �xr r, r� c t ar ti_ 'r'= p�x+� }� �� , � �� - w,: .; t%cut 'afty - swh " ) I P e tt a, a Y t i t *» EV tf. iF trtet* ttdaly agrcect that pura:uant f+w ?; �nr # t►s pt deatioh Nf- t37t3 >, Coiorado Revised Statltet# yr `0!# 40*44"t that 4is`1aPe*V4Q*ftts `Ara ,coopleted, tm +!t .lY tri tl tnty Ceawissioress► #ar t � ►.�+ i d it �a� ox of of t depose wca +lath# ' t+1Ee+d "All release said s wit "r o f suc isq�or p �i t .i Wo a tiNef�ca With s}eeix a lt#i. f i; I► # t lY # at of ,C.Pocific defieienb s V ET a"'11 1 ►� "�isathbal�t ct+ l+�tsral sumcient • to . r*Vl L&AC* * tl Lbit' lOard of t.PYAty COit ;�. *Iatr1-"*C* that kha" Subdixiaer will 'not or, is aAablt Y t�ta t' i► or +tf 2 of the ntf in ibcordaaor with 1 Of tA# ap siz�saationr. tlut fir¢ usty c*wi #sib"*ks ., tsatC withdraw sue! oploy'Ytais the do�oai't c►# collateral X' wk ti ffcunOs ' aw��i ° aecaaaarr to conrtr+u:C the impstsveresat cootd- y.•;sa �j i� t#► t� sue# f feat fans . , ``} y " 06unty agrees to approval of the final plat: Rl *ESdow*.'SmWIvision, subject to the tema and cots r h A442 . f 1 a :� ¢# ' mutually uttieliy agree that this agreneaat j fs 1ty 5 tiap'to -tics, providsd that such awendmeAt 4 .J'ayfY ' h .i.I � z- .J_ � y • - '- Y by Ally parties hereto. �;` 9A 3 • er.. 1 _ r . r { -. 1e , slnlfst suit to brought: upon this ngresssnt, pay a t•asonle attorney's f*e to if,_40Apmeit, is rsadered in favor of Cquaty, ``sQaser 14 pt;taoreey' fees i f Judcp' "t r "� ` AA L. T G . �. ' touno shall not, #*r shall any of ficer or emptoyto thoreet; be :iabl oW s ps iDat r 'liar any accident, last or daasq• ; 1 . hAppening ar, otcurrir* to thsf.v�t�t4ts_ iipscsifted in this Agreement Prior to the co"lation And aicci%W4' We Of the same, nor shall A U A „ i CovA!a y, *or o:-y 6fticar or esplojoie therat , b li*blo for any "� *erstt�s oat,p�cop rty injured by reileoa of the nature yst ►ate M�Dfrlt, �� ,p � y`' l o ttilYB abilitle:7 shall ba ads i 3 l i iv144C hereby 44teet to Indounify and bg IrsiA4*' _''' zT e i +ya any of its Officers, agent,, and ilrs { t ia►et . eij�'_ ' ossox "claims, da , - tY ►, suites or liabilities to whEcfi er suy such of its offidette agents# or wVloyeer Asy - be - :v + _ 7 eeaee subject to, insofar as any such losses, claims, dsm"q a or "y iiaibiliti" for actlons in respwt { thereof) that arise out of t� or are lased upon any perfornance by Subdivider hereunder; and , t the Subdiver shall reimburse county fur any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by County in connection with investig " 9 � or daisnding any aseCh loan. claim, datwage, tiabii- E sty, or acttoit, ir►ity provision shall be it addition ttr the other ii"illty which tha Subdivider may otherwise have. S. It is further.agrood that Subdivider shall at all times from the scceptanco by the hosed of County Calwiasionere s if the roads offered for d+idicstion in thi subject subdivision ' IT up to the t•ompleltion and aecepts.nVo of said work or improvement by County, give good and adequate warning to the traveling public k` s >t each and every dangerous condition existent in said roads or 4 litlr Of these, and will take reasonable care to protect the travel - 5' 4 4" public from such defective or dangerous conditions. It is wtsderatmd and agreed that until the completion of all the ism- ; r #tovemcents heroin agreed to be performed, each of said roads 3_ "t accepted as iaprt.ved shall be under the charge of Subdivider tl5e Ai};#+osais of this Aar oeawtntt and Subdivider may close all 4W portion df a.rt street or road whenever it is necessary to ` Oct the tUave1109 itblic dusting the construction or instal- , tole is the owe wllMeto FMirain agrswd to be made. 0. : _A+ibdivWr warrsats each portion of the work and Fi a .od of ores year alter acceptance of each por- +aad ieelbso c by County. Fur - ',` 7�bcwrit� � eel- ; 'TATION post *aVA AWD ItUAl" DMINUM, WM ANA OIl-VRGL A** ?Iow or AMMO MMI* - - - - - - - - ...... said, iapro�" # $kill IRCID44 excavation, it SjArj4Ojrjq *0 ooftstfuCtids 64' 'ti cu��ntze :� seostterakios dad .r :�tegatatio�t 104 the, #'bove a t ift by"S astically Oet f4vtk co 6,sl"Vtat O#r x6odiwo division, b"'thow public improvement 000, plans w oa t ions, for sold �4wlv'isiiw *i.ffled Let the of ticer 'a t N CI*Zk and *ebOC6#r &Woe C►%oty gagine&r anVor tbe, of Pl"MnIng Ond 00" Opgoot" t*spectively' cosy of a I State of Colorado,,_Ali ' aid documents incorporated riiJ� this reference. I G' 11 yi ' : Y r s'` . �` i 7 ¢ . ki„� a .�5 f. '� t v� -. • y ) �;r � : - �'e,�+ ��-b"a� a 7 a g L � '>5 `.rte ,�,�, �'• ' � S - t ti s °� .k, �bA :. fi ; r 4•It� A� s x� yr' 0 al tMl rd of Camt vowtuloners is a t e `With the t#"w *r that �` ° r*;'" '; � �trtain tubdivisio�,:swpir�rsorxts ltyrs�►we�+t ttt�t'sEldq,'- the svh jett prope9rtii rcevWed, UwAovor, -Mtl Wing .4tt*ta way be is *ued for any of tom. work or *t�ri"vrq!r,v&�uirsd psnsua��t to said wt ttibdivision tmprotwwsAts Kg reeaert. , � t Y f t` { S . 6 .� N 3 : N _ k a 4 i ♦ 3 ;;, .� 3 � +� qty ".� � ... F � in b'�,F ti,��r✓� r P5 ��l vi Ak 711 s < 7 s4kxw}"�,r# t � 1' ;- n ! j i81�6$tted 1wstie�n..T. SBki C. I& CSP r *` 6. caravel Startacing TOlt 2.Sfl0 � AephaI Cotscrete TOn k00 t3� 6. Rip Rap U. Y. 7, Pervious Gravel Blanket Ton 200 g.g4.: 6. Re Ve gatatxon S.Y. 6.700 TOTAL y, F `• e. Y c. "D ♦ k f JI % ^° �q t V, '1 ?` �� i 2*� �, Spa- '��,+.' "�� *Y : • k xJ . i s # ! zYF a a 4 i� r t� O N- XAF lr+t3� � Yr� x .. s ' 4Ci i I t t 4rq . 98 All' - � • secs, y c ,rdy ��i • 3 � F L K � q ` 30 s y' �`• Via-. �` , 5 F ' �1 ry/ v T Z t i � N r �r j ? M 7"f I L I j c Co r r LT r:� Z s i r. L 7"f I L it CtS ri .61 T F I I I of) for s C, c , r Z: stern of covcrc-d - 3 - .1 1 r„� I I &I p r of Of L . - i C 075 f I e s t z in i -, -z : uc CUTS tie ✓r c ;-s. r t y r i- . =ril . D r t 1G; e. L L C , s r r , of t'e site and ttic drift in the I c---3 r YD r s F-o t h do csits - S- F Y '17Y ;royal to �vullsr n 1:r - Tick Owe rcok prParl !y of wz-!si 1 t uv .05e Lm d granitic rocks In Q; dr;rt,. �V�Vwrs in 0C drift :VC 10 7� i _E E C I T 1 S Al—n o f y cy plorojory W, CS' zi in Fru, Y5ter was not wocauntared i n wy of th vx pior&tory s;. (n 7r!vn, .7ficjs fro !uM' S!lc 12. A c A 1 n Kc d F C DA T I N "Olt CD t I T " ; I or) t• '-r Sol I pvc the arcx; in tA c x prLM -f _11h I.Verairs- S"Cale bf S back f ran 1A to stwc; S 1c;0; -Atc Lt 'cost Avlp� TD r to eulcr�ke E L i 7 to pr b o �servcd: t .0 tl r , i n ord to J Z r n cu for -.'e r"y 7� X s s uch as utllitY 1C 1 Z ' c •: tY condltl&ns znd.to provide rurfam urdarlying the fill n,,ja 4 2 Ch'401y p-c;zr ba rc�i , w ,d t`., f 11 x4su1e tom: In t o thy h 1 11 S 1 4. by n. 1.,, If ;tr fill i use t,j,, b • an raf ul a Z "t to nces;nry. M t o f t �� C , ; swKs will to sCable for ,d structural fill, 02 rozonn 0vt zscrint fill vj cy7 PrDotor Onsity, fill fkar slit, nod rzjd 91A tj cs to s :Z710 rd 7r at !cis: FAl b d' :Wn�v On: for S :pas. 1C 1 Z ' c •: tY condltl&ns znd.to provide - g - If e'c'e a'c Y - _[ *.;c•r.s, or if -n r_tl of furl= r crvlcc, 1 � All ' t cr, �. 0 i G ! I r r - � � W - . r i july 30, 1982 claycc7b Figineering Villson Pliia, Suite 207 clenwova F;Angs, Colorado P104 Re: Snrnu;Tace invnPtigatiOl Ot Lanir!Y? Vail vilinip, hot 22, Filip; 1 Jent!-70n: : p P - y - a A 74 y _r r n t , ;or =n-1 00 1 jorf S�7 v si7e tin; nAn zz: c polls fir - e roforonc P:I_ - y. whil it Dw Id l to &�tprmive whAhOf the 1�w A" size L.] AnLyl Als soil Analys"S_ SwTary Sheet. Vail Village, lot 22, Filing I july 50, 1982 HC"OvOr, thers is no ev ilea ce at thiq ti q t a deep seated movonent above or 5elow the site, TV-f- in no reason to beliow t _at a similar zype of "Pe "!Me wAyi! live occurred on thk: Pf:e had ohe =striction c"t p 5 nowevor, the XtOnlis! fOr faPAre r-snl7iAq frw c�j �4i K on gyacarhatn� poor GraiTage vopds >nrn7Ma:j- t� ye�P-Ct to of lyainaqO IrM 00 sAwth PiA- A]:!�- Drive. O, r ' "s !qs: .va site lnzp Py:nn .d the Krillin of tW3 ten "VAncs an ZKO Firm, On- 1 . t (12-1) was Oillo! an tno 10or jorzinn of Zho r:y- of Zhe 1�w A" size L.] AnLyl Als soil Analys"S_ SwTary Sheet. Vail Village, L01 7 . Will 1982 the allowable 5 , , c ity will become a function of th - o f movo, w... 1 h , w he to! era tPd. SiDc bis n is in n Emson n slope j r .. and is an area of zoil cr&ap �no aciocz faue i,,, 1.,, it would be advisabin to constrzct retaininy stru :r.q wloh inherent finxihiiitY and talaranp- "o Tf 70- iF no came, a tvari2g ca;asivy cf RICO P7� 'Y Y 1 At. kaNin= f or rat 700 Py�szcy - - Y n y - o: e With ro�ar 1 to I �t � :n! 7"n-sur", thi n i E, of nonr:0, I f C;_ zh � v OY " KA" c 7 i other f;ctors. 7 n� 1 n! retnining 7truct"re alo Pq val 1 CA 1 1 n 71C of Y- h�fl: ni tz �01 fcr v n - � drainage none 0�niPj �rd Parry it away! Vail lot 2, Filing 1 July 30, 1982 p this Qrs '"ge is "diverted" by a �mal 1, shallow road- siae aitch on 1 !pine Psad �hfch is expncn no tarn the downhill flows 90 degrees and direct them into a partially blocked culvert. Ob " Ou slY , a mOre DOsitive means W controlling this drainage will Ye required, :n the Present P�v&7ion, we would specOate that significant q Lntitirs of wa t, r F] across X j,j, r � Mac and on to the Fite itn"If. Tn sWArn to Yopair A tAs whEra zater is ali�j to s�_ or tKat eycaEsive vyon Ln! nA the tnC Taterials, 710 Lot O�nnr. VnAvrstant at 1""nt " !A �-Zif-a to - Y nerve the 7oxl- avAila�ln n:o� nQ vKe zAl Zile 7 r sn�a type of 1&lalnin� ctr.:t Alpino Trio at Ao nn jC7 =n. P7. 7 zo zroverva tho ��Tin�m lrcz a z j S417�oo �h� K_�-Pltn as �-I: pz�V-:Knv tho fnin, ; spyt of tj_k"C� Y th- Toz 12 Can �2 �hwriric�a, a V! -A V! C Y-IV7 z Y fi _ _, /bf - -. i �___ �-" - 1 � _._ _.- - - -' -- - -__-' j t� _ - -- ___.-___ - _ -- --._ ___.... .. _ -. _ _ __ - _- -- -'-- _ - _.. - i f __ _, � __ _ _ i i � ^ j - �� - ' ' ~� ~~~� ' ^ - '/' '-�~ ' ./�/ /� ' '~-' ' (/` '� ' �` ',, /� �`/ '/ ' �� - ' ' - ' ' ~� ~~~� ' ^ - '/' '-�~ ' ./�/ /� ' '~-' ' (/` '� ' �` ',, /� �`/ '/ ' �� ._ j J �� -� r � � >,, -, -) I G '_ �' � � ,�- ` r� � �_ _- - -- i______ - - - - -- _._ .._.�_..__ -. ..___ I -- - - ... _. _ _ - _ -- - - - -_ _ - __- - ., i . , I � �� I �,, � _ - _ _ _ _ _ i- - ._. .. _ � � ... _ . _ Gr.. - .. i _ .� ; / _ ._ - j ` -/ �, _ 1 _ j J Lawrence C. Rider, Esq. 1655 Walnut, Suite 310 Third Floor Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re: Howlett, et al. vs. Board of County Commissioners, et al; Our File No. 416.12.4 Dear Larry: As I discussed with you over the telephone several weeks ago, as part of the settlement of the Howlett lawsuit, KKBNA is acquiring the Bitetto Lot (Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing 91) in return for payment of cash into the settlement fund. You and I had discussed that as part of the settlement, the Town of Vail would impose no special restrictions upon the further development of the lot, and that all current building code and engineering requirements which apply to lots in general in the Vail Village West filing, would also be applicable to future development of the Lot. The Town should not be uncomfortable with this inasmuch as the Town of Vail has expended considerable time, effort, and money in hiring an outside consultant, Elmer Claycomb, and has carried out his recommendations as to providing adequate drainage, compac- tion, and stablization of the lot. I would appreciate it if you would submit this letter to the Town of Vail Building Department, and indicate that it is in agreement with the foregoing by returning a signed copy of this letter executed by the Chief Building Offical of the Town of Vail. Thank you very much for your assistance and efforts in resolving this litigation. Sin ely yo � / David W. Davi DWD /pj The Town of Vail Building Depart n,,t has reviewed the foregoing representations, acknowledges h same, d is in agreement with the foregoing. St icia� rthe,TowneofBVailing RICHARD E. YOUNG ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW SUITE 42C BROOKS TOWERS 1020 FIFTF.ENTII STREET ASSOCIATES: DENVER. COLORADO Wr202 ROBERT R. KEATINOE May 1, 1985 Y FRANK D. PLUNKETT. JR. AREA CODE 303 DAVID W. DAVIES 892 -1690 Lawrence C. Rider, Esq. 1655 Walnut, Suite 310 Third Floor Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re: Howlett, et al. vs. Board of County Commissioners, et al; Our File No. 416.12.4 Dear Larry: As I discussed with you over the telephone several weeks ago, as part of the settlement of the Howlett lawsuit, KKBNA is acquiring the Bitetto Lot (Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing 91) in return for payment of cash into the settlement fund. You and I had discussed that as part of the settlement, the Town of Vail would impose no special restrictions upon the further development of the lot, and that all current building code and engineering requirements which apply to lots in general in the Vail Village West filing, would also be applicable to future development of the Lot. The Town should not be uncomfortable with this inasmuch as the Town of Vail has expended considerable time, effort, and money in hiring an outside consultant, Elmer Claycomb, and has carried out his recommendations as to providing adequate drainage, compac- tion, and stablization of the lot. I would appreciate it if you would submit this letter to the Town of Vail Building Department, and indicate that it is in agreement with the foregoing by returning a signed copy of this letter executed by the Chief Building Offical of the Town of Vail. Thank you very much for your assistance and efforts in resolving this litigation. Sin ely yo � / David W. Davi DWD /pj The Town of Vail Building Depart n,,t has reviewed the foregoing representations, acknowledges h same, d is in agreement with the foregoing. St icia� rthe,TowneofBVailing I- --- ..,+, ;y 10WO of Vai 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 Mr. Lawrence C. Rider Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1106 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Larry: office of town attorney November 8, 1982 I have enclosed for your information, the contract documents for the Bitetto lot stabilization. The contract has been fully executed and B &B should start work on November 8th. I have told all parties that if any legal problems arise they should contact you while I'm on vacation. I will speak to you when I get back. Thanks for your help. Very truly yours, / J 47 ' Gc lu�i[i Larry i � skwith Jul Town Attorney Enc. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BITETTO LOT LANDSLIDE IMPROVEMENTS VAIL, COLORADO Developed for the Town of Vail, Colorado JOB NO. 1845.002 NOVEMBER, 1982 Prepared By: M FOR: (Project Name TO: (Owner) (Address) (City) (State) GENTLEMEN: The undersigned (hereafter called the Bidder), a (corporation, , organized and /or doing business partnership or individual) under the laws of the State of hereby pro- poses and agrees to furnish all the necessary labor, materials, equipment, tools and services necessary for the completion of all work stipulated in, required by, and in accordance with, the proposed contract documents hereto attached and the plans and other documents referred to therein (as altered, amended or modified by all addenda thereto). All in accordance with the Drawings, Specifications and other Contract Documents prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc., for the sum as stated in the totals for the items bid, plus any and all sums to be added and /or deducted resulting from all extra and /or omitted work in accordance with the requirements of the General Conditions and with the unit and /or lump sum prices stated in the itemized bid form attached hereto. The undersigned has examined the location of the proposed work, the Drawings, Specifications and other Contract Documents and is familiar with the local conditions at the place where the work is to be performed. The undersigned Bidder hereby agrees to commence work under this contract on or before a date specified in the "Notice to Proceed" and to fully complete the project within consecutive calendar days thereafter. TIME AND MATERIAL RATE SCHEDULE Bitetto Lot Landslide Improvements Equipment Description Unit Rates Operating Idle $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per $ per Em DATE Signature: If an Individual: If a Partnership: If a Corporation: ATTEST: doing business as By By Title Secretary , member of Firm (CORPORATE SEAL) Business Address of Bidder If Bidder is a corporation, supply the following information: State in which incorporated Name and address of its: President Secretary 1 3 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 19 , by and between , hereinafter called "OWNER" (Name of Owner), (An Individual) and doing business as (an indi- vidual,) or (a partnership,) or (a corporation) hereinafter called "CON- TRACTOR". WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned: 1. The CONTRACTOR will commence and complete the construction of 2. The CONTRACTOR will furnish all of the material, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and other services necessary for the construction and completion of the PROJECT described herein. 3. The CONTRACTOR will commence the work required by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS within calendar days after the date of the NOTICE TO PROCEED and will complete the same within calendar days unless the period for completion is extended otherwise by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 4. The CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all of the WORK described in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and comply with the terms therein for the sum of $ , or as shown in the BID schedule. S. The term "CONTRACT DOCUMENTS" means and includes the following: kXXiXXXkXRXX%XXkR BID &k1AXWkIz1ft Agreement Payment BOND A -1 Performance BOND NOTICE OF AWARD NOTICE TO PROCEED CHANGE ORDER General Conditions Special Conditions SPECIFICATIONS prepared or issued by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. dated November 5 19 82 ADDENDA: No. dated 19 No. dated 19 No. dated 19 No. dated 19 No. dated 19 No. dated 19 DRAWINGS prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. numbered 1 through 2 and dated September 21 , 19 82 6. The OWNER will pay to the CONTRACTOR in the manner and at such times as set forth in the General Conditions such amounts as required by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 7. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. A -2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be ex :uted by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in ( ) each of which shall be deemed an original on (Number of Copies the date first above written. (SEAL) ATTEST: Name Please Type Title (SEAL) ATTEST: : Name Please Type Title OWNER: M . Name (Please ype Title Address Telephone CONTRACTOR: BY Name --- - - ( F - 1 — e4 s e - 7yp e j Address Telephone A -3 PAYMENT BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: that Name of Contractor (Address of Contractor) a , hereinafter called (corporation, partnership or individual) Principal, and (Name of Surety) (Address of Surety) duly organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of , or registered to do business within the State of Colorado, and duly licensed for the purpose of making, guaran- teeing, or becoming sole surety upon bonds or undertakings required or authorized by the State of Colorado, hereinafter called Surety, are held and firmly bound unto (Name of Owner) (Address of Owner) hereinafter called Owner in the penal sum of Dollars $( ) in lawful money of the United States, for the pay- ment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain contract with the OWNER, dated the day of , 19 , a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of: NOW THEREFORE, if the Principal shall promptly make payment to all persons, firms, subcontractors, and corporations furnishing material. for or performing labor in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract, and any authorized extension or modification there- of, including all amounts due for materials, lubricants, oil, gaso- line, coal and coke, repairs on machinery, equipment and tools, con- sumed or used in connection with the construction of such work, and all insurance premiums on said work, and for all- labor, performed in such work whether by subcontractor or otherwise, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PAB -1 PROVIDED, FURTHER, that _ie said Surety, for value _ .:eived hereby stipu- lates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligation on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work or to the specifications. PROVIDED, FURTHER, that no final settlement between the Owner and the Contractor shall abridge the right of any beneficiary hereunder, whose claim may be unsatisfied. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed in (Number) counterparts, each one of which shall be deemed an original, this the day of 19 ATTEST /WITNESS: Principal (Contractor) (Principal) Secretary By (SEAL) ATTEST /WITNESS: (Surety) Secretary (SEAL) (Address) NOTE: Date of BOND must not be prior to date of Contract. If CONTRACTOR is Partnership, all partners should execute BOND. (s) Accompany this BOND with Attorney -in- Fact's authority from the Surety to execute the BOND, certified to include the date of the BOND. (Address) Surety By Attorney -in -Fact PAB- 2 PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: that Name of Contractor (Address of Contractor) a , hereinafter called (corporation, partnership or individual) Principal, and (Name of Surety (Address of Surety) duly organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of , or registered to do business within the State of Colorado, and duly licensed for the purpose of making, guaran- teeing, or become sole surety upon bonds or undertaking required or authorized by the State of Colorado, hereinafter called Surety, are held and firmly bound unto (Name of Owner) (Address of Owner) hereinafter called Owner in the penal sum of Dollars $( ) in lawful money of the United States, for the pay- ment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain contract with the OWNER, dated the day of 19 , a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the contstruction of: NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall well, truly and faithfully perform its duties, all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agree- ments of said contract during the original term thereof, and any extensions thereof which may be granted by the Owner, with or without notice to the Surety and during the one -year guaranty period, and if he shall satisfy 140 N all claims and demands incurred under such contract, and shall fully indemnify and save harmless the Owner from all costs and damages which it may suffer by reason of failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay the Owner all outlay and expense which the Owner may incur in making good any default, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, FURTHER, that the said surety, for value received hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to work to be performed there- under or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligation on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work or to the specifications. PROVIDED, FURTHER, that no final settlement between the Owner and the Contractor shall abridge the right of any beneficiary hereunder, whose claim may be unsatisfied. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed in counter - number parts, each one of which shall be deemed an original, this day of , 19 ATTEST /WITNESS: Principal Secretary (SEAL) ATTEST /WITNESS: Principal Contractor By Address) (s) Surety By Attorney-in-Fact Surety Secretary (SEAL) (Address) NOTE: Date of BOND must not be prior to date of Contract. If CONTRACTOR is Partnership, all partners should execute BOND. Accompany this BOND with Attorney -in- fact's authority from the Surety to execute the BOND, certified to include the date of the BOND. PB -2 NOTICE OF AWARD To: (Contractor) (Address) PROJECT Description: The OWNER has considered the BID submitted by you for the above described WORK in response to its Invitation to Bid dated 19 , and Instructions to Bidders. You are hereby notified that your BID has been accepted for items in the amount of $ You are required by the Instructions to Bidders to execute the Agreement and furnish the required CONTRACTOR'S Performance BOND, Payment BOND and certificates of insurance within ten (10) calendar days from the date of this Notice to you. If you fail to execute said Agreement and to furnish said BONDS within ten (10) days from the date of this Notice, said OWNER will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of said OWNER'S acceptance to your BID as null and void and your BID SECURITY will be forfeited immedi- ately to said OWNER as an agreed amount of liquidated damages. Dated this day of 1.9 Owner By Title Address Telephone by this the day of By Title Telephone ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE Receipt of the above NOTICE OF AWARD is hereby acknowledged ontractor . 19 NA -1 NOTICE TO PROCEED T0: --- ( - Contractor) ress7 You are hereby not Agreement dated 19 , and you are to consecutive calendar WORK is therefore Date: Proj ect : ified to commence WORK in accordance with the , 19 , on or before , complete the WORK within days thereafter. The date of completion of all 19 Owner By Title Address Telephone ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE Receipt of the above NOTICE TO PROCEED is hereby acknowledged by this the By Title Telephone ontractor day of NP -1 19 JOHN IL MERAFFY LAWRENCE C. RIDER JAMES A. WINDHOLZ. P.C. JOHN S. WILSON ELIZABETH L. ROCKS MEHAFFY. RIDER, WINDHOLZ & WILSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1855 WALNUT STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80803 TuxraONN (308) 447 -8741 September 11, 1984 Mr. Elmer Claycomb CLAYCOMB ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Suite 207 Village Plaza Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Elmer: P. O. BOX 1108 BOULDER, COLORADO 80800 Enclosed are copies of the two Chen Reports you requested by letter of August 15, 1984. They are reports dated May 14, 1979 and July 3, 1980, prepared by Chen and Associates for Victor Mark Donaldson and Morter Fisher Arnold, respectively. I apologize for the delay. Things have been a bit confusing because we have recently moved our offices. Respectfully, MEHAFFY, RIDER, WINDHOLZ & WILSON Elizabe L. Rocks ELR:sca Enclosures SKETCH PL S UBMITTAL FOR HIGHLAND MFADOGIS FILING 2 A PLANNED DEVELOP"�'NT IN EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO may 5, 1918 Mr. Term' Knight Eagle County Planning Department Box 177 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Dear Mr. Knight: Transmitted herewith is the Sketch Plan Submittal for Highland Meadows Filing `lumber 2. This is a proposed resubdivision of Vail Village West Filing, tiumber 3. The maximum density approved for the proj is R S4 or 5.5 units per acre of net developable land. replatting of the property is for a planned development with The proposed o osed density is 2.8 units per 33 single family duplex lots. The p P developable acre. The gr recorded plat. The con use the existing road except for minor Improvements. A filing fee of $960 for this submittal is enclosed. Sincerely yours, �° Lero Tobler LET /pkl enclosure Da. " n,: ❑ G C. OF C0` ;iF" I Secti 1 - of Ccu, ty Regiire :c:;t3 Sum ,ry 1) Subdivision Re�uire�':ents 2) Zon Resolution Re- Sect 2 - Project Description 1) Project Location 2) Project Objective 3) Land Use 4) Water Supply 5) Sewage Disposal 6) Roads, Grading, and Drainage 7) Development Schedule. Section 3 - Draft of Environmental Impact State�ent 1 ) Physical Impact a . Geologic b. Hydrologic C. Biotic d. Atmospheric 2) Economic Impact a. Impact t Services b. On County c , Projected Tax Revenues 3) Social Impact a . Housing b. Schools C. Traffic d. Recreation S 4 Draft O f Cov =Hants anl Re�trictions s vi 1-1 a- p s S e t 2 S S Sketc ? Lan En,�,Ineering S he t t 3 S p 1� 11 Soi and VegletatiOnm s ;: :1J` 2 p , " ''. I . PRO.'�.C_ Pl u' De 'e lop nt lo. ='t' a - out H ig` l .r.1 uea'o n > F 11- 2 is a 32 acre Vail into : se on I -70 It is i 200 feet sOlit"lt .i% OL t�� v, =st 1 j O f ately sou t f Vail villa» Wes' FiliP.j 1 ana P,Ort a" ter th o� �- Highland Meadows. The majority of the site has been platted as Vail Village West Filing 0 No. 3. The roads have been rough graded and generally fall within the dedicated County Right -of -Way. Utilities and dwelling units, however, have not been constructed. The remainder of the site lies within the previously proposed Matterhorn Village Filing 2. II. PROJECT O BJECTIVE The intent of this project is to provide home sites aimed at the higher economic levels of the market. Thirty -three duplex lots are proposed. With a limited availability of home sites in Vail, the addition of these proposed lots should help meet the long term housing needs of the area. III. LAND USE The Planned Develope:ent approach was chosen in order to best utilize the buildable area. The existing road pattern will be maintained so that additional road scar will be minimized. The slope of the land ranges from around 15% to over 401. The proposed sketch plan has 66 duplex units for an overall density of 2 units per acre. The recorded Vail Village West Filing 3 plat contains 4 lots and 4 tracts which are intended for condominium construction. The approved density for the recorded plat exceeds the new proposed density. Open space comprises 36% of the project area. Because of the terrain, use of the open space will be limited primarily to hiking. However, all residents will have access to the facilities on Highland Meadows. Open space will be contained in the individual lots and platted as open space easements. Highland Meadows Filing 2 is compatible with the surrounding development. Highland Meadows, Vail Village West Filing 1 and 2 and Matterhorn Village Filing 1, all residential developments, border the site on the east and north. National forest land adjoins the property on the south; unpiatted land borders the site on the east. The proposed development complies with the Eagle County Master Plan and represents a reduction in density from the previously approved plat. nt A w vil _� h` D l FiliR 1 a..0 � ' O. f_ 2ariJ i J:i. �� tl T T- neDistrict has a cor;trac- wita W DIS C�'r V. _ e �� i� � be S i Vail- Vil1 S3.,lt'`y St w F,'r 11T.i lIt y irl _ r - r7C.E in r11! 1 be a gra to iou D istric t. t;:o The Prc. 1 - Project. extended to se r s �- flow system. VI. Ro kDI S z_ G R - I �i G r1`i AND Dom• I ti AG previously indicated, the roads thru•the site fall within dedicated As p h raded They are, however, not graded Right -of -Way and hav e been roug g Of the roads, it is not possible to reconstruct f the steepness of the terrain to present County Standards. Because o and the present location o with p resent road criteria. entirely the roads and comply . To the extent possible remedial work will be do ge to upgrade the e ist`ng road system. Grades up to 10; areas will be re, 1 in some So,e crib walls m be required. radius switchback will be necessary. �� of �1ey,�,nt ' with 2' shou'_der, The typical road, cross section will be 2_ P< proposed upgraded Zead the same as approved for Highland `ieadows • The P system is shown on Shea 3. There ar'� charnels thru the si te. Minor surface drain - e no major drainag age across the site can be easily handled by culverts and roadside ditches. radin on the site. possible build Preliminary shown s are There will be no over lot g g each lot along with the drieway acindicatescoen t conventional spread footing soils investigations for this sf will be feasible. with allowable bearing pressures of 2000 to 5000 p' Detailed investigations will be required, however, for specific foundation design criteria. VII. DEV_ _ ELop`ti✓NTT SCHE Road regrading and utility construction are ten eexterdefor e at f least e su_mm�er of 1979. Building constructio.. will probably five years. 1 S - - L � C,` -';- - 3 D L C a r S The -i L r I c t i D h ; a r 0 S,: a r cut SO the--e will , e e a�l- - - Lo '. Sooe do-terioratiov- in ar-Ibifent air quality may occur due to incre auto eMissiOrls- description of the impact by the proposed develop The f is a ment on the physical environr.ent of the site. a. Geologic: Three preliminary geo logy and soil investigations have been made for the area covered by the proposed develop- ment. The first by Chen and Associates for the Vail Village West Filing 3 Subdivision dated October 10, 1972 and thHae 0 t te r- remaining two by Thomas E. sum-nerlee f the prop d I horn Village Filing 2, dated November 15, 1973 and September 24, i. thew 1974. Two potential unstable areas were -0 sed develop- the, reports and the propo jent has been e..:cludea f ro g hazard areas (see sheet 4)• The s i generally covered with unconsolida=ed slope wish material overlying sandstone bedrock. The depth of bedrock is generally grea'er than 10 to 15 feet. soils ra from 100 to fine sandy loam overlying heavy loam, sandy clay lod Or clay loam. Soils are generally well drained. One spring exists, however, along the wes part of the site. The previous geo logic and soils i have concluded the property is suitable for d except for the two for potential slide areas. The soils are generally suitable conventional spread footing type foundations. b. Hydrologic: The project drains fror--- south to north. Surface runoff is primarily overland flow with some water channeled ll into a shallow draw thru the center portion of the site. A sri ss the site. culverts and roads area to the south drains acro osed dev ide ditch will be sufficient to direct runo thru the p rop e 10 pr n t - Sinc hundred feet above Gore Creek, it wnot ill nce the site is several hun ed development should not be subject to flooding. The propos cause any pollution of Gore Creek fro-m non point discharges. TYPICAL ROAD ECTION, LEG E N.-D GRE TH" E X 1 S T 1 nn R ) L'T n�yn"R np vn PROPOSK) ROAD RYGRAD KG 6 ��,o G O �k E:NG ILE.F.I;I�G JKF:.IG41 �'L. F 0 R MEADOWS Fiicai�� -1 r!% 2 FILIN MAY 1978 SHEET 3 SCA I C 0' F o �` - - ------------ 0: 9 2) l k E X F S T I N G GAS L IN E BUR IED TELEPHON L E, CD E79 1 2 °02 3 „ 3�� - . R -f2. 7 - COrIST CT 1 J — Y 1 { r. � --'_ - "—.._ ".... •. ( � � - ice i �� "` f ,� t ry ' ' ,,k ,��' V / •' :� •^ � �;�:� � -' a " �� UNF- N 8e° 5 39 v 1411.89 co r o L - v �z / UNPLATTED ( NAT !CNAI�' FCRcST LAND SOILS DFSCRIPTION: SURFACE SOILS RANGE FROM LOAM TO FINE SANDY LOAM, OVERLAYING HEAVY '--�`t�DY CLAY OR CLA L 0 A M SOILS ARE L L D R ' CONTAIN N �", 1 D D SCATT STONES AND BOULDERS ON THE SURFACE. WIiDFJRE: h�jt i - -- D ':: I R I- H 7,� RD A — LOW HAZARD (BY COLO— F'.!,DO DIVISION OF I �-C'--STRY). t %I WILDLIFE Dt CLASSIFICATION 3 LOW I D.' =',SITY (BY DIVISION OF b,'JLDLI FE) . LEGEND MOUNTAI ' A !1 [J [1 "R Y S U -Q 'S 0 1 L v OLOG I C 1 ' E S I G',!1T i ON, V A I L t'JL ST F I L I ' =3, OCT. 10, 19 BY CHELN "I''ND II'-.SSC)C I A TE. HAZARD AREA: SUPPIENENTAL SUBSURFACE 1 AND SLOPE STABILITY AWALY. S, HORN VILLAGE SUBDIVISION ',,i' BY THOMAS SUMMER LEE. J jr RFACE INVESTIGATION y A%ALYSIS, MATTER- viSION FILING NO, 2 F E . ov KNAPP AND LEE WILLIAM H. KNAPP BYKUM C. LEE, .JR. EDWARD J. YORK, JR. ROBERT A.WEINBERGER Philip B. Cardi Mr. Steve Patterson Building Inspector Town of Vail Vail Town Offices Vail, CO 81657 Re: Bitetto Residence, Lot 22, Vail Village West, Eagle County, Colorado Dear Mr. Patterson: TELEPHONE (303) 623 -6886 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL No. P26 8279253 Return Receipt Requested I am writing at the request of my client, Douglas Bitetto, owner of the above- described lot. As you are aware, Mr. Bitetto has had a residence under construction on that lot and the construction is not completed as of this time. You have previously discussed with Mr. Bitetto the fact that there has been some movement of the soil at the south or upper end of the lot and that the edge of the steep slope is near the edge of Alpine Drive, a road to the south of Mr. Bitetto's lot. I believe that you are also aware that Mr . Bitetto has undertaken a number of engineering studies during the summer and fall of 1981 in an effort to determine some method for stabilizing the slope on the lot. After spending a considerable amount of time and money on this process, he recently obtained plans for a type of retaining system. He then obtained a construction cost estimate for the work proposed for that system. The cost of that solution is prohibitive and it will be impossible for Mr. Bitetto to undertake that work at this time. Mr. Bitetto asked that I write and inform you of this situation so that the Town of Vail can take whatever steps it deems necessary with regard to warning signs and /or other safety precautions on Alpine Drive. Thank you for your attention to this matter. WHK /bn cc: Mr. Douglas Bitetto P. 0. Box 2765 Vail, CO 81657 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1725 BLAKE STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 October 26, 1981 Very truly your William H. alp) �r! LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION STUDY BITETTO LOT (LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST FILING #1, VAIL, COLORADO) PREPARED FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL VAIL, COLORADO SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 CEA JOB# 1845.002 CLAYCOMB ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. (� - 86-7 6 SUITE 207 VILLAGE PLAZA GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION STUDY e BITETTO LOT (LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST FILING #1, VAIL, COLORADO) TABLE __OF C I. SUMMARY II. BACKGROUND III. RECOMMENDED SOLUTION IV. SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION METHODS LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 APPENDIX Topographic Map Cross Sections SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AT LANDSLIDE, VAIL VILLAGE (WEST), LOT 22, FILING 1, LINCOLN DEVORE, JULY 30, 1982. I. SUMMARY The recommended method of stabilizing the Bitetto lot landslide such that Alpine Drive can be reconstructed is to remove the existing slide material and replace it as compacted fill. Additional fill_ material_ will be added to create a 2:1 slope from the shoulder of Alpine Drive. An underdrain system must be installed to remove ground water from beneath the fill material. A section of storm sewer should be installed above the slide as well. The recommended solution should return the road to a degree of stability similar to other portions of the Highland Meadows #2 road system. A potentLi_al problem will be created downstream from the Bitetto lot as there is no suitable outfall for the subsurface drainage system. LANDSLIDE STABILIZATION STUDY II. BACKGROUND This study has been prepared at the request of the Town of Vail to recommend menthods of stabilizing the current landslide on Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, known at the Bitetto Lot, so that Alpine Drive may be repaired and returned to service. The primary concern of the Town of Vail is the repair of Alpine Drive and the replacement of the water line in Alpine Drive. The stabilization of the landslide on the Bitetto lot has been studied only as it relates to allowing the reconstruction of the road. No attempt has been made to develop or plan for providing a building site on the lot. Available records indicate that the initial movement of the slide area occured in the Spring of 1980. The movement was assumed to be the result of undercutting of the toe of the slope for the construction of a house during the 1979 construction season. The excavation for the house remained open during 1980 and 1981. A retaining wall constructed of wood cribbing was installed by the lot owner in an attempt to stabilize the inti.tial slide. In early March 1982 the slide moved sufficiently to break the 6" water main in Alpine Drive, releasing flows that were probably in excess of 1000 gallons per minute. The entire slide mass gave way on March 8, 1982, knocking a portion of the house then under construction from the foundation. It cannot be determined if a small movement of the slide initially caused a leak in the water main which saturated the slide area sufficiently to cause the major movement, or if the rapid movement occured prior to the actual break in the water main. The major slide on March 8, 1982, extended 2' to 4' into the paved area of Alpine Drive, leaving a vertical bank immediately adjacent to the street. The street has since been closed to traffic. Lincoln DeVore, soils and geotechnical engineers, have prepared a subsurface investigation at the site which is included in the appendix of this report. Several other reports have been prepared by various soils and geotechnical engineers relative to the building site and stabilizing of the slide. They have not, however, been used as the basis of this study. Since the Lincoln DeVore investigation is the only one conducted since the time of the slide, it has been used for analysis purposes. The previous reports have been used for reference only. Claycomb Engineering Associates, with the assistance of Lincoln DeVore, have also completed an area -wide study titled, "Drainage and Slope Stability Analysis, Highland Meadows and Vail Village West Subdivision ", August 17, 1982, under contract to the Town of Vail. This report should be consulted for additional background information and recommended area -wide improvements. III. RECOMMENDED SOLUTION Figure 1 is a topographic map of the Bitetto lot illsutration the extent of the slide. Cross section locations are shown on Figure 1 and are illustrated on Figure 2. Contact was made with Mr. Wolf, attorney for Mr. Bitetto, to obtain architectural drawings for the lot. Since the drawings have not yet been obtained, certain assumptions have been made on the cross section and are noted as such. The recommended solution is relatively straight forward, consisting of the following primary points: 1. All of the existing slide material is to be removed and replaced as controlled compacted fill at 95° Standard Proctor Density. Additional fill shall_ be placed on the site at 95% density to achieve a 2:1 slope from the shoulder of Alpine Drive. 2. A small gravity retaining wall of Gabion construction shall be installed at the base of the fill slope to key the new fill into the natural soils. 3. An underdrain system shall be installed beneath the fill to intercept ground water presently surfacing in the slide area. 4. Positive surface drainage should be provided on the south side of Alpine Drive through installation of an inlet and section of storm sewer. The following factors have been considered in selecting the proposed method of stabilization: 1. The entire slide mass must be removed to provide adequate support for Alpine Drive. Consideration was given to partial removal of the slide mass, but was rulecl out since excessive consolidation of the mass is anticipated if fill is placed on top of the loose slide material. Also, the current slide plane would remain in tact for possible movement. 2. Although benching of the slide will be difficult, it must be done to break up the current slippage face. 3. The installation of the subsurface drainage system is imperative. The compacted fill will be quite impervious. Significant hydrostatic forces would be expected to develop if the subdrains are not installed. Very thorough drainage around the old foundation should be installed to prevent buildup of hydrostatic forces on the wall. 4. The surface drainage system on the south side of Alpine Drive is recommended to eliminate a potential source of ground water (infiltration of surface flow into ground), and to reduce the probability of surface floe across Alpine Drive and onto the surface of the reconstructed slide area. 5. The Gabion wall at the downhill toe of the fill is intended primarily to key the new fill into the existing ground. The wall is not necessary from a theoretical standpoint for the stability of the fill slope. 6. A portion of Alpine Drive is to be removed and recompacted to assure a firm subgrade. It is anticipated that the subgrade adjacent to the slide has sagged to some extent and should be replaced. Upon completion of the backfilling, collection ditches should be constructed across the face of the fill to direct runoff to the natural swale east of the slide. The surface should be revegetated using a hydromulch system. A satisfactory disposal route for the underdrain system is not now available. The area -wide geologic hazard study by Lincoln DeVore has determined that an area of metastable slopes exists downhill from the site. Whether the flow is carried along the roadside ditch or Sierra Trail (a ditch does not exist for much of the distance), or is directed immediately downhill from the site, it must eventually flow across the metastable slope area. The only solution that is totally satisfactory from a geologic hazard point of view would be to construct a positive outfall (pipe) to Gore creek, or at least past the metastable slope areas. Any lesser solution may increase the instability of these critical slopes. IV. SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION METHODS Although the recommended solution is relatively simple, the implementation still offers some significant difficulties. The primary problem will be the tendency for the bank to cave in as the slide material is removed. A step -by -step procedure is suggested on Cross Section C -C, Figure 2, for reducing the tendency for back collapse and to minimize the danger to construction personnel and equipment. Holding vibration to minimum levels and keeping all loads off the bank areas will be essential. Additional sliding may still occur regardless of precautions taken. APPENDIX Lincoln D(A/bre 1000 West Filimi r;; St. Colorado Sr, C;oior2;' <::'907 (303) 632 -3,5 Hone Offir,, Claycomb Engineering Village Plaza, Suite 207 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 July 30, 1982 Re: Subsurface Investigation at Landslide Vail Village, Lot 22, Filing ? Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, personnel of Lincoln- DeVore have performed a site inspection and subsurface soils investigation for the above referenced property. Reports have previously been prepared for this site by various parties, which recount in greater detail the history of the slope problem on this site. Basically, the slope above the residence experienced rapid catastrophic failure on or about March 8, 1982, resulting in the distruction of the partly constructed residence and partial loss of Alpine Road, which is located at the head of the slide scarp. The cause of the failure is related primarily to detrimental effects on the slope resulting from development and construction activities. A steep cut was made at the base of the lot to pro- vide a building area, and this change in slope geometry had a serious detrimental affect on the gross stability of the slope. This type of cut would also tend to reduce the shear strength of the soil, due to reduction of confining stresses. In addition to these detrimental conditions, the onset of springtime seepage on this northf acing slope has been sufficient to induce failure. Woodward Clyde Consultants, in their March 18, 1982 letter, have speculated that the original movement of the slope laterally was fairly small, but "...probably was enough to crack or break the buried waterline that runs along the northern side of Alpine Drive. The water from that main saturated the soils, thereby reducing their strength and triggered the complete failure of the slope... ". While it would be impossible to determine whether the broken water line at Alpine Drive was the cause of the massive slope movement or was the result of this movement, the scenerio set forth by Woodward Clyde Consultants is quite plausible. In any case, the failure is relatively shallow and is believed by this writer to have been triggered ultimately by slope cuts on this site. The site and surrounding area are located on ancient slope failure complex, and the soils encountered on site are primarily a relatively unconsolidated slide debris. Golorodo Springs, Color,--k and Junction, Colorado G!enwoc Spring >, Colorado made an the Evanston, Wyoming Vail Village, Lot 22, Filing 1 July 30, 1982 Page -2- However, there is no evidence at this time of any deep seated movement above or below the site. There is no reason to believe that a similar type of slope failure would have occurred on this site had the construction cuts not been made. However, the potential for failure resulting from cuts has been exacerbated by poor drainage conditions, particularly with respect to diversion of uphill drainage from the south side of Alpine Drive. Our investigation has included site inspection and the drilling of two test borings on the site. One test boring (TH -1) was drilled on the lower portion of the site, near the toe of the failed slope. The second test boring (TH -2) was drilled in the pavement of Alpine Drive, above the head of the slide scarp. The soil profile in Test Boring No. 1 consisted of roughly 21 feet of a silty, clayey sand material, based upon Unified Classification. This material contained scattered gravel and occasional rock fragments. Below this material, a matrix of lean clay surrounding coarse rock fragments was encountered. This material extended to depths of about 25 feet, where refusal on coarse rock fragments were encountered. No evidence of any distinct slide or failure plane was encountered in this boring. The soil profile in Test Boring No. 2 was somewhat similar. The materials consisted of essentially the same silty, clayey sand, with scattered gravel sized particles, surrounding occasional cobbles and rock fraguients. Again, no evidence of any distinct failure plane was noted in Test Boring No. 2, which extended to a depth of 50 feet. However, a zone of free water, which probably represents seepage from the higher ground to the south was encountered at about 30 feet below the ground surface. This would place the water level at about elevation 8200, based upon topographic maps supplied to Lincoln- DeVore, which is roughly half the elevation difference between Alpine Drive and the existing foundation on Lot 22. The soil profile encountered in either of the test borings can be seen on the enclosed Drilling Dogs. Gradation and plasticity characteristics of the soil materials encountered are given on the enclosed Grain Size and Anaylsis Sheet and Soil Analysis Summary Sheet. We have specifically been requested to address bearing capacity and lateral equivalent fluid pressure for retaining walls and other geotechnical factors affecting the wall. The remainder of this letter will be primarily of these considerations. With regard to bearing capacity, the first condition that must be met is that foundations must extend through any recent slide debris and any fill which has been placed on the site during construction, and must rest on the underlying "undisturbed" soils. Then, assuming the footing size will be relatively large, Vail Village, Lot 2, Filing 1 July 30, 1982 Page -3- the allowable bearing capacity will become a function of the amount of movement which can be tolerated. Since this area is in an ancient slope failure complex and is an area of soil creep and other minor slope movements, it would be advisable to construct retaining structures with inherent flexibility and tolerance to movement. If. this is the case, a bearing capacity of 3000 psf maximum for retaining wall toe pressures is probably appropriate. With regard to lateral pressures, this is, of course, a function of the geometry of the wall and the backslope conditions among other factors. Assuming the retaining structure is properly drained, an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf would be appropriate for use in designing retaining walls with a level backslope. Where the retaining wall will retain a backslope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, the fluid pressure value should be increased to at least 60 pcf. Linear interpretation may be used to determine fluid pressures for backslopes between these slope angles if desired. However, we must recommend that the retaining wall not be allowed to retain a slope steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. With regard to resistance to sliding, the base friction factor may be taken as 0.45. Frequently, passive earth pressures at the toe of retaining walls are considered in determining the forces resisting sliding. However, the passive earth resistance of the toe can be removed if the toe materials are excavated, if they are removed by slope failure, or if the materials at the toe are allowed to become saturated and thereby lose strength. Therefore, we must recommend that the effect of passive earth pressure at the toe of retaining walls be neglected. Regardless of the size and type of wall used, it is important that proper drainage be maintained for the wall to function pro- perly. For this particular slope, evidence of seepage was noted on the slope and seepage moisture was encountered in Test Boring No. 2 at a depth of approximately 30 feet, which corresponds with the approximate center of the slope. Therefore, the wall itself must be well drained to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. We would recommend a granular drainage zone behind the wall to intercept seepage moisture, with a drainage pipe to collect seepage and carry it away. Additionally, the use of a relatively open face structure on the wall or the installation of numerous weep holes in the wall to provide a secondary means of removing seepage moisture is advised. At least in principle, a flexible, free draining wall configuration such as would be provided by gabions, would be ideal. In addition to subsurface drainage behind the wall itself, sur- face grading on this site will require improvement. Of special concern is the surface drainage on the south, above Alpine Road. Vail Village, Lot 2, Filing 1 July 30, 1982 Page -4- Presently, this drainage is "diverted" by a small, shallow road- side ditch on Alpine Road which is expected to turn the downhill flows 90 degrees and direct them into a partially blocked culvert. Obviously, a more positive means of controlling this drainage will be required. In the present condition, we would speculate that significant quantities of water flow across Alpine Road and on to the site itself. In addition to repair of this condition, areas on the site where concentrated flows occur or where water is allowed to stand or pond, should be corrected so that excessive erosion and saturation of the soil materials, respectively, are not allowed to occur. We understand at present that it is desired to preserve the maxi- mum available area on this site, and thereby salvage the building site and prevent further failure of Alpine Road. Barring this, some type of retaining structure is desired which will support Alpine Road at the expense of the homesite on Lot 22. In order to preserve the maximum area and salvage the homesite as well as protecting the road, some sort of tieback type wall will pro- bably be most suitable. However, the technology to properly install this type of wall is very expensive. If the homesite on Lot 22 can be sacrificed, a bulkier, flexible gravity type retaining system such as reinforced earth, Armco bins, or possibly gabions could be used. In any case, a rigid structural wall system such as a reinforced concrete cantilever wall or counter - fort retaining wall will probably not be desirable on this site. This type of wall is sensitive to movement, and it should be kept in mind that minor movements will probably occur with any type of retaining structure. Additionally, this type of wall is less easily drained than other types and, thus, *_here is a greater potential for buildup by hydrostatic pressures. We hope this letter has provided you with the information you required. Should further information or discussion be needed on any points presented in this letter or should additional infor- mation be needed, please feel free to contact Lincoln- DeVore at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN- DeVORE TESTING LAB., INC. G iy By: Robert L. Bass, P.E. Colorado Springs Office RLB /llm LD Job No. 44707 -GS cc: LDTL - Glenwood Springs LDTL - Grand Junction SPRINGS SPFRINGS Vail SPRINGS SPFRINGS 1 rhl-f /00 TEST SOAFIAIC Z 0 Coq r10,V OT z 2 - V41Z tllz- 1.4 az W2 ✓41L COLO. TEST MOLE NO- f P (ZCoMT.) TOP ELEVATION ASPN. � BASE ' Cou�PSE SC�SM S'C�✓'M� SANG SANDS ✓ERYCLAYEY� g/ /Z VERY CLAYEY /s //z S�oME R °cr 5 8/t Ty FINE s'6 ° o S /LTY F /NE /4.7i° 4S '/OoQJrE 5 Tv GOf+RSE To COARSE (D _ GRA /,vEO GRA /NED ' ' 3 SL. GiPAVELLY SL,GRAVEYL �iRA✓EL AND b l o LT. Ag owly / /j1 LT.BPOhvN CoBEtES is /iz So /9" ,10 MO /ST 63 � 1170 /ST /3.B� 10 F /RM 1 O 1 FARM %.O ° � �i _ SAME � 36 /z - 15 NAROX-e - Jo. wO SAME, :, Jo. z o ►5 _ 6 ///6N pews/ TY � W /G.PIJYEL S _ VERYA'!o /sT COBBLES - I Z/� /Z - 20 20 _ Q GRAVELS OO f. sv vo re, r S.T. _25 _ S G.PAVELLY I O .. �PEF!/S.4L 24 / �� r /7/JI SAME ' • • � • / Z � °� - 25 � � I (D + _ s —30 i i w 30 WATER O/ _ — FREE — 41 LL HAROEQ� dd _ 5 y✓ �MODERATE b� " r fiz 3 5 7o"4VY J ?1/ _ GRAVEL S� _ t —40 ' � I !Uo = � CON7' /NUEO 9.4 _ ± 40 — / — 1 a —� t 1 I _ ` L!W0 -CLN CC;_ORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS r•, e e le I. �!� %� i' ' GRE F'. SLO , GLENvY00D S✓RiNGS Q� t -` r GF ..qC JUNCTION , M014 Soil. Sarni le.__ e.4 YE� : 5 Pro jeCt L.OrZZ YA14 ✓ 1Z41q49A Mg.( Sample Locat 100 go 60 70 60 50 w 40 W U 30 20 10 0 Test Nc. 44707-a6' Date 7- i.3 - ®Z Test by G - R - ;.V L L0 Q1 D I fer- (ap) SILT TO CLAY .0- .0-31 -T I 4, *4 *1 �-. _ - -#-ICLI -,e + - i - !Non2lastic to Dias No, Sieve Size s E n g Sample 1/2 Specific GraV 3/4-- MQisture Conten-k 1 3/81- 90.0 Effective Size 9 4 10 79, -f Cu— 20 71.8 40 &E,6 Cc 100 .34, 7 2 01 0 46.0 Fineness Mz�dulus 2 t , ) 0 32.8 L.L. z2.5 OOS 18.4 - LL I j! 4 J 100 A"� r) L0 Q1 D I fer- (ap) .0- .0-31 -T I 4, *4 *1 �-. _ - -#-ICLI 4200 - Sieve No, Sieve Size s E n g Sample 1/2 Specific GraV 3/4-- MQisture Conten-k 1 3/81- 90.0 Effective Size 9 4 10 79, -f Cu— 20 71.8 40 &E,6 Cc 100 .34, 7 2 01 0 46.0 Fineness Mz�dulus 2 t , ) 0 32.8 L.L. z2.5 OOS 18.4 IIIIIIIIIIIN S,- If bLte S N 'VOREP TESr" 1N `-ORY SL000v'kRY Stir ' Soil Sample C/- 6 Location L O T Z V-4 14 V14 4A a-C A�g Boring No. Dept ZS Sample No. 44707-66' 7 , I es, Natural Water Content Specific Gravity (;—' In 1-J- ;n-sit%/ P'T SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. Passinn HYDROMETER ANAL)'SILS: Grain size - .OZOO S C) I L ANALY S i S % 3/4 1/2 4 IQ 20 67. 40 &/. 17 100 69.9 200 62.4 HYDROMETER ANAL)'SILS: Grain size - .OZOO S C) I L ANALY S i S ASTM METHOD Content w°-4?A-2 —Olo Densz! -%° pcf Z C; y 5 6 - 0 10 ie 3 r:s i-46. ` ; ti ro 9 a i n-------2/o psf —Psf I -4-'ne- unde- psf 1: Z J10 Ppor . INIC LABORATORY CCIORADO % T eX. , -_ % e t r. c -,7. n 9 —210 ASTM METHOD Content w°-4?A-2 —Olo Densz! -%° pcf Z C; y 5 6 - 0 10 ie 3 r:s i-46. ` ; ti ro 9 a i n-------2/o psf —Psf I -4-'ne- unde- psf 1: Z J10 Ppor . INIC LABORATORY CCIORADO 0 c en and associates CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS 96 SOUTH ZUNI STREET • DENVER, COLORADO 80223 • 3031744 -7105 *PAO(] �0p G=CHNICAL SITE EVALUATION LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST FILING I, EAGLE COUNTS, ODLORADO MORTER FISHER ARNOLD P.O. BOX 1186 143 EAST MEADOWS DRIVE CROSSROADS AT VAIL VAIL, ODLORADO 81657 JOB NO. 20,423 JULY 3, 1980 OFFICES: CASPER • COLORADO SPRINGS • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • SALT LAKE CITY 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCLUSIONS SITE CONDITIONS SUBSOIL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDATIONS FIG. 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY HOLES FIG. 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY HOLES FIG. 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIG. 4 - DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS FIG. 5 - SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIG. 6 - GRADNTION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1 2 3 CONCLUSIONS (1) The landslide escarpment appears stable in the short term under existing low moisture conditions. An upslope borrow ditch should be constructed to prevent runoff from entering the slide area until regrading of the slope can be performed. (2) The slide mass appears to be confined primarily within the upper portion of the slope. Development of the lower flatter portion of the site appears feasible povided special site grading procedures are followed to reduce risk of further slope movement. (3) Spread footings placed on compacted structural fill or undisturbed natural soil appear most suitable for support of the structure. Other design details and precautions for development of the site are discussed below. -2- This report presents the results of a geoterhnical site evaluation at Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, Eagle County, Colorado. The report presents a discussion of the general conditions of the landslide present on the site, recommendations for slope stabilization and foundation recommendations for a proposed residence. We previously made foundation recommendations for a residence on the lot under Job No. 18,234 dated May 14, 1979. SITE OONDITIONS The lot is located at the east end of Sierra Trail below Alpine Drive to the south. At the time of our initial site visit on May 16, 1980, the upslope extent of failure was marked by an arcuate landslide scarp. The width of the failed area was about 100 feet and extended into the adjacent Lot 15. The height of the scarp varied from approximately 5 to 15 feet. In addition to the slope failure, a small portion of the scarp in the vicinity of the fire hydrant off Alpine Drive had been eroded. Several aspen trees and a power pole were overturned by the slide. A large quantity of snow was buried in the slide mass and seepage was observed flowing from the slide debris. At the time of our last site visit on June 21, 1980, seepage was still flowing from the slide debris, although no snow was observed. The ground surface within approximately 30 to 40 feet downslope of the slide scarp consisted of loose debris. The ground surface on the remaining lower portion of the lot slopes uniformly. We understand -3- that this portion of the lot was backfilled in the fall just prior to stop of construction. As much as 20 feet of fill is suspected. Directly above the slide scarp, no tension cracks or other evidence of movement was noted. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS The subsoil conditions were investigated by drilling 2 exploratory holes at the base of the slope and 1 hole near the slide scarp. Access to the middle of the site was not possible due to slope steepness. Logs of the exploratory holes are shown on Fig. 2. In general, the subsoils consist of approximately 10 to 25 feet of medium to stiff sandy clays overlying medium dense to dense clayey sands and gravels. A 3 -foot clay fill depth was encountered at Holes 1 and 2. The upper clays exhibit moderate shear strength when dry but their strength decreases significantly when wetted. Shear strength and consolidation test results performed on the upper clays are presented on Figs. 4 and 5. Free water was encountered at depth 29 feet at the top of the slope and 20 feet at the toe of the slope. Men checked several days later water level had stabilized at approximate depths 20 and 15 feet at the top and toe of the slope, respectively. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the subsoil conditions encountered at the exploratory holes and visual observations, construction of a residence within the -4- lower portion of the site appears feasible. procedures be observed: We recommend the following (1) Potential instability of the hillside is directly related to wetting of the subsoils. The wetting increases the forces which tend to drive the hillside down slope and also decreases the strengths which hold the hill in place. As a temporary measure, until the lot can be relandscaped, we recommend a borrow ditch be constructed above the slide scarp to prevent runoff from entering the slide area. The ditch should be constructed immediately and should have a suitable outlet to the lower portion of the site. (2) The lower portion of the site within the probable building area has been backfilled to considerable depth with uncompacted fill. Removal and replacement of the material to satisfactory compaction will be required for support of any structure built in this area. The fill should be replaced compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor density (ASTM D698). (3) To reduce the risk of additional slope movement during excavation, removal and replacement of the existing fill must be performed in short reaches. Chat widths perpendicular to the hillside of about 10 feet should be anticipated. Each section should be completed in one working day. The excavation should also extend beyond the building perimeter a distance of at least 5 feet. On -site soils free of vegetation and debris can be used as structural badcf ill . (4) As evidenced by the present seepage from the hillside, the potential for ground water rise during spring runoff appears -5- relatively high at the site. Since the structure will be excavated somewhat into the hillside, the ground water path could be obstructed. If a ground water buildup did occur behind the structure, additional slope instability could result. We recommend that an interceptor drain be constructed upslope of the structure and extend through the overburden clays and into the underlying granular soils at free water level. The drain material backfill should consist of a well graded, medium to coarse sand with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain should be capped with at least 3 feet of clay soils to prevent surface moisture infiltration. A civil engineer should be engaged to design the drain. (5) The foundation system can consist of spread footings placed on compacted structural fill or natural soils designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2500 psf. Settlements should be less than 1 inch for an assumed maximum loading on the order of 4 kips per lineal foot. (6) Basement walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure. Lateral load will depend on the backfill condition and slope configuration. For on -site soils and a near horizontal backfill surface, we recommend 50 psf per foot of depth. The horizontal distance from the foundation wall should be at least 8 feet. (7) The building excavation should be kept as shallow as possible to reduce the risk of instability during grading. A stepped foundation down the hillside to create an effective slope angle (top of the upper cut to toe of lower cut) of 1 -1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter should be used. (8) Following backfilling of upslope walls, re- construction of the hillside can then proceed. At the head of the existing slide, backfill should consist primarily of clay soils similar to the on -site overburden. (9) Site grading should be designed to divert surface water around the slide area and away from the building. The surface drainage should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. (10) Foundation drains should be provided on each subsequent level due to tendencies for perched water development at times of high runoff. The drain should consist of a perforated pipe installed in a gravel filled trench placed at least 1 foot below floor slab or crawl space grade leading to suitable gravity outflow. A minimum 4 inch layer of free draining gravel should be provided beneath all slab-on -grade floors and connected to the perimeter underdrain system. (11) Evaluation of the site to date is preliminary and overall stability of the hillside will depend in part on the final building configuration and site grading. We recommend that site grading, drain details and building plans be reviewed and observation and testing of earth work be performed by a soils engineer. If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please call. CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Reviewed By David M. Jubenville, P.E. SLP /lmt Zest Hole 1 EL• 15 5 10 5 20 w w �' 25 0 0 30 est hp EL. 98 35 12 pp -12 40 '�, _200 =2 45 e 4 5/12 50 15 ,0/5 20 25 30 5/12 W 0 -19. 20/12 pp -11 13/ 12 wC =1 20/ w e -10 a pp_'107.0 29 pp - 15,5 _ -61 _ LL -28 14/ / p1 -11 0 15/ 23 w c,-15•� s►' pp -11� .2 .. _ 200;40 .a �,. LL -2'' 20/ 12 ,2600 U� 9 35 12 pp -12 40 '�, _200 =2 45 e 4 5/12 50 15 ,0/5 20 25 30 LEGEND: ® gill, sandy clay, firm. sandy to very sandy, scattered gravels, medium plastic fines, © Clay. (CL), wet' mixed brown. medium sti ff to stiff, slightly moist to Sand (SC), clayey, gravelly, medi�Lm dense, wet, brown. •• medium dense to dense, Sand and gravel (SC -GC), clayey, scattered cobbles, q� we t, brown. 0/12 indicates that 20 blows of a symbol 2 le. "Cbe sa mpler 12 inches. p Undisturbed L' g Y 50 nc required to drive the same hammer falling, inches were Indicates 1`/2" pVC Pipe` Indicates depth to free water. -----,— at which hole caved. Practical Rig Refusal. NOTES: 1980 with a 4 inch Test holes were drilled on May 2g and June 14, ( over auger. continuous flight P p l a n provided. (2) Elevations are approximate and are taken from contours on (3) WC = hater Content ( °} DD = Dry Density (pcf ) ��® 200 Sieve; _200= Percent passing LL = Liquid Limit M; pl = plasticity Index M ; UC = Enconfined Compressive Strength (�sf). 1 C HEN AND ASSOCIATE° Consulting Soil and Foundation Engineers TYPE OF SPECIMEN CALIFORNIA LINER e to Coarse 501! DESCRIPTION SANDY CLAY (Fin e n Sand with Occasios LL =28, PI =11, - 200 =61 TYPE OF TEST SATURATED, CONSOLIDATED, UNDRAIN I. -be 4 a� N s- 2 M G1 L to #20,423 TAN 0 0 210 1.4 COHESION - ksf Normal Stress - ksf CLICAD TC'Cr oCCIII TC 0.11 Horizontal Displacement (inches x 10 -2) 1 2 3 4 TEST NUMBER 1 @ 9 1 @ 9 1@ 9 LOCATION ,770 .766 •7 3 HEIGHT -INCH CIAMETER -INCH 1.944 1.944 1.9 N - 15.2 18.0 14.1 1 WA TER CONTENT DRY DENSITY - pcf 110.0 107'1 108 7 N 6 ` CONSOL. LOAD - ksf 2.0 4.0 6.0 ` L NORMAL LOAD - ksf 2.0 4.0 6.0 s SHEAR STRESS - ksf 2. 2. 95 3.7 TYPE OF SPECIMEN CALIFORNIA LINER e to Coarse 501! DESCRIPTION SANDY CLAY (Fin e n Sand with Occasios LL =28, PI =11, - 200 =61 TYPE OF TEST SATURATED, CONSOLIDATED, UNDRAIN I. -be 4 a� N s- 2 M G1 L to #20,423 TAN 0 0 210 1.4 COHESION - ksf Normal Stress - ksf CLICAD TC'Cr oCCIII TC 0.11 Horizontal Displacement (inches x 10 -2) l;H-1 ii -1 `3 0 �0 0 �1 0 L 2 a E 0 U 3 4 r, E then and associates, ins #') #20, 423 SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig_ 5 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf All k 6 M N O N 0 z 0 h W H d U O W d J OD Q Q z � d z W U cn J D N w It W } O Q O Q J LL O } c Q G G N Q V w CL r, .-, > U _ cd F-i cd ci3 O a b b4 N U r- U U • b '>� TS Cn Cn U Cn Y) F C7 O zzp J CL Cl- z (D W V ' Z Q: ^ W 4n zw° a 0 c w c) a 2 N cr J p (n Q F N Q UJ 0. X a cr > �a cr 0 4n o w x W z in _ p O O p U- w z N \.0 00 Z cr W CL N N o a a: Z 0 v D U N t� > � x O a cr W ® O H y � 07� 00 N r- N Q Y Q ' J H . e(n 00 [� l.() O [� ¢ Z a O N �( O Q � Z J W Q cr cr (n r- ,--i O \,o ►- N — Ln Ln N 0) Ol Q O 2 � x � M tq W W LA- r4 O W - j r-4 N N O x Q ^ 'Ih 2 7 2 PM 1019 Honeysuckle Rd. #37 Dothan, AL 36301 July 17, 1993 The To of Yctil Vail, CCD 81657 Gentlemen: I am the owner of iot 22, `Tail Village West, Filing 1. This was known as the Bitetto lot and >. wined notority when the then owner tried to ex- cavate a huge portion of the slope to build his home. This 'cut destabilized the -lot and eventually there was a. slide which destroyed Mr. Bitetto's partially completed home. There was a flury of litigation involving at least 17 defendants, including the Town of Vail and the County of Eagle. 'I was involved in some of that litigation representing one of the engin- eering firms During this period and as part of the settle - ment the'Town and the County both expended signi- ficant sums of money and effort to stabilize the lot, recompact it, and restore it to a buildable site. In a rather complex settlement, the engineering firm I represented ended up with the lot: It subsequently was transferred to me for overdue past fees, and I have-owned it for some time. I have placed the lot on the open market for sale as I `don't believe I will 'use it."-'j received an offer on the lot. The purchaser, having been made aware of the lot's history, contacted Mr - Bruce Lewis of Bigh Country Engin- eering, who advised- him that the lot was b8 sid = Ally' 'unbizildable. When 1 received the'`purchaser' - s letter, 1 called Mr, Lewis. He - advised me "that he had 'worked for- the engineering firm that had been hired by'the Town tostabilize and restore the lot, in his opinion, the lo t - - bould" riot be built on without - incurring major expense ° s; which would probabljr 'preclude building. He` stated that''he had 'the` drawings and -- docu_metts showing "the work that "was done for °the`Town;. = but` declined to send it ' to' me In view of the assurances and representations made as part 'of' the settlement and in quent conveyance of the lot the 'engineering' firm and "then' to me, - I need' to find out from `you exactly the situation the lot. I would appreciate receiving all information and documents that you have.` I also need to find out the basis for the County` Assessor increasing the valuation of 'the lot some $23,000 this year: Thank you for your assistance. As a person who was involved with Vail from its inception and handled the incorporation of the Town"in - 1964 I have 'always had, a'strong affinity for Vail. Sin gly your .. ; Richard Be, (As you can tell I'm not a nat f al born typist), CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BITETTO LOT LANDSLIDE IMPROVEMENTS VAIL, COLORADO Developed for the Town of Vail, Colorado JOB NO. 1345.002 NOVEMBER, 1982 Prepared By: CLAYCOMS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. SUITE 207 VILLAGE PLAZA GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 ORDINANCE #5 (Series of 1985) AN ORDr4ANM AMEAT1G CHAPTER 18.69 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE; IDENTIFYING CERTAIN AREAS WITM THE TOWN AS AREAS OF CBOLOCRC SENSITIVITY; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS; AND TO PROVIDE CERTAN REQUIREMENT'S RELATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBDIVISIONS OR BUILDING LOTS W1T1-QN AREAS OF GEOLOGIC SENSITIVITY; REPEALM CPMANCES 16 SERIES OF 1982 AND 29 SERIES OF 1982; AND PROVIDING DEFAU 1h RELATION THERETO. geec.tlon t , Section 18.69.010, Purpose, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: 18.69.010, Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which inay be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive.; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity and slopes; to minimize dama;e to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in clean-up operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. Section 2 . Section 18.69.020, Definitions, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of paragraph "H ", Geologically Sensitive Area, to read as follows: H. Geologically sensitive area means an area within the Town of Vail which may be subject to rock falls, mud flows, debris flows, debris avalanches, and unstable soil, slopes or rocks. Section 3 , . Chapter 18.69 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 18.69.035, Interpretation, to read as follows: 18.69.035, Interpretation. The provisions of this section shall be deemed to be minimum requirements. Nothing herein shall impair the obligations of or interfere with private agreements in excess of the minimum requirements. Where this chapter imposes a restriction different from that imposed by other applicable provisions of law, contract, or deed, the more restrictive provision shall control. profession t engineer, defined by C.R.S. 12 -25 -102, as amended, under the direction of and at the expense of the owner /applicant and submitted to the Department of Community Development. The extent of the site - specific geologic investigation required shall be determined by the geologist or engineer who is responsible for the investigation, however, the investigation shall be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow such expert to certify to the following: 1. For all structures other than single - family, duplex and primary /secondary dwellings, and accessory uses thereto as defined in Section 18.12.040 of this Code: a. Whether the geologic conditions are such that the site can or cannot be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations. b. Whether corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations can or cannot be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health, safety or to property due to problems related to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the hazard to other properties or structures, or to public buildings, rights -of -way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind by virtue of such construction. 2. For single - family, duplex and primary /secondary dwellings, and accessory uses thereto as defined in Section 18.12.040 of this Code, the site - specific geologic investigation shall certify to the following: a. Whether the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction o: other mitigation or alterations; or, b. That the site i s a geologically sensitive area but development will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights -of -way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. C. Following the completion of the site - specific geological investigation and its review by the Community Development Department, a development plan may be approved or a building permit may be issued as follows: -3- a • and is constructed to substantially the same dimensions as existed prior to damage or destruction, unless given approval by the Town of Vail to alter the design. F. In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems related to geologically sensitive areas, the following notice regulations and requirements are hereby adopted for all real property and structures located in geologically sensitive areas: 1. All subdivision plats recorded after the effective date of this ordinance shall identify and designate each lot and block, or portions thereof, located within any geologically sensitive areas, together with applicable sub -zone designations, by a stamp or writing in a manner providing reas,C,,_?le notice to interested parties. 2. All plans submitted after the effective date of this ordinance with the building permit application for property within said areas shall be stamped by the applicant "Geologically Sensitive Area" together with the applicable zone designation. 3. Prior to the 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 said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 4. All owners, lessors or agents who rent, lease or'sublet any structure or premises within an area of geologic sensitivity shall provide the tenant, lessee or subtenant with written notice that said property is located within said area prior to any lease being entered into or occupancy, whichever occurs first if said rental, ,Lease or sublease will extend into the period April 1, through July 1 of any year. 5. Each and every real estate agent, sales person and broker, and each and every private party who offers for sale or shows a parcel of real estate and /or structure for sale, within said area of geologic sensitivity shall provide the prospective purchaser, with written notice that said real property and /or structure is located within said area of geologic sensitivity. Furthermore, written notice shall be made in all instances -7- geologically sensitive area, but will not increase the hazard to other property or structures or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights -of -way, easements, utilities or facilities, a grading permit or building permit niay be issued. b. if the finding of the engineer or geologist performing the site - specific geoiogic investigation is that the site is a geological!-. sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered con- struction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished so that there is no increased hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights -of -way, easements, utilities or facilities, the issuance of a building or grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for correc- tive engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations as set forth in this ordinance. C. If the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing tr;= site- specific geologic investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the structure proposed because the danger posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated so that the hazard to o+ -r properties or structures will not increase from the present level or the hazard to public buildings, roads, streets, rights -of -way, easements, utilities and facilities will not increase from the present level, then the building permit or grading permit shall be denied. D. The following requirements shall pertain to the construction of any building or structure to be built in an identified or designated area of geologic sensitivity and which requires corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations to reduce the danger to public health and safety or to property due to such problems as set forth in paragraphs C.I.b. or C.2.b. above: 1. The certified site specific reports and plans required by this paragraph shall be prepared by each engineer and geologist as applicable ;;o their dreg of exr2rtise and specialty and shall certify that: a. Adequate base data as may be pertinent has been provided; b. Said base data is utilized in the design and planning of the proposed project or structure; -5- Section The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail MuniciV.: 1 Code as provided 1;i L:.:� S; i;o, aL .°Qrt u„ - right which accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any pro- vision or any ordinance previously repeaiea or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS 21st day o f _ May , 1985, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 4th day of „ June , 1985, at 7:30 p.m. the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipai Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 21st -day of May , 1985. / Paul R. Johnston, Mayor 1TTES:f ':.1 . Paigel a A Brandmeyer, TowR Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this 4th day of June 1985. Paul R. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST:' , t � Pamela A. Brandmeyer, � TcA Clerk -9- TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303- 479 -21071 FAX 303- 479 -2157 August 2, 1993 Mr. Richard E. Young 1019 Honeysuckle Road, #37 Dothan, Alabama 36301 �E: Lot 22, Vail Village West, Filing 1 ' ry Dear Mr. Young: Office of Town Attorney Your correspondence of July 17, 1993, to the Town of Vail was forwarded to me for consideration and response. I have spoken to the Director of Public Works, as well as our Director of Community Development, to become aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the Bitetto lot as they pertain to your inquiry. I am sure you must be aware that the Town of Vail expended between $200,000 and $300,000 in 1982 and 1983 in mitigating the hazard presented by this unstable lot. The lot was, and remains, stabilized. The Town of Vail has extensive records concerning the work the was completed, including drawings and documents. These items are available for your inspection here at the Town of Vail. I would suggest that you contact me so that I can make arrangements for you to review any and all records on file. Any issues concerning the increase in valuation of the lot would be properly addressed by the County Assessor. The County Assessor is located in the County Building, 500 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado 81631, 1 (303) 328 -8640. I would be more than happy to discuss these matters further with you either personally or by telephone. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very trulyyours, n R. Thomas Moorhead Town Attorney RTM/dd xc: Greg Hall,': =tan Pritz CLAYCOMB ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. January 4, 1983 Mr. Jon Eberle Town of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, CO. 81657 RE: Bitetto Lot Job No. 1845.002 Dear Jon: U+ z Z � `NG fNC VLuLt I V h f� o A "' u h 00 UNCX� The purpose of this letter is to report the present status of the Bitetto Lot Landslide Stabilization construction and the consequences of the present shutdown. With the alloted $75,000, we were able to basically complete the second construction phase as outlined in the letter addressed to you dated November 12, 1982. This $75,000 also covers the Bitetto Lot Study and engineering testing and site observation services. Actual work completed at this time is defined as follows: 1. Located existing 12" diameter CMP culvert crossing Sierra Trail cul -de -sac. 2. Installed 48" diameter manhole with grated cover at entrance end of existing culvert. 3. Constructed temporary interceptor drain in upper part of landslide where several small springs emerge. 4. Excavated and hauled off 240 truck loads (approximately 240 cu. yds.) of mud, debris and other unsuitable material from the lower portion of the landslide area mainly between the old foundation and cul -de -sac. All debris was hauled off to a dump site outside of Edwards. 5. Installed a sub - drainage system in the excavated area of the lower portion of the landslide. The gravel drain beds are enveloped with drainage fabric and tied in to the newly installed manhole via a 6" perforated flexible pipe. 6. Imported, placed and compacted to 95% of the standard proctor density 150 truckloads (approximately 1500 cu. yds.) of select backfill material, mostly between the south foundation wall and Sierra Trail cul -de -sac. The backfill material was excavated and sorted at Vail's bus maintenance facility. The actual excavation and .backfill quantities for the lower portion of the landslide area were much higher than originally calculated. We learned during the excavation process that the existing foundation stem walls are approximately twice as deep as we SUITE207 VILLAGEPLAZA GLENWOO I)SI'RINGS,COLOIIAI)O81(i0I :303 -945 -8676 -2- originally anticipated which accounts for a good share of the high cut -fill quantities. Contrary to our previous letter, we have learned that the cold weather is to our advantage and has not created any significant problems during our backfilling and compaction operations. We also feel that the freezing temperatures have actually reduced time and cost by allowing easier removal of mud and debris and enabling us to work with much steeper side slopes. Based on our experience with the cold weather construction of the lower portion of the landslide, we strongly believe that the entire stabilization project can be completed this winter, and have Alpine Drive open by spring. The actual work completed thus far has significantly reduced the potential for property and road damage along Sierra Trail from further landslides. However, a probability of additional landslides from above Alpine Road are just as great as before construction. Both Lincoln DeVore and ourselves feel that there is a very high probability that additional portions of Alpine Drive will disappear as a landslide continues to work its way uphill this spring. We estimate that it will take an additional $100,000 to stabilize the remainder of the sideslope. and rebuild the road, though this figure could vary either way depending on the actual location of the slide plain. If the site is left in its present condition, keep in mind that the cost of slope stabilization will increase over time as the slide continues to work its way uphill. Unless authorized otherwise, we have discontinued all work related to this project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CLAYCOMB ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. .0 1 M Bruce D. Lewis, P.E. Senior Engineer BDL /mm j cc: Laurence C. Rider, Esq./ Mehaffy, Rider, Windhalg and Wilson Attorneys at Law 2040 14th St., Suite 100 Boulder, CO. 80302 ME FOR: (Project Name TO: (Owner) (Address) (City) (State) GENTLEMEN: The undersigned (hereafter called the Bidder), a (corporation, , organized and /or doing business partnership or individual) under the laws of the State of hereby pro- poses and agrees to furnish all the necessary labor, materials, equipment, tools and services necessary for the completion of all work stipulated in, required by, and in accordance with, the proposed contract documents hereto attached and the plans and other documents referred to therein (as altered, amended or modified by all addenda thereto). All in accordance with the Drawings, Specifications and other Contract Documents prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc., for the sum as stated in the totals for the items bid, plus any and all sums to be added and /or deducted resulting from all extra and /or omitted work in accordance with the requirements of the General Conditions and with the unit and /or lump sum prices stated in the itemized bid form attached hereto. The undersigned has examined the location of the proposed work, the Drawings, Specifications and other Contract Documents and is familiar with the local conditions at the place where the work is to be performed. The undersigned Bidder hereby agrees to commence work under this contract on or before a date specified in the "Notice to Proceed" and to fully complete the project within consecutive calendar days thereafter. 16 4 : :.. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. General The work to be performed under this contract consists of restabilizing an existing landslide area on lot 22, Vail Village West Filing No. 1., generally known as the "Bitetto Lot ". Significant groundwater surfaces in the slide area; this water tends to saturate the entire slide mass. Nearly vertical banks exist along the perimeter of much of the slide and may cave off into the area during construction. These statements are made to notify the contractor of some of the known difficulties associated with the project. It is the intent of this contract to establish unit prices for definable portions of the work and equipment and labor rates for other portions of the work that connot be quantified for unit price purposes. The Town currently has available $75,000 for the project. These funds must cover both construction work and engineering fees. A continuous tabulation of both construction costs and engineering fees will be kept so that operations can be terminated at the $75,000 level. It is anticipated that the project cannot be completed with these funds, but that it can be carried to such a point as to reduce the probability of property damage due to slope failures that might occur next spring. The Bidder is required to examine carefully the site of the proposed work, Proposal, and Plans and Specification. He shall satisfy himself as to the character, quality, and quantities of work to be performed, materials to be furnished, and as to the requirements of these specifications. The submission of a Bid shall be evidence that the Bidder has made such an examination. 2. Bid Documents Due to the time constraints imposed by weather conditions, the Contract Documents for this project have been prepared in a very short time frame. Certain items related to the contract are still being determined. The Contractor and his bonding company are specifically notified of this situation. The drawings presently available for the project consist of the following drawings prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc.: Bitetto Lot Topographic Map, dated 9/21/82, Bitetto Lot Cross Section, dated 9/21/82 These drawings were prepared for the Landslide Stability Study, Bitetto Lot, prepared by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc., September 21, 1982. The drawings are for report or study purposes only, and not intended to represent construction drawings. The contruction drawings are presently being prepared and will be issued to the Contractor when complete. The presently available drawings are intended to illustrate the intended construction and serve as the basis for establishing unit prices and approximate quantities. -2- 3. Safety The Contractor shall be responsible for all safety and protection measures as defined in section 6.20 - 6.21 of the General Conditions. The Contractor shall notify the Engineer at any time that he feels the work site is unsafe and mutually acceptable methods of proeceeding with the construction shall be developed. The Contractor is cautioned that the use of tracked equipment or vibratory compaction equipment may increase the probability of bank caving and is therefore discouraged. Existing banks may be cut back moderately as necessary for safety reasons. Such cutting for safety reasons will be considered as cut and fill pay items. Unauthorized cutting of existing banks shall not be consedered as cut and fill pay items. 4. Liabilitv of Parties The Contractor will assume the liability normally associated with the quality of his work and his operations. Should the landslide stabilization operation prove unsatisfactory, but the Contractor has completed his work in accordance with the Contract Documents, and as directed by the Engineer, the Owner will hold the Contractor harmless for any damages resulting from the stabilization operation. Any work performed by the Contractor that is not acceptable to the engineer shall void this hold- harmless clause. 5. Work Area The Owner will obtain such agreements and /or easements as necessary to perform work on lots 21, 22 and 23, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1 and Lot 15, Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2. The Contractor is cautioned to restrict his operation to the immediate vicinity of the landslide. The cost of revegetating areas needlessly disturbed will be deducted from the Contractor's payments. The Owner will make arrangements for an approved disposal site for slide material removed from the site. If the Contractor is able to find a disposal site closer to the job site, he shall reduce the unit price for disposal of material accordingly. If the Contractor is able to sell portions of the disposed material, then the income for such sale shall be refunded to the Owner. The Contractor assumes all responsibility for sites from which he obtains fill material or dispoes of slide material that are different from those arranged by the Owner. -3- 6. Measurement and Pavment Work performed by the Contractor shall be accomplished on a time and materials basis in accordance with Article 11 of the General Conditions. Rental rates for both operating and idle time applicable to each piece of equipment the Contractor anticipates utilizing shall be given in the Bid form. Only scheduled equipment is subject to idle time when not operating. Equipment and labor shall be scheduled on a daily basis. The Contractor shall obtain the agreement of the Engineer's resident project representative prior to initiating any work for which the Contractor intends to claim Time and Materials compensation. Accurate records of all men and materials claims by the Contractor shall be approved by the Engineer's resident project representative on a daily basis. All claims for equipment, men and material not scheduled or authorized by the Engineer's Resident Project Respresentative will not be approved. Claims not approved by the Engineer's Resident Project Representative shall be resolved in accordance with Section 11 of the General Conditions. Contractor cannot claim any time once work has been terminated. 7. Construction Staking Owner will provide construction stakes establishing lines, slopes and bench marks as deemed necessary by the Engineer. These stakes and marks shall constitute the field control by and in accordance with which the Contractor shall establish other necessary controls and perform the work. The Contractor shall be responsible for the preservation of all stakes and marks, and if any of the construction stakes or marks are carelessly or willfully destroyed or disturbed by the Contractor, the cost of replacing them may be charged against him and deducted from the payment for the work. 8. Electric Power and Water The Contractor shall provide all electric power and water required for construction of the work and they shall be paid for by him. 9. Existing Utilities The size and location of underground utilities as noted on the plans is from the best information available as established from actual field observations and study of bidders and are believed to be correct; however, the Contractor must take sole responsibility for damage to any utility line encountered whether or not located on the plans. 10. Materials Furnished by Owner The Owner shall furnish no labor, no equipment, and no materials to the Contractor. It is the intention of this contract to require the Contractor to furnish all labor, materials, and equipment necessary for the complete construction of the work. 11. State and Local Laws The Contractor shall conform to all applicable State and local laws in carrying out his obligations under the contract. 12. Protection of Public and Private Property All property shall be protected from damage. Property damaged by the Contractor during the construction of the work shall be at his expense, repaired or replace and left in as good condition as found. 13. Fees and Permits The Contractor, prior to commencing own expense all the necessary fees performance of the porject work. any work, shall secure at his and permits required for the 14. Waste Materials All waste materials such as broken pipe, tree roots and other construction debris, shall be picked up and removed from the site by the Contractor. Final cleanup must be approved and accepted by the Owner before the contract may be considered complete. 15. Construction Observation At all times, representatives of the Owner, representatives of agencies affected by the construction work, and the Engineer or his representative shall have the right to enter and inspect any and all parts of the work for compliance with the plans and specifications. The Engineer shall decide any and all questions which may arise as to the quality and acceptability of the materials furnished, the work performed, the manner of performance and the rate of progress of the work. He shall decide all questions which may arise as to the interpretation of the plans and specifications, all questions as to acceptable fulfillment of the contract, and all disputes and mutual rights by the contractors, if there is more than one Contractor on the work. -5- The decision of the Engineer shall be final, and he shall have executive authority to make effective such decisions and to enforce the Contractor to carry out all orders promptly. The Contractor shall give adequate notice to all agencies performing the inspection prior to the commencing of construction. 16. Resident Project Representative Engineer may appoint a Resident Project Representative to assist in observing the performance of the work. If so appointed, the Resident Project Representative will be Engineer's Agent and will act as directed by and under the supervision of Engineer and will confer with Engineer regarding his actions. The Resident Project Representative's dealings in matters pertaining to the on -site work shall, in general, be only with Engineer and Contractor, and dealings with subcontractors shall only be through Contractor. As Engineer's Agent, the Resident Project Representative will: A. Servie as Engineer's liason with Contractor, working principally through Contractor's Superintendent and assist him in understanding the intent of the Contract Documents. B. Conduct on -site observations of the work in progress to assist Engineer in determining if the work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents and that completed work will conform to the Contract Documents. C. Report to Engineer whenever he believes that any work is unsatisfactory, faulty or defective, or does not conform to the Contract Documents, or does not meet the requirements of inspections, tests or approval required to be made or has been damaged prior to final payments; and advise Engineer when he believes work should be corrected or rejected or should be uncovered for observation, or requires special testing, inspection or approval. D. Verify that tests, equipment and systems startups and operating and maintenance instructions are conducted as required by the Contract Documents and in the presence of the required personnel, and that Contractor maintains adequate records thereof; observe, record and report to Engineer apporporate details relative to the rest procedures and startups. E. Accompany visiting inspectors representing public or other agencies having jurisdiction over the Project and report the outcome of these inspection to Engineer. F. Transmit to Contractor, Engineer's clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents. G. Consider and evaluate Contractor's suggestions for modifications in Drawings or Specifications and report them with recommendations to Engineer. H. Furnish Engineer periodic reports of progress of the work and Contractor's compliance with the approved progress schedule. I. Report immediately to Engineer upon the occurence of any accident. As Engineer's Agent, the Resident Project Representative, except upon written instructions of Engineer, will not: A. Authorize any deviation from the Contract Documents or approve any subsititute materials or equipment. B. Exceed limitations on Engineer's authority as set forth in the Contract Documents. C. Undertake any of the responsibilities of Contractor, subcontractors or Contractor's superintendent, or expedite the work. D. Advise on or issue directions relative to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction unless such is specifically called for in the Contract Documents. E. Advise on or issue directions as to safety precautions and programs in connection with the work. F. Authorize Owner to occupy the Project in whole or in part. G. Participate in specialized field or laboratory tests. 17. Insurance In conformance with the provisions of the General Conditions as to insurance policies that will be required to protect the Owner and the Contractor, the minimum amounts of the various kinds of insurance not otherwise provided for shall be as follows: Public Liability Insurance $300,000 for one person, $500,000 for one accident. Property Damage Insurance $300,000 for one accident, $250,000 for all accidents. -7- 18. Progress Payment Retainage Section 14.2 of the General Conditions is hereby amended to stipulate the amount of retainage with respect to progress payments in this Section rather than in the Agreement. The Owner shall retain ten (10 %) percent of the amount of each payment until final completion and acceptance of all work covered by the Contract Documents. 19. Liquidated Damages No liquidated damages shall be assessed due to failure to complete the Project, if such failure is due to unusually severe weather conditions for the intended Project time period of approximately November 1 to approximately December 1, and the Contractor has shown due diligence in prosecuting the work. If, in the opinion of the Engineer's Resident Project Representative, the Contractor has failed to provide adequate labor and equipment to complete the Project, the Contractor shall reimburse the Owner for the additional expense and damage for each calendar day, Sundays and holidays excluded, that the Contract remains uncompleted after the Contract completion date. It is agreed that the amount of such additional expense and damage incurred by reason of failure to complete the work is the per diem rate of $100 per day. The said amounts are hereby agreed upon as liquidated damages for the loss to the Owner because of the impracticality and extreme difficulty of fixing and ascertaining the actual damages the Owner would in such event sustain. It is expressly understood and agreed that this amount is not to be considered in the nature of a penalty, but as liquidated damages which have accrued against the Contractor; and the Owner is authorized to deduct the amount of such damages from any monies due the Contractor for work performed or material furnished under this Agreement; and the Contractor and his sureties shall be liable for any excess. 20. Qualifications of Bidders The bidder shall supply a list of equipment, operators, and supervisory personnel who shall be assigned to the Project. It is a conditions of the award of this Contract that the equipment and personnel so named are available whenever needed on the job site. 21. Character of Workers The Contractor shall employ only competent employees to do the work, and whenever the Engineer shall notify the Contractor in writing that any worker is, in his opinion, incompetent, unfaithful, disorderly or otherwise unsatisfactory, such worker shall be discharged from the work, and shall not again be employed on it except with the consent of the Engineer. 22. Performance Bond The contractor will be entitled to start work pursuant to the contract without having obtained the performance bond as required by Section 2.1 of the agreement. Contractor will however be diligent in applying for the performance bond immediately after signing contract. It is understood by the parties that the work specified by the contract is of a type which may make it impossible to obtain a performance bond. Should the contractor, after a diligent effort and show of good faith be unable to obtain a performance bond, he shall still be entitled to continue the construction in accordance to the contract documents. 23. Arbitration Article 16, Arbitration, is hereby deleted from this contract. 24. Termination of Work The Engineer's Resident Project Representative is authorized to temporarily or permanently terminate work any day or time of the day if, in his judgement, weather or site conditions prevent construction from proceeding according to specifications or in a cost - effective manner. �. ARTICLE I EARTHWORK, GRADING AND EXCAVATION 1. Description This work shall consist of excavation, disposal, or compaction of all materials encountered within the limits of the work not being removed under some other item. This work shall be performed in accordance with the specifications and in conformance with the lines, grades, thicknesses, and typical cross sections shown on the plans, or established by the Enginerr. All excavation will be unclassified unless otherwise specified. Unclassified excavation will consist of the excavation of all materials of whatever character encountered in the work. 2. Excavation The entire area occupied by the landslide debris shall be excavated down to the depth of the slide plane as determined by the Engineer in order to remove all unstable and unsuitable material. The materials to be removed shall include trees, trash, and all perishable and objectionable materials as determined by the Engineer. EXTREME CARE must be taken when excavating in order not to trigger additional land slides. The finished stripped surfaces shall be reasonably smooth and uniform in order to allow for the drainage system construction. The Contractor will be responsible for the disposal of all unsuitable material. 3. Quality of Material All backfill material shall consist of soil materials approved by the Engineer from designated borrow areas and from excavations required for other parts of the work. No brush, roots, sod, or other perishable or compressible debris shall be placed in the backfill area. No stones having maximum dimensions of 6" shall be placed in the backfill area; any such stones hauled into the backfill area shall be removed before compacting. No frozen material shall be placed in backfill. The Contractor will use fill material from the Owner's stockpile until depleted. If the Owner's stockpile is depleted, the Contractor shall be responsible for supplying additional fill material. The Owner's stockpile is located near the Town of Vail. shop. -2- 4. Placement of Backfill Materials Fill materials will be placed in accordance to the design configuration shown on the drawings in the following manner: A. The approved mixture of earth materials shall be placed in the embankment in continuous, approximately level layers having a thickness of not more than 8" before compaction (except where described under "Sub- Surface Drainage System" in the specifications). B. The distribution of materials shall be such that the embankment will be free from lenses, pockets, streaks or layers differing appreciably in texture from the surrounding material. C. The fill materials shall be compacted by means of a compactor of such size and weight that the materials will be compacted to the densities specified herein or by the Engineer as construction progresses. Extreme care must be taken during compaction not to create enough ground vibration to activate additional land slides. D. The first layer of fill material shall be spread out in a thin layer such that the combined thickness of this layer an the scarified surface shall not exceed 8" before compaction. E. If the rolled surface of any lift becomes too smooth for proper bond, it shall be adequately scarified before placement of the next lift. 5. Moisture Control The surface of the fill and the materials being placed shall be maintained at the proper moisture content. druing the placement operations. The moisture content shall be controlled in the following manner: A. Any material or surface which has dried to below the required moisture content shall be uniformly moistened, by sprinkling, before the material is compacted or before a dried surface is covered by additional fill material. B. Material having a moisture content higher than that specified by the Engineer shall be removed from the fill or allowed to dry to an acceptable condition before being compacted. C. Adjustment of moisture content will be made on the basis of determinations of moisture content made by the Engineer as construction progresses. 6. Compaction Control -3- Compaction of the fill materials shall be accomplished and controlled in the following manner: A. Each lift of fill material shall be compacted by passing the compaction roller over the entire surface of the lift the number of times required to obtain the desired density. B. The rate of placement of fill material will be adjusted as required on the basis of determinations of the in -place fill density made by the Engineer as construction progresses. The compacted fill will be tested for density throughout construction. 7. Required Compaction Prior to placement of any fill material, the Contractor must supply a representative sample of that material to the Engineer so that a Proctor Density Curve can be developed and used for field density testing. Each layer of backfill shall be compacted to 95% of standard proctor density as determined by ASTM Method D -698. Moisture contents should be with approximately 2% of optimum moisture content. ARTTrT,F 2 SUB - SURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1. General The work covered by this section of specifications shall consist of performing all operations necessary for the installation of complete and operating sub - surface drainage system. 2. Material A. Pipe shall be corrugated polyethylene tubing complying with ASTM -F -405 such as the tubing manufactured by Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. Fittings such as tees, couplings, plugs and reducers are required. B. Filter fabric shall be DuPont Typar, Style 3341 or equal. Other types of fabric must be approved by Engineer prior to placement. C. Washed filter gravel shall consist of little or no fines so that water may pass freely through. The washed filter gravel gradation must be approved by the Engineer prior to its placement. D. Drainage system - manufactured by ELJEN Development Corporation. Material shall be 12' in width. 3. Installation A. Pipe: Perforated pipe shall be installed with perforations down. All pipe shall be connected with fittings and all dead ends properly plugged. No cut -in type joints will be accepted. All pipes must have a positive minimum slope of 0.5% to allow proper drainage. B. Filter Fabric: All fabric shall be handled in a workman -like manner to avoid punctures and tears. Adjoining fabrics shall be overlapped a minimum of 6". All fabric shall be covered by 2' of fill material prior to any compaction or traffic leads. C. Washed Filter Gravel: All washed gravel shall be placed with proper depth indicated on the drawings. The gravel shall be completely wrapped by the filter fabric such that there is not any gravel exposed to the backfill material. The gravel bed shall consist of a uniform grade slightly sloping downward toward the drain pipe. The drain pipe shall be surrounded by a minimum cover of 2" of washed gravel. D. ELJEN Drainage System: This material shall be installed as recommended by the manufacturer. Adjoining sections of this materal must be overlapped 6 ". The drainage system must be covered by 2' of fill material prior to any compaction or traffic loads. -a- E. Both the gravel and ELJEN drainage systems shall be constructed as shown on the drawings or as designated by the Engineer. F. The 6" collector drain pipe is non - perforated and connects to all the 4" perforated lateral drain pipes and continues down across the cul -de -sac and daylights in a shallow drainage swale. The 6" collector drain pipe is not to be bedded with any washed gravel. Cleanouts shall be connected to the 6" collector drain at the locations indicated on the drawings or designated by the Engineer. The drain pipe shall have a minimum slope of 0.5 %. The outlet end of the 6" drain pipe shall be constructed with 10 lineal feet of 6" CMP and with an animal guard, approved by the Engineer, attached to the end. G. All portions of the drainage systems must be reviewed by the Engineer prior to placement of any over - burden. ARTICLE 33 SLOPE PROTECTION 1. SCOPE This section of the specifications will govern the furnishing of all plant, labor, equipment, appliances, materials and all incidental and appurtenant operations necessary to place a protective covering of erosion- resistant material on the slopes of embankments, dikes, or'streambanks, at culvert inlets and outlets, on bottoms and side slopes of channels, at abutment wings, at structure foundations, at other locations shown on the plans, or.as directed by the Engineer. The work shall be done in accordance with these specifications and applicable special provisions and in conformity with the lines and grades shown on the plans or established by the Engineer. The types of slope protection included in this specification are: 1.1 - Dumped Riprap, or Riprap Dumped riprap, or riprap, consists of stone or broken concrete'dumped in place on a filter blanket or prepared slope to form a well- graded mass with a minimum of voids. 1.2 - Gabions Gabions consist of mats or baskets fabricated from wire mesh, filled with stone, connected together and anchored to the slope. Details of construction may differ depending upon the degree of exposure and the service, whether used for revetment or used as a toe protection for other types of slope protection. 1.3 - Grouted Riprap Grouted riprap consists of riprap with all or part of the interstices filled with portland cement mortar. 1.4 - Concrete -Slab Riprap, or Slope Paving Concrete -slab riprap, or slope paving, consists of concrete, plain or reinforced, cast in place or precast concrete blocks. 33 -1 1.5 Filter Blanket A filter blanket consists of one or more layers of graded material placed on the underlying bank before placing the riprap in order to prevent the bank material from passing through the riprap protection. The thickness and gradation of filter blanket will be shown on the plans. 2. MATERIALS This part of the specifications deals with the quality and type of certain construction materials to be used in connection with the work, and the methods of determining their fitness for use in the project. The Engineer is authorized to reject any mate- rials which do not comply with the specifications and tests here- in established, or which do not comply with commonly accepted standards of quality whether or not included in these specifica- tions. •Any materials rejected by the Engineer shall be promptly removed from the project by the Contractor and at no additional cost to the Owner. 2.1 - Dumped Riprap, or Riprap Stone used for dumped riprap shall be hard, durable Gold- stone or rough, unhewn quarrystone, angular in shape; re- sistant to weathering and to water action; free from over- burden, spoil, shale and organic material; and shall meet the gradation requirements specified, Neither breadth nor thickness of a single stone should be less than one -third its length. Rounded stone cobbles or boulders will not be accepted unless authorized by special provisions. Broken concrete may be substituted for stone when authorized by special provisions. Shale and stone with shale seams are not acceptable. The stone shall have a specific gravity (bulk- saturated - surface -dry basis, AASHO Test T 85) of at least 2.4. The sources from which the stone will be obtained shall be selected well in advance of the time when the stone will be required in the work. The acceptability of the stone will be determined by service records and /or by suitable tests. If testing is required, suitable samples of stone shall be taken in the presence of the Engineer at least 25 days in advance of the time when the placing of riprap is expected to begin. The approval of some rock fragments from a parti- cular quarry site shall not be construed as constituting the approval of all fragments taken from that quarry. In the absence of service records, resistance to disintegra- tion from the type of exposure to which the stone will be 33-2 subjected will be determined by any or all of the following tests as stated in the special provisions: (a) When the riprap must withstand abrasive action from material transported by the stream, the abrasion test in the Los Angeles machine (AASHO Test T 96) is used, the stone shall have a percentage loss of not more than 40 after 500 revolutions. (b) In locations not subject to freezing or where the stone is exposed to salt water, the sulfate soundness test (AASHO Test T 104 for ledge rock using sodium sulphate) shall be used. Stones shall have a loss not exceeding ten percent with the sulfate test after five cycles. (c) When the freezing and thawing test (AASHO Test T 103 for ledge rock procedure A) is used as a guide to re- sistance to weathering, the stone shall have a loss not exceeding ten percent after twelve cycles of freezing and thawing. Stone shall be ganic material quirements: Size of stone 3K 2K 1K 0-1K free from overburden, spoil, shale, and or- and shall meet the following gradation re- Percent of total weight smaller than the given size not to exceed 100 80 50 10 The size of riprap called for on the plans refers to the 50 percent size (K). Each load of riprap shall be reasonably well graded from the smallest to the maximum size specified. Stones smaller than the specified ten percent size and spalls will not be permitted in an amount exceeding ten percent by weight of each load. Control of gradation will beby visual :inspection. The Con- tractor shall provide, unless exempted under the special con— ditions, two samples of rock of at least five tons each, meeting the gradation for the class specified. One sample at the construction site may be a part of the finished riprap 33 -3 covering. The other sample shall be provided at the quarry. These samples shall be used as a frequent reference for judging the gradation of the riprap supplied. Any differ- ence of opinion between the Engineer and the Contractor shall be resolved by dumping and checking the gradation of two random truckloads of stone.. Mechanical equipment, a sorting site, and labor needed to assist in checking grada- tion shall be provided by the Contractor at no additional cost to the Owner. 2.2 - Gabions Stone used for gabions shall meet the requirements of Sec- tion 2.1, except for size and gradation of stone, and as provided hereafter. Stone used shall be well graded with- in the sizes available and 90 percent, by weight, shall exceed in least dimension the wire mesh opening. The maximum size of stone shall not exceed the minimum basket dimension. Rounded stone, cobbles and boulders will be accepted for gabion fill. Wire mesh shall be galvanized woven fencing conforming to Federal Specifications QQ- 1V -461g, shall have a minimum Finish 5, Class 3 zinc galvanized coating, and shall be of the gage and dimensions shown on the plans. Ties and lacing wire shall be No. 9 gage galvanized unless otherwise speci- fied. The gabion bed shall be excavated to the width, line and grade shown on the drawings. Each gabion unit shall be tied together with its neighbor along all contacting edges to form a continuous connecting structure. All ties and connecting joints shall have the same strength as the body of the mesh. 2.3 - Grouted Riprap Grout for grouted riprap shall consist of one part portland cement and three parts of sand, thoroughly mixed with water to produce grout having a thick creamy consistency. The minimum amount of water should be used to prevent excess shrinkage of the grout after placement. The cement, sand, and mixing shall conform to the specifications for Concrete Masonry, Article 60. The stones for grouted riprap shall meet the requirements of Section 2.1, except for size and gradation. Size and gradation will be specified for each particular project or as shown on the plans. Stone shall be free of fines which prevent penetration of grout and care shall be taken in 33-4 placing the stone to keep earth or sand from filling the spaces between the stones. All fill beneath grouted rip- rap shall be compacted to 95% Proctor density. 2.4 - Concrete -Slab Riprap, or Slope Paving Concrete for concrete -slab riprap shall be Class III un- less the riprap is exposed to salt water, in which case it shall be Class IV. The slabs shall be of two types, plain concrete and reinforced. If reinforcement is speci- fied, it shall be furnished as shown on the plans. Except as modified herein, materials and construction shall con- form to specifications for Concrete Work and Reinforcing Steel, Article 51. 2.5 - Filter Blanket The filter blanket shall consist of one or more layers of gravel, crushed rock, sand, cinders, slag or other approved free - draining material of the thickness shown on the plans. The gradation of material in each layer of the filter blan- ket shall meet the requirements of the special provisions. All material comprising the filter blanket shall be com- posed of tough, durable particles, reasonably free from thin, flat and elongated pieces, and shall contain no or- ganic matter nor soft, friable particles in quantities in excess of those approved by the Engineer. 3. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Slopes to be protected by riprap shall be free of brush, trees, stumps, and other objectionable material and be dressed to a smooth surface. All soft or spongy material shall be removed to the depth shown on the plans or as directed by the Engineer and replaced with approved material. Filled areas will be compacted as specified for Earthwork, Grading and Excavation, Article 1. A toe trench as shown on the plans shall be dug and maintained until the riprap is placed. Protection for structure foundations shall be provided as early as the foundation construction permits. The area to be protected shall be cleaned of waste materials and the surfaces to be pro- tected prepared as shown on the plans. The type of riprap speci- fied will be placed in accordance with these specifications as modified by the special provisions. When shown on the plans, a filter blanket shall be placed on the prepared slope or area to be provided with foundation protection, as specified in Section 3.S, before the stone is placed. 33 -5 3.1 - Dumped Riprap Stone for riprap shall be placed on the prepared slope or area in a manner which will produce a reasonably well graded mass of stone with the minimum practicable percen- tage of voids. The entire mass of stone shall be placed so as to be in conformance with the lines, grades, and thicknesses shown on the plans. Riprap shall be placed to its full course thickness at one operation and in such a manner as to avoid displacing the underlying material. Placing of riprap in layers, or by dumping into chutes, or by similar methods likely to cause segregation will not be permitted. The larger stones shall.be well distributed and the entire mass of stone shall conform to the gradation specified in Section 2.1. All material going into riprap protection shall be so placed and distributed that there will be no large accumulations of either the larger or smaller sizes of stone. It is the intent of these specifications to produce a fair- ly compact riprap protection in which all sizes of material are placed in their proper proportions. (land placing or rearranging of individual stones by mechanical equipment may be required to the extent necessary to secure the re- sults specified. Unless otherwise authorized by the Engineer, the riprap protection shall be placed in conjunction with the con- struction of the embankment with only sufficient lag in con- struction of the riprap protection as may be necessary to allow for proper construction of the portion of the embank- ment protected and to prevent mixture of embankment and riprap. The Contractor shall-maintain the riprap protection until accepted, and any material displaced by any cause shall be replaced to the lines and grades shown on the plans at no additional cost to the Owner. When riprap and filter material are dumped under water, thicknes.,'of the layers shall be increased as shown on the plans; and methods shall be used that will minimize segre- gation. 3.2 - Gabions The plans and supplemental specifications will show details of gabions and specify the construction procedure to be used. 33 -6 3.3 - Grouted Riprap The stones shall be placed on the prepared slope substan- tially to the dimensions shown on the plans. The stones and base material shall be thoroughly moistened and any excess of fines shall be sluiced to the underside of the stone blanket prior to placing grout. The grout may be delivered to the place of final deposit by any means that will insure uniformity and prevent segre- gation of the grout. If penetration of grout is obtained by gravity flow into the interstices, the grout will be spaded or rodded into the interstices to completely fill the voids in the stone blanket. Pressure grouting shall not unseat the stones; and after placing by this method, the grout shall be spaded or rodded into the voids. Pene- tration of the grout shall be to the depth specified on the plans. When a rough surface is specified, stone shall be brushed until from one - fourth to one -half of the depth of surface stone is exposed. For a smooth surface, grout shall fill the interstices to within a 1/2 -inch of the sur- face. Weep holes shall be provided through the blanket as shown on the plans or as directed by the Engineer. Where the depth specified for grouting is in excess of 12 inches, such as cutoff walls, the riprap shall be placed in lifts of 12 inches or less and each lift shall be grouted prior to placing the next lift. The succeeding lifts shall be constructed and grouted before the grout in the previous lift has hardened. Grout shall be placed only when the temperature is above 3SoF and rising. It shall be protected from freezing and cured as specified in Concrete Work and Reinforcing Steel, Article S1. 3.4 - Concrete-Slab Riprap, or Slope Paving Slabs of the dimensions and type, plain and reinforced, shown on the plans shall be poured in place with Class III concrete unless otherwise specified. Alternate slabs shall be poured and the remaining panels shall be poured later. Unless otherwise specified, the slabs shall be laid in hori- zontal courses and successive courses shall break joints with the preceding ones. Horizontal joints shall be normal to the slope and shall be cold joints without filler. The joints extending up the slope shall be formed with 3/4 -inch 33-7 lumber, which shall be removed and the joint left open. The slabs shall be finished with a wood float. The pouring and curing shall be carried out as specified for Class III concrete in Concrete Work and Reinforcing Steel, Article 51. 3.5 - Filter Blanket When required, a filter blanket shall be placed on the pre- pared slope or area to the full specified thickness of each layer in one operation, using methods which will not cause segregation of particle sizes within the bedding. The sur- face of the finished layer should be reasonably even and free from mounds or windrows. Additional layers of filter material, when required, shall be placed in the same manner, using methods which will not cause mixture of the material in the different layers. 4. GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS The Contractor shall assume all responsibility for deductions and conclusions which may be made as to the nature of the materials to be excavated, including the difficulty of making and maintaining the required excavation, problems caused by groundwater should such be encountered, problems encountered in excavating for lines and structures, and any other difficulties which may result from the geological and physical conditions encountered at the site of the work. 5. INSPECTION Inspection by the Soils Engineer shall be during the placement and compacting operations so that lie can certify that the fill was made in accordance with the Specifications. Inspection necessary to control fill and compaction operations, including a Soils Engineer and /or compaction tests, will be at the expense of the Owner. 6. SEASONAL LIMITS No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of the previously placed fill are as specified. 33 -8 7. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT The quantity of riprap to be paid for, of specified thickness and extent, in place and accepted, shall be measured by one of the following methods as specified for the type of riprap placed. Riprap placed outside the specified limits will not be measured or paid for, and the Contractor may be required to remove and dispose of the excess riprap without cost to the Owner. 7.1 - Per Square Yard The quantity for dumped riprap, grouted riprap, and filter blanket shall be the number of square yards as computed from surface measurements parallel to the riprap surface. 7.2 - Per Cubic Yard The quantity for concrete -slab riprap and slope paving shall be the number of cubic yards obtained by measurements paral- lel to the surface and thickness measured normal to the sur- face. The quantity for gabions shall be the number of cubic yards obtained on the basis of the nominal wire basket dimen- sions. go BASIS OF PAYMENT The determined, as provided in Section 7, shall be paid for at the contract unit price per of measurement for each particular item listed in the following schedule and shown in the bid schedule, which price shall be full compensation for furnishing all materials, tools, and labor; the preparation of the subgrade; the placing of the filter blanket when required; the placing of the stone; the grouting when required; furnishing steel for rein- forced concrete -slab riprap; and all other work incidental to finished construction in accordance with these specifications. Pay Item ( ) Dumped riprap ( ) Gabions ( ) Grouted riprap ( ) Concrete -slab riprap and slope paving ( ) Filter blanket Unit of Measurement per square yard per cubic yard per square yard per cubic yard per square yard 33-9 ARTICLE 93 EXCAVATION,TRENCHING, & BACKFILLING RESIDENTIAL LINES I. CLEARING The right -of -way shall be cleared of trees, brush, rubbish and other objectionable matter as required to accomplish the work. Trees shall not be removed without prior approval of the Owner or the Engineer unless such removal is specifi- cally shown on the plans. Cleared materials shall be disposed of in areas selected by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer. II. TRENCH EXCAVATION A. General - The Contractor shall perform all excavation to the depth indicated on the drawings or specified herein. All excavations shall be made by open cut unless other- wise specified or shown. During excavation, material suitable for backfilling shall be piled in an orderly manner a sufficient distance away from the edges of trenches to avoid overloading the sides of the trench. The Contractor shall excavate in advance of the pipe laying operation only a sufficient length of trench to assure steady progress in tie installation of pipe. In public and private right -of -ways, the amount of open trench permitted shall be in accordance with requirements of the Engineer. B. Sheeting and Sho - Except where banks are cut back on a stable slope, excavation for structures and trenches shall be properly and substantially sheeted, braced, and shored, as necessary, to prevent caving or sliding, to provide protection for workmen and their work, and to pro= vid protection for existing structures and facilities. Sheeting, bracing and shoring shall be designed and built to withstand all loads that might be caused by earth move- ment or pressure, and shall be rigid, maintaining shape and position under all circumstances. The Contractor shall abide by the "Rules and Regulations Governing Excavation Work" set up by the Industrial Commission of Colorado. Where trench sheeting is left in place, such sheeting shall not be braced against the pipe, but shall be supported.in a manner which will preclude concentrated loads or horizontal thrusts on the pipe. Cross braces installed above the pipe to support sheeting may be removed after pipe embedment has been completed 93 -1 C. Trench Width - The width of the trench shall be ample or as called for on the detail to permit the pipe to be laid and jointed properly, and the backfill to be placed and compacted as specified. Trenches shall be of such extra width, when required, as will permit the convenient placing of timber supports, sheeting, and bracing, and the handling of special units as necessary. In order to prevent superimposed loads on the pipe, the maximum width shall be limited to the pipe outside diameter, plus 16 inches. This requirement shall apply from the bottom of the pipe to an elevation 12 inches above the top of the pipe. Above this elevation the trench walls may be sloped as required to obtain stable sidewalls. D. Trench Alignment - Horizontal alignment shall conform to the alignment shown on the plans and to the staking approved by the Engineer. Trench centerline shall not deviate more than six inches (6 ") from a straight line between staked points. E. Rock Excavation - Rock where encountered in the trench excavation shall be removed to a minimum depth of 4 inches (4 ") below the bottom of pipe and replaced with approved earth or granular material compacted as directed by the Engineer and as required to provide a firm foundation for the pipe. F. Removal of Unstable Materials - Wherever in excavating the trench, the bottom of the trench exposes peat, clay, quick- sand or other materials which, in the opinion of the Engineer, will not provide a satisfactory foundation for the pipe, such material shall be removed to the depth directly by the Engi- neer and the excavation backfilled to trench grade with approved earth or granular material placed and compacted in layers not more than 6 inches (6 ") in loose thickness. Back- fill material for replacement of unstable foundation material shall be obtained from sources selected by the Owner or approved by the Engineer. G. Over Depth - Trenches shall not be excavated below the depth indicated on the plans or established by the Engineer, except as authorized for special bedding or for removal of unstable material. Any over - excavation shall be backfilled with com- pacted, approved material as directed by the Engineer at no additional cost to the Owner. 93 -2 H. Blasting - The Contractor shall notify the Engineer at least 24 hours prior to any blasting. All blasting shall be done in accordance with local, county and state regu- lations governing this class of work. Any damage to per- sons or property resulting from blasting operation shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor and his surety. III. USE OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL Suitable material from required excavation Shall be used for trench backfill. Unsuitable or excess materials removed in excavation shall be wasted or mounded neatly over the pipe or spread evenly over the area adjacent to the pipe trench, except in cases where mounding would disrupt the normal use of the area. In these cases, such materials shall be removed to disposal areas selected by the Owner or approved by the Engineer. IV. PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY The Contractor shall exercise care in excavating the trench a and maintaining it so that no damage will occur to any founda- tion, structure, pole line, pipe line, or other facility be- cause of slough of slopes, or from any other casue. If, as a result of the excavation, there is disturbance of the ground such as to endanger other property, the Contractor shall imme- diately take remedial action at his own expense. No act, repre- sentation or instruction of the Engineer or his representatives shall in any way relieve the Contractor from liability for dam- ages or costs that result from trench excavation. V. UNDERG ROUND OBSTRUCTIONS The shall preserve intact any culverts, underground, conduits, or cables encountered during construction. In case any underground utilities or other structures are broken or damaged, they shall immediately be replaced in a condition at least equal to that before excavation, all at the Contractor's expense. When required by the Engineer or Owner, the Contractor shall uncover existing pipe lines or other obstructions in advance of the work so that they may be protected or to verify that design grades will provide satisfactory clearance. 93 -3 VI. MAINTENANCE OF SERVICES AND ACCESS The Contractor shall conduct the trenching operations in a manner to avoid interruption of any utility service traffic and access to public and private roads, and drives, including erection and maintenance of barricades, warning signs, lights, and temporary crossings in accordance with the requirements of the agency or owner. Each crossing of utility lines shall be located and exposed by hand digging prior to machine trenching in the vicinity of the buried line. All work at the crossing shall be carried on in accordance with the requirements of the owner of the utility. The Contractor shall be responsible for contacting the appropriate utility owner at least 48 hours in advance of doing any excavation in the vicinity of any buried line. Locations of buried lines as shown on the plans are approximate and shall not be assumed to be in the exact location. VII. EXCAVATION FOR APPURTENANCES Excavation outside the limits of the trench shall be made as required for the satisfactory installation of manholes, boxes, and other appurtenant structures. VIII. DRAINAGE The area adjacent to the pipe trench shall be graded as required to prevent the entrance of surface water into the trench. The Contractor shall provide all necessary pumping temporary trenching necessary to keep trenches dewatered. IX. BACKFILLING A. General - Prior to backfilling, all foreign materials and Z'eli shall be removed from the trench. Sheeting used by the Contractcr shall be removed just ahead of backfilling operations unless it is ordered by the Engineer to be left in place. Trenches shall not be backfilled until the pipe has been tested and the pipe installation has been approved by the Engineer, except that partial backfill between joints may be made as directed by the Engineer and as required to hold the pipe in place during testing. Backfill material shall be placed in layers of the loose thicknesses herein- after specified and compacted by methods approved by the Engineer to a density that will prevent detrimental settle- ment. Backfill material shall be the material obtained from trench excavation or from other approved sources as required to obtain material suitable for the required com- paction. Backfill material shall be free from frozen ma- terial, excessive organic material, and trash. Backfill shall be placed in a manner to prevent displacement or damaging of pipe. 93 -4 B. Lower Portion of Trench - Bedding of the pipe shall be as described in the Special Provisions Section. The backfill material shall be placed on both sides of the pipe and carefully compacted by approved methods to in- sure proper bedding under the haunces of the pipe. C. Remainder of Trench - The remainder of the trench may then be filled by any mechanical method selected by the Contractor if reasonable care is used so that no unsuit- able backfill material is used as is specified above. The Engineer may require a change in the equipment or method used if, in his opinion the methods being used by the Contractor are liable to cause damage to the pipe. The backfill from a point one foot (1') above the pipe to a line 6 inches (6 ") below the natural ground shall contain no rocks larger than 1 foot (1') in any dimension or 6 inches (6 ") less than the trench width in any dimen- sion whichever is smaller. The top 6 inches (6 ") of the trench shall be backfilled with material that matches the natural grade. Any damage resulting from backfilling shall be repaired by the Contractor at his own expense, immedi- ately upon discovery of the damage. D. Compaction of Backfill - Beneath all traveled way in roads and streets, the backfill above the bedding shall be care- fully placed and compacted. Compaction shall be by mechani- cal tamping in 8 inch maximum lifts. Compaction by "Hydro - Hammering" or by water inundation may be used when approved by the Engineer. This method will be based on the Contrac- tor's guarantee of how the work will be performed. Water for inundation must be provided and paid for by the Contrac- tor. Regardless of the method of compacting, all compaction in this Paragraph shall be 95 percent of the maximum labora- tory dry density, in accordance with ASTM Specification, Designation D698 -64T. In areas not in traveled roadway or in areas otherwise on the drawings, all backfill above the bedding shall be care- fully placed into the trench providing the depth to the bedding is no more than 4 feet (4'). The backfill shall be mounded over the trench and a loaded dump truck shall com- pact the backfill by its wheel load. No less than two passes shall be made. If the backfill is depressed below the ground surface, the depressed area shall be refilled and the truck shall make no less than two passes over the area. This pro- cess shall be continued until the backfill is level with the natural ground surface. 93 -5 When the trench depth is such that it is more than four feet (4') in depth to the top of the bedding, the back - fill shall be compacted at each four foot depth level.. E. Finishing of Backfill - Where trench crosses surfaced road- ways or drives, the surfacing shall be replaced to match the original construction, and the subgrade compacted to require- ments. In other areas, where it will not be detrimental, any remaining excavated material shall be mounded over the top of the trench and graded and rolled to present a neat and work- manlike appearance. Stones and debris shall be removed from the project right -of -way, and disposed of in areas selected by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer.. Drainage ditches and culverts shall be cleaned of all excavated material and restored to their original condition and operation. F. Maintenance of Backfill - The Contractor shall repair or remove and recompact any areas where settlement of backfill occurs and repair or replace any structures or surfacing damaged by settle - ment of backfill in accordance with the terms of the Contractor's guarantee. X. MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT Payment will be made for the work covered by this section and all costs in connection therewith shall be included in the contract price for the items to which the work pertains. Normally, trenching and backfilling costs are to be included in the sewer line construction on a linear foot basis. 93 -6 DRAINAGE AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS HIGHLAND MEADOWS AND VAIL VILLAGE WEST SUBDIVISIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES I. SUMMARY ............................... 1 -7 II. BACKGROUND ............................ 8-15 III. PREVIOUS SOILS AND GEOLOGICAL REPORTS.. 16 " IV. EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS. -20 V. EXISTING SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS.... 24 -23 24 VI. SLOPE STABILITY ........................ LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 ........... ....... .... POCKET AT BACK FIGURE 2. .... .. POCKET AT BACK FIGURE3 ..... ............................... 27 FIGURE 4 ..... ............................... 280 FIGURE 5 ..... ............................... 29 APPENDIX REPORT ON GEOLOGIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION AND SUBDIVI5IUN EVALUATION, HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISIONS AND VAIL VILLAGE WEST, AILING 1 & 2 BY LINCOLN DEVORE. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 1 DRAINAGE AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISIONS AND VAIL VILLAGE WEST SUBDIVISIONS I. SU14MARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Basis of Report This report has been prepared under contract to the Town of Vail to evaluate the current subdivision layouts, identify critical problem verify construction of planned drainage facilities, identify areas of possible high density housing, conduct additional geologic investigation and provide a cost estimate of recommended improvements for Highland Meadows, Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, Vail Village West Filing No. 1 and Vail Village TNest Filing No. 2. Extensive soils and geotechnical investigations were completed on the Highland Meadows Subdivisions as a part of their platting during the period extending from 1972 through 1978. No soils or geotechnical investigations have been located covering the Vail Village West Subdivisions. Lincoln DeVore, Soils and Geotechnical Engineers, have prepared the Preliminary Report on Geologic Hazards Investigations and Subdivision Evaluation contained in the Appendix to this report as a consultant to Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. The Lincoln DeVore report is a compilation of previous available studies and independent evaluations on the part of Lincoln DeVore. Recommended Surface and Subsurface drainage improvements and slope stabilization measures are illustrated on Claycomb Engineering Associates Figure 1, Existing and Recommended Facilities. B. Vail Village West Filing No. 1 The Preliminary Geologic Hazard Map by Lincoln DeVore illustrates that a substantial number of lots in the undeveloped portion of Vail Village West Filing No. 1 are in a metastable area where extreme caution should be taken when units are constructed. Very thoroughly designed mitigation measures will be necessary for these lots which should follow detailed geo- technical investigations of each building. The nearly vertical road cuts on Alpine Drive and Sierra Trail should be cut back at shallower slopes and /or retaining walls installed. Due to the metastable condition of much of this area, the design of the slope cut and /or walls should be very thorough, and preceded by detailed geotechnic studies. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 2 The majority of the developed lots in Vail Village West are on stable areas as indicated on the Lincoln DeVore maps. Surface drainage improvements should consist of roadside ditches, curb and gutter, or paved swales along the roads. The anticipated repaving of Gore Creek Drive should consist of total pavement section reconstruction, as the current pavement exhibits characteristics of total base failure. Hveem tests are currently being conducted by Lincoln DeVore for pavement design purposes. Subsurface drainage improvements are recommended throughout the portions of the Filing that are designated as metastable, with an outfall to Gore Creek. These drains will not, in themselves, provide stability for the area, but will provide a positive outfall for subsequent individual unit drains and retaining wall drains, while generally removing excess subsurface flow. The landslide on Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing No. 1 (Bitetto Lot) clearly illustrates the hazards associated with construction in the area when proper precaution related to slope stability are not observed. Referral to the Lincoln DeVore Hazard Map illustrates that Lot 22 is actually in one of the lower hazard zones. C. Vail Village West Filing No. 2 The Preliminary Geologic Hazard Map by Lincoln DeVore illustrates that a portion of Lots 41-43 and 45 through 50 are in a high hazard zone. Virtually all of Lot 44 is in the high hazard zone. Thq remaining lots are in a low "hazard zone. Surface drainage facilities are recommended to properly drain Gore Creek Drive, consisting of roadside ditches, curb and gutter, or paved swales. The anticipated repairing of Gore Creek Drive should consist of total pavement replacement. Construction on any lot near the metastable slope st o ld be preceded by a detailed geotechnical study and include thorough mitigating measures. Undercutting of the metastable slope could cause slides extending into the subdivisions above Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Proj. No. 1345.001 Page 3 D. Highland Meadows Several geotechnical studies have been completed on the subdivisions. These studies recommended caution in development of the area, identifying stable, metastable, and high hazard zones. Subdrainage systems were recommended by certain of the studies and considered as a condition of approval by the Colorado State Geologist and Eagle County. Only a portion of the subsurface drainage system shown on the Preliminary Plan and the Construction Plans has been installed at this time. The installed system has removed part of the subsurface flow and reduced the areas of instability to some extent. It is questionnable if the system installed is sufficient to deal with the area wide problems. Portions of the building areas (that is, areas not identified as open space) appear to impinge on high hazard zones. Reference to the Lincoln DeVore Hazard Map will illustrate the areas. It is recommended that the area wide subdrains be installed in accordance with the original plans under the direction of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer. Consideration should be given to expanding the open space designation on those lots where the high hazard zone extends outside the present open space area. Specific improvements such as reopening the inlet to the culvert on Vermont Road between Tracts B and C would also be accomplished, As- built d_r.awi ngs should be prepared of the subdrains in Highland Meadows and easements obtaine-A for the subdrains to prevent building operations cutting the subdrain lines, E. Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2 General cut -slope instability characterized by slumps and slides in the exposed cut slopes is evident throughout the second filing of Highland Meadows. All of the slump and slide areas are in locations where sub - surface flow is evident at free flowing water (springs) or saturated soil during the spring of the year. The soils and geological reports prepared during the preliminary phases of Highland Meadows Filing #2 noted that cut slopes and other construction areas.could only be considered stable when dry. Cautions about possible failures due to instability of cut and fill slopes were indicated if the areas were saturated. The only difference Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 4 between the individual reports is in the degree of the verbage indicating the extent of the hazards when soils are exposed to excess moisture. The surface drainage plan for the second filing has tended to accentuate the subsurface drainage conditions since the surface drainage pattern criss- crosses the slope as drainage is carried in the roadside ditches. This criss- crossing effect has tended to prolong the exposure of surface runoff to the subsoil, allowing mere infiltration and thereby increasing the available ground water. In addition, the surface drainage pattern has concentrated flows into sl areas while the natural drainage pattern consisted for the most part of diffuse overland flow directly to Gore Creek. In particular, at the intersection of Tahoe Drive and Alpine Drive, directly above the Bitetto property, being Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, the drainage area has been increased from a historic basin of less than five acres, to a present drainage basin of approximately 24 acres. Very few subsurface drainage facilities were installed as a part of the subdivision construction. Only a very small portion of the subdrainage for Lots 7 & 8 illustrated on the Preliminary Plan was actually installed. The facilities installed were at the location of active springs encountered during construction. It is our opinion, following review of the available soils and geological information, review of the construction drawings for the subdivisions, and site observations, that virtually all areas presently indicating instability can be arrested by proper drainage of both the surface and subsurface areas followed by corrective action such as recompaction of fills or construction of retaining walls. There is no evidence of extensive very recent landside areas within the subdivisions. The available evidence indicates that with proper area wide drainage of both the surface and subsurface, development of the majority of the lots will be possible with a degree of risk which is normally associated with typical mountainside development. Lots 7, 8 & 9 are particulary impacted by subsurface drainage at this time and installation of an area subdrain is imperative, along with very thorough individual lot geotechnical analysis, if these lots are to be developed. Lots 1 through 6 are located partially in a high hazard zone. In several instances, the building envelope Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 5 defined on the record plat extends into the area defined as high hazard on Lincoln DeVore's Preliminary Geologic Hazard Zone. In fact, these envelopes overlap, or in the case of Lot 4 are totally covered by, areas that were illustrated as high hazard zones on the original soils and geotechnical reports for the development. It is recommended that these lots be reviewed by the Town to determine if the currently defined building envelopes adequately reflect the geologic hazards of the area. F. Highland Park Highland Park is a resubdivision of Lots 26 through 42 of Highland Meadows. It is in an area that the original Geotechnical Engineer for the *:ighland Meadows Area, Robert Thompson, recommended against developing. Subsequent soils and geologic reports were more favorable to the area, with the result that platting of that portion of Highland Meadows was approved by Eagle County. The replat submittal of the area refers to the previous Geologic Reports and states that building areas are outside the high hazard zones. This replat was processed through the Town of Vail. Comparison of the Highland Park building layout on the Preliminary Plan to the Lincoln DeVore Hazard Map clearly illustrates those units that are planned, or in some cases under construction, in high hazard zones. The Town should consider submitting the Highland Park layout to the original soils and Geotechnical Engineers for review and comment. Based on the available information, the basis for approval by the Town of the proposed project may have been somewhat faulty. It certainly appears that re- siting of certain units is appropriate and possibly elimination of some units if suitable lower hazard locations are not available. A suitable surface drainage outfall from the west end of Vermont Road must also be developed. G. Area wide Co nsiderations The landslide on the Bitetto property, Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, clearly illustrates the potential for slope failures in even moderate hazard zones if construction does not follow the recommendations of qualified Geotechnical Engineers. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 6 The provisions of ordinance 16, Series of 1982 should continue to be applied to all lots in the study area. In addition, a requirement should be imposed on all future development that individual lot geotechnical reports be prepared based on analysis done during the spring of the year or the conditions of fully saturated soils should be considered for design standards. Subdrains should be required for all buildings regardless of conditions at the time of the soils analysis. It may also be appropriate to revise the wording of the ordinance to allow for designs that "float" with laterial movement as well as those that withstand laterial load. If the Town desires to consider density transfers from the present lot configuration to a group of multi- family sites, a map can be developed which illustrates the progressive degree of hazard on the site. Based on this analysis map, units could be transferred from the highest hazard area to the lowest hazard areas. Another suggestion is that a conveyance item or ordinance be enacted that requires all purchases of lots to indicate that they have been provided with copies of the geologic hazard reports and maps prior to purchase of the lots and are aware of the degree of hazard to their particular lot and subdivision. H. Application Throughout the Town of Vail The following recommendations are made to reduce the probability of future situations developing similar to those addressed by this report. 1. A statement should be added to the Final Plat verbage. to be signed by the soils and Geotechnical Engineer for the subdivision to the effect that he has reviewed the final plat and construction plans and finds them in accordance with his recommendations. 2. Similar analysis to this report may be appropriate for other portions of the Town of Vail. Eventually a comprehensive hazard map could be developed for the entire Town. The provisions of ordinance 16, Series of 1982 should then be applied to all units located in moderate to high hazard zones. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 7 3. An ordinance may be in order requiring purchases of property to indicate that they have reviewed the hazard reports and mapping applicable to a piece of property, lot, or unit. Hazard reports such as avalanche and flood plain zones should be included as well as geologic. These reports might be made available to potential purchases in a central location by the Town of Vail. 4. The requirement tht soils and geological reports be bases on the results of tests conducted in the spring of the year, or projected to conditions of saturated soils, should be applied to all areas where appropriate. A combination of factors have influenced the above recommendations. The extremely high property values of both land and improvements in the Town of Vail means that very large dollar losses may be associated with failures in hazard zones. Since purchasers of property are commonly from outside the Vail area, and often from outside the United States, they cannot be expected to be knowledgeable about the climate, geology, etc. of the area. Full disclosure of the studies by qualified people should be made available to them prior to the purchase of property. H. Qualification of this Report The Town of Vail should make it clear to all parties utilizing this report that it is not an in -depth analysis of lots on an individual basis. It is based, to a large extent, on previous work by other soils and Geological Engineers. Neither the Town or the Consultant team of Claycomb Engineering Associates and Lincoln DeVore can be responsible for individual lot conditions, the construction previously designed and constructed by others, or the development of these properties. All of the recommendations contained herein should be viewed as just that - recommendations and not construed as a requirement that the Town, or any other party, construct the facilities or follow the recommendations. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page II. BACKGROUND A. Background of This Report This report has been prepared in conformance with a contract with the Town of Vail dated July 7, 1982, which included the following primary work items: a. evaluating the existing subdivision layouts, b. identifying the critical problem areas, C. verifying the construction of drainage facilities, d. identifying areas requiring additional drainage improvements, e. identifying areas of possible high density housing, f. conducting additional geological investigations, g. preparing a report of the analysis, h. preparing a cost estimate of recommended improvements. The Scope of Work for this study was restricted primarily to Highland Meadows and Highland Meadows Filing No. 2. An initial Preliminary Draft of the Report titled "Drainage and Slope Stability Analysis, Highland Meadows Subdivisions," was submitted to the Town of Vail on July 15, 1982. The draft was intended to document initial conclusions and supply that information to involved parties such that they could respond accordingly. On July 27, 1982, a meeting was held at the Town of Vail Public Works Building to review the draft report. Those attending the meeting are noted below: John Eberle - Town of Vail Bill Andrews- Town of Vail Leroy Tobler - Contra Engineering (For KKBNA) Ralph Mock - Chen and Associates Jenna Kauer - For Tim Garton Elmer Claycomb - Claycomb Engineering Associates Ernie Freggiaro - Claycomb Engineering Associates Numerous items of additional information were made available to Claycomb Engineering Associates at this meeting. The primary outcome of the meeting was a decision by the Town of Vail to expand the Scope of Work to include Vail Village West Filings No. 1 & 2. The submittal dates for a draft version of the expanded report was set on August 10, 1982. A *review meeting date of August 13 was also established, with formal submission to the Town Council on August 17, 1982. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 9 Lincoln DeVore, Soils and Geotechnical Engineers, have worked as a Consultant to Claycomb Engineering Associates in preparation of this report. The following material was provided to Claycomb Engineering for review prior to July 8, 1982: a. Highland Meadows Construction Plans, roads, water and sewer, noted as as- builts, 21 sheets. As- builts dated 1 -5 -80. b. Highland Meadows, construction plans, roads, water and sewer, Filing 2, as- builts, 10 sheets, date of as- builts, 1 -5 -80, 1- 10 -80, 12- 16 -79, prints. C. Mylar sepia, Elliott Ranch Subdivision Plat, sheet 1. d. Mylar sepia, Highland Meadows Filing #2, Plat, 2 sheets. e. Mylar sepia, Resubdivision, Lots 29 -40, Vail Village West #2, plat, 1 sheet. f. Mylar sepia, Highland Meadows, plat, 2 sheets. g. Mylar sepia, Vail Village West, Filing #2, plat 2 sheets. h. Mylar sepia, Vail Village West, Filing #1, plat, 1 sheet. i. Mylar sepia, Matterhorn Village, Filing #1, plat,l sheet. j. Sketch plan submittal, Highland Meadows #2. k. Letter report by Terra Task to Doug Bitetto, 3 -5 -82. 1. Letter report by Woodward - Clyde, Consultants to Town of Vail, regarding Bitetto property dated 3- 18 -82. M. Preliminary Engineering Geology and Subsoil Investigation, Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing #2 by Chen and Associates, June 30, 1978. The following items were received by Claycomb Engineering Associates, 7 -8 -82. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 10 n. Highland Meadows Filing #2 topo showing Vail Village West Filing 3 roads in place, 1 = 100', 2' intervals. No date or record of who mapped. o. Vail West Ridge topo, 1" = 50', no date of flight or record of who mapped. P. Sheets, 1,2, &7 of 7, Highlands Meadows Filing #2 Preliminary Plan submittal by KKBNA. #1 Preliminary Plan #2 Utility Plan #7 Typical Cross Sections q. Sheets 2,3,4,5,6 & 11, of 11, Highland Meadows Preliminary Plan submittal by KKBNA #2 Preliminary Plan #3 Grading and Drainage Plan #4 Utility Layout #5 Landscape Plan #6 Typical Cross Sections #11 Preliminary Architecture by Harold Engstrom, AIA r. Specifications for Construction (not titled as such) Highland Meadows Filing #2, May, 1979, executed by Schmidt -Tiago Construction Company. S. Preliminary Subsoil and Geological Investigation, Vail West Filing No. 3, Chen and Associates, October 10, 1972. t. Engineering Geology, Highland Meadows, November 28, 1977, by Charles S. Robinson and Associates, Inc. without figures (Figures subsequently received). U. Geotechnical site evaluation, Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing I, Chen and Associates, July 3, 1980. s V. Daily reports by Woodward -Clyde Consultants of compaction tests and observation of base course placement and utility trench compaction in Highland Meadows Filing 2 and Highland Meadows from September 16, 1980 to November 19, 1980. W. Vail Village West, Filing #3, plat. X. Specifications for Construction (not titled as such)Highland Meadows, May, 1979, executed by Schmidt -Tiago Construction Company. Y_ Numerous items of correspondence relative subdivisions. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 11 Material received from Leroy Tobler 8 -3 -82. aa. Letter from Tobler commenting on draft report letter included map of location of subdrains in Highland Meadows and Highland Meadows Filing 2. A copy of letter to Tim Garton on 10 -31 -79 was also included. ab. Pages 2 and 3 of letter from Charles Robinson to Dave Elmore (no date as page 1 missing), relative Matterhorn Village Subdivision Filing No.2. ac. Xerox copies of large Robinson Maps, Figures 2 & 3. ad. Summerlee letter, 3- 24 -75, regarding Matterhorn Village Filing No. 2. ae. Chen and Associates daily reports, 1979. Reports numbered 1 through 81, but with numerous numbers missing, such as #3 through 21. Only numbers 22 -27, 30,34 -36, 38 & 41 are,for road compaction. All other reports are for utility trenches. Only 038 has any reference to site conditions related to roads. af. Summerlee letter, 3- 18 -75, regarding Matterhorn Village Filing No. 2. ag. Summerlee letter, 3- 12 -75, regarding Matterhorn Village Filing #2. ah. Robinson letter, 3- 19 -75, regarding Matterhorn Village Filing #2. ai. Richards Engineers letter, 4 -4 -75, regarding Matterhorn Village Filing #2. aj. Chen and Associates Preliminary Engineering Geology and Subsoil Investigation, Matterhorn Village, July 13, 1979. ak. Water and Mineral Consultants, Inc., Environmental Geology of the Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Filing No. 2, 11- 19 -73. aj. Chen letter, 7- 24 -79, regarding Vermont Road location near Station 20 +00. ak. Chen letter, 7 -3 -79, regarding waterline compaction, Highland Meadows. al. Chen letter, 6 -5 -79, regarding Vermont Road fill across Vermont Creek in Highland Meadows. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 12 am. KKBNA letter, 10 -31 -79 to Tim Garton regarding springs near Lot 24, Highland Meadows Filing #2. an. Summerlee report, Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation, Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Filing #2, November 15, 1973. ao. Summerlee, Supplemental Subsurface Investigation and Slope Stability Analysis, Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Filing No. 2, September 24, 1974. ap. Part 2, Physical Site Characteristics, Soils, Geology and Vegetation. Noted in Tobler letter of 7 -3 -82 as being "Thompson's report included in Vail Ridge Preliminary Plat Submittal." aq. Thompson letter, 12 -16 -73 to Peak One Company regarding Vail West Ridge. ar. Wright McLaughlin handwritten memo to Tom Everett, 10 -2 -80, related to utility trench compaction. as. Photographs supplied by Leroy Tobler. Alpine Drive Switi 5 -19 -80 - Looking 5 -19 -80 - Looking 10 -80 - Looking protection. 11 -80 - Closeup ::hback downhill at Lot 25. at slope failure in cut slope. at repaired slope with rock toe looking at repaired slope. Sequoia Circle and Tahoe Drive intersection 5 -19 -80 - Looking at slope failure. Alpine Road from Vermont Road 9 -10 -81 - Looking southwesterly along Alpine. Other miscellaneous information received between 7 -14 -82 and 8 -7 -82: at. Individual soils reports on Lots 26 -42, Highland Meadows, by Jerry Klug and Associates dated November 5, 1980. au. Letter from L.R. Ladwig, Colorado Geological Survey, regarding Highland Meadows, dated 1- 13 -78. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 13 ay. Robinson letter regarding Highland Meadows dated 12 -1 -77. aw. Chen letter regarding cut slope failure, Highland Meadows Filing #2, 9- 14 -79, (Alpine Drive Switchback). ax. Chen letter regarding cut slope failure adjacent to Highland Meadows Filing #2, 6 -4 -80 (Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing W. ay. Ordinance #16, series 1982, Town of Vail. az. Denton Associates, Inc. letter regarding Highland Park, dated 4- 24 -81. ba. Memorandum to Planning and Environmental Commission from Department of Community Development /Peter Patten regarding Highland Park dated 5- 14 -81. bb. Prints of Highland Park drawings, sheets 1 -24 by Denton Associates, dated 4- 27 -81. bc. Lincoln DeVore letter report, regarding Subdivision Investigation at Landslide, Vail Village (West), Lot 22, Filing 1, 7- 30 -82. bd. CTL /Thompson, Inc. letter to KKBNA dated 12 -2 -77 regarding Highland Meadows. be. Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Highland Meadows, dated 11- 23 -78. bf. Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, dated 11- 22 -78. bg. Protective Covenants, Highland Meadows, with Supplemental Planned Development Regulations. The Robert W. Thompson, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Vail West Ridge Property dated July 11, 1973, reviewed July 24, 1973, was received from Leroy Tobler at the August 13, 1982 review meeting. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 14 B. BACKGROUND OF STUDY AREA The preliminary plan for the Highland Meadows Subdivision was prepared in November of 1977 and revised in January of 1978 for submittal to the Eagle County Commissioners. The final plat was recorded in Eagle County in June of 1978. The construction plans for the project were prepared in 1978 by KKBNA. The only specifically noted date on any of the plans is June 30, 1978. A soils report is referred to by R.W. Thompson and Associates. The Engineering Geology Report was by Charles S. Robinson and Associates. Original reports refer to the development as Vail Ridge. Construction of the roads was observed and testing provided by Chen and Associates in 1979. Additional compaction testing was provided by Woodward -Clyde in 1980. The project was ultimately accepted by the Town of Vail since it had been annexed subsequent to the platting in Eagle County. The actual acceptance is dated November 19, 1981 following a lengthy checklist and corrective action by the contractor, Schmidt - Tiago. Lots 26 through 42 have subsequently been replatted as Highland Park through the Town of Vail. The Highland Meadows riling #2 Subdivision is a replat of Vail Village West Filing #3, together with a portion of the proposed Matterhorn Village Filing No. 2. The Vail Village West Filing #3 area was platted in May of 1973. The roads appear to have been rough cut prior to the time of platting which was a common practice in the early Vail Village West Subdivisions. The soils report for Vail Village West Filing #3 was prepared by Chen and Associates. Soils and geology reports for the portion of the proposed Matterhorn Village Filing #2 which became a part of Highland Meadows #2 were prepared by Water and Mineral Consultants, Thomas E. Summonlee and Charles S. Robinson. The preliminary plan for the resubdivision of Vail Village West into Highland Meadows Filing #2 was submitted to the county with a date of June 30, 1978 by KKBNA. The soils report for the replat was by Chen and Associates. The final plans for the project by KKBNA are also dated June 30, 1978. The as -built drawings for the project are dated December 1979 and January 1980. The road construction and utility trench backfill was tested by Chen and Associates in 1979. The base course placement on the road was observed and tested by Woodward -Clyde in September through November of 1980. The project was accepted by the Town of Vail, having been annexed to the Town since the time of platting in Eagle County. The approval letter is dated November 18, 1981, following a lengthy checklist and corrective action by the contractor, Schmidt - Tiago. Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, was recorded in Eagle County in 1963. Very few records exist of the subdivision planning and design, as the project pie -dates any extensive subdivision requirements in Eagle County. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 1S Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, was recorded in Eagle County in 1965 and also predated extensive subdivision requirements by Eagle County. Lots 29 through 40 were replatted in 1968. Continual problems of slope slumping and sliding, together with localized areas of road settlmenet have occurred in the second filing of Highland Meadows during the construction period and since construction was completed. The largest problem in the region surfaced on the Bitetto lot, which is Lot 22 of Vail Village West Filing #1, where a slide extends from Mr. Bitetto's lot onto Lot 15 of Highland Meadows Filing #2 and into the right -of -way and paved surface of Alpine Drive. Little evidence of cut or fill slope slumping is evident in the Highland Meadows Subdivision itself. The construction drawings for Highland Meadows indicate that an extensive subsurface drainage system was to be constructed including both separate trench drains and the installation of subdrains in all sewer trenches. The as -built drawings for the project do not indicate the actual extent of these subdrains, nor do there appear to be easements for these subdrains when they are located outside of sanitary sewer easements or the road right -of -way. Information supplied by Mr. Leroy Tobler indicates that several of the separate subdrains (not part of a sewer line) shown on the construction plans were not installed. The largest slope failure in the study area occurred on Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1. This slide, first documented in 1980, moved with devastating swiftness on March 8, 1982, knocking a partially completed house from its foundation. The approximate outline of the slide area is indicated on Figure 1. Construction cut slopes along roads in Vail Village West Filing No. 1 have been left in a near vertical configuration. Evidence of small slumps in these slopes is visible. The majority of Vail Village West Filing #2 is on the flat areas adjacent to Gore Creek and has shown little sign of recent slope failures although some structures have cut into marginally stable slopes. The condition of the asphalt on Gore Creek Drive may be considered as a total failure of a road surface. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 1G III. PREVIOUS SOILS AND GEOLOGICAL REPORTS Numerous reports have previously been prepared dealing with the subject subdivisions including the following: .... Preliminary Subsurface and Geological Investigation, Vail (Village) West Filing #3, Chen and Associates, October 10, 1972. .... Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Vail West Ridge property, R.W. Thompson, Inc. 1973. .... Environmental Geology of the Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Filing No. 2, Water and Mineral Consultants, Inc., November 19, 1973. .... Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation, Matterhorn Village Subdivision Filing No. 2, Thomas E. Summerlee, Nov. 15, 1973. .... Supplemental Subsurface Investigation and Slope Stability Analysis, Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Filing No. 2, Oct. 24, 1974. .... Engineering Geology, Highland Meadows, Charles S. Robinson and Associates, Inc. November 28, 1977. .... Preliminary Engineering Geology and Sub -soil Investigation, Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing #2, Chen and Associates, June 30, 1978. Several reports have also been prepared relative the landside of Lot 22 of Vail Village West Filing #1 as follows: ... Geotechnical Site Evaluation, Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, Chen and Associates, July 3, 1978. .... Letter report, Bitetto property Terra Task, March 5, 1982. .... Letter report, Doug Bitetto property, Woodward -Clyde Consultants, March 18th, 1982. .... Subsurface Investigation at Landside, Vail Village West, Lot 22, Filing #1, Lincoln DeVore, 7- 30 -82. Copies of some of the daily report forms by Chen and Associates for compaction testing during 1979 have been supplied. However, numerous reports are missing. Copies of daily report forms and the results of compaction tests performed by Woodward -Clyde Consultants during the construction phase through September, October and November of 1980 were also supplied. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 17 Although the individual reports vary in the specific recommendations, all reports dealing with the overall subdivision areas make similar statements relative the importance of surface and subsurface drainage as noted in the following excerpts: Chen , 1972, Page 1 "Soils have the tendency to slump when saturated. This necessitates good surface and subsurface drainage throughout the property. Page 5 "The natural soils, unconsolidated slope wash, when saturated tend to slump and move downslope. This slumping should stop when these saturated areas are drained." Page 6 "It is recommended that all cuts be kept to a minimum depth, on the order of 10 to 15 feet and no steeper than 1 1/2:1. Adequate provision should be made for surface drainage through road embankments." Robinson, 1977 "Cut slopes should be stable at 1:1 at 20 feet Page 1 height over most of the area where groundwater conditions are minimal." "Improvement of surface and subsurface drainage will improve the slope stability of much of the proposed development." Page 9 Whenever ground water is encountered in a cut, culverts or pervious blankets should be used to control infiltration into fill and to prevent sluffing of the cut. Buttressing should be considered because of slope stability problems." Page 10 "Previous blankets may be needed beneath other fills on the property if adverse groundwater conditions are encountered during construction." Chen, 1978 "If seepage is encountered in cuts, the risk of Page 7 slope instability is increased. We do not anticipate that seepage will be encountered, however, it if is, stability investigations should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut. Good surface drainage should be provided for all cuts." Summerlee,1973 "Possible lining of drainage ditches with Page 8 impervious membrances such as asphalt or concrete to prevent areas where accumulated surface water can percolate down into the subsurface soil strata. The stability of Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 18 colluvial type slopes can be drastically affected by induction of subsurface water or ground water into areas of potential slope failure planes. It is believed that subsurface drainage systems will probably be required around all structures located in colluvial soil areas." The various reports relative the Bitetto lot also clearly indicate the existence of a spring surfacing within the slide area. This serves as a graphic illustration of the accuracy of the statements concerning subsurface drainage or seepage included,in the various subdivision reports. It may be well to note that all of the reports for the subdivision soils and geology that were reviewed were conducted in the fall of the year. Therefore, the minimum subsurface water conditions were encountered during the drilling and field observation. Most reports make no specific projections of the probable conditions to be expected during the spring and early summer months when the soils are subject to extensive surface and subsurface water. The 1974 Summerlee report does include the following caution: Summerlee, 1974 Page 3 "None of the test pits encountered firm bedrock formation, although some large boulders were present within the soil. profile. Also, none of the test pits encountered the ground water table. However, the test pits were excavated during the dry summer months of the year and perched ground water tables or isolated ground water seepage springs could develop in many locations during the spring thaw and heavy run -off period." In addition to cautions about ground water, all the reports are consistent in their cautions about building designs, limiting cut and fill areas, and other general constraints. The degree of restraint varies from report to report, but the basic theme remains the same. That is, the Highland Meadows and Highland Meadows #2 Subdivisions are located on potentially unstable to metastable soils, with local small to large areas of unstable soils intermixed. The appendix of this report includes the complete Preliminary Report on Geologic Hazards Investigation and Subdivision Analysis completed by Lincoln DeVore as a part of this project for the Town of Vail. The Lincoln DeVore report deals with the specifics of soils and geology, drawing on all the previous reports available as well as field investigations and test borings by Lincoln DeVore. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 1° IV. EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS Considerable evidence of subsurface flow exists throughout the study area in the form of springs, seeps, or moist ground areas. Previous reports have mapped some of these spots, but were hampered by the fact that the studies were done during the dry time of the year. Lincoln DeVore's Preliminary Subsurface Drainage Map present a compilation of all previously mapped springs and seeps as well as springs and seeps currently visible or indicated by vegetation or other indicators. An extensive subsurface drainage system was indicated on the preliminary plan and the construction plans for Highland Meadows. The system consisted of underdrains beneath all sanitary sewers and several cross lot interceptors in areas of known high ground water. The locations of these proposed interceptor drains are shown on Claycomb Engineering Figure 1. Leroy Tobler has supplied information on the location of drains actually installed. He informed us that all the subdrains beneath the sanitary sewers were installed, but that only a small amount of separate sub drainage system has been constructed. The locations of the sub - drains as defined by Mr. Tobler are also shown on Figure 1. Mr. Tobler stated that the subdrain installed in Lots 3, 4, 45 of Highland Meadows is about 3 1/2 feet deep. This may be contracted with the recommendation by Robert Thompson in his letter of December 16, 1973 that the drain be "about 15' deep." The only subdrains called for on the preliminary plan of Filing 2 were to be along the south line of Lots 7 & 8. Mr. Tobler's information indicates that these lines were not installed. The lack of a planned subdrain system in the second filing may be due to the statement in the 1978 Chen report that "we do not anticipate that seepage will be encountered.." The current conditions, however, evidence extensive areas of seepage or subsurface flow. The fact that the field work by Chen and Associates was done in the fall of the year may explain the conclusion that little subsurface flow exists. Observations of the current conditions clearly indicate that the spring of the year conditions are considerably different than those anticipated by the soils report. Each of the previous soils reports include descriptions of the types of soils encountered and the geology of the area. The Lincoln DeVore report in the appendix reviews details of soil types, geology and specific hazard designations. The rather complex geology of the area may be summarized in simplier terms as follows. The area generally consists of a relatively thick mantle of slope wash, ancient landslide or colluvial material some 20' to 100' in depth overlaying the sandstone bedrock. The soil mantle generally consists of a sandy, 2roj. No. 1845.001 Page 20 silty clay with intermixed gravels to boulder size rock fragments. Surface moisture infiltrates into the soil mantle and migrates gradually down the slopes. The north facing slopes accumulate very large snow packs during the winter months which are released gradually through spring snowmelt. A significant portion of this water soaks into the soil layer and migrates down the mountain side. As a result, the surficial soils are commonly saturated throughout the spring and early summer months. Since the soils have a limited transmissibility, a considerable period of time is necessary for underground flow to move from the upper mountain areas to the location of Gore Creek. Therefore, the period of saturation extends well beyond the snowmelt season. The occurrence of springs simply indicates a location where a relatively pervious, strata of soil surfaces. The condition discussed in the previous paragraph is totally natural to the area P.nd will continue to occur until steps are taken to counteract the natural phenomena. The installation of subdrains in the Highland Meadows Subdivision have apparently accomplished this end in some locations. Similar measures should be taken in Highland Meadows Filing #2 if the continual slumping and sliding of cut slopes and fill slopes is to be reduced. As noted in the soils reports, so long as the soils are subject to saturation, slumping and sliding may be expected to continue to occur. The conditions previously identified in the Highland Meadows subdivisions extend on into the upper portions of Vail Village West, Filing No. 1 & 2, along Alpine Drive and Sierra Trail. The slope failure on Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, clearly illustrates the potential problem. Available geologic information indicates that a similar event could occur on other lots in upper Vail Village West Filing No. 1 & 2 if a steep cut is opened. Proj. No. 1845.001 Paqe 21 V. EXISTING SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The historic natural drainage pattern for the study area consisted of diffuse overland flow with minimum concentration of drainage basins throughout the majority of the site. This drainage pattern is clearly indicated by inspection of topographic maps. Only one larger drainage basin through Highland Meadows, traversing Tracts A and B, has a well defined valley section with concentrated flow. Dense vegetation consisting of spruce and aspen along with dense undergrowth serve to retard the surface flow, allowing a significant amount of infiltration and controlling erosion. Construction of the road system in the Highland Meadows Subdivisions has served to intercept the diffuse overland flow and convey it to specific culvert locations as illustrated on Figure 3. Areas that historically, based on topographic map interpretation, had just a few acres of tributary drainage basin, now have large tributary basins. Specific examples are the intersection of Alpine Drive and Tahoe Drive in Filing #2 where 24 acres are presently tributary to a point that historically had a drainage basin of three or four acres. The culvert beneath Vermont Road at Lot 1 in Highland Meadows Filing #2 has a current drainage basin of 80 acres while the historic basin was approximately 5 acres. No specific drainage facilities were constructed as a part of the Vail Village West Filing #3 plat. A 1" =100', 2' contour interval map showing the rough cut roads prior to construction of Highland Meadows #2 does not show any roadside ditches along most of the rough cut roads. The rough cut roads allowed much of the surface flow to cross over the roads, therefore having little affect on the natural drainage pattern. The preliminary plat for Highland Meadows Filing #2 indicated roadside ditches capturing flows along the road system and culverts discharging those flows into Vail Village West Filing #1 and 2. The final construction plans and actual constructed facilities eliminated two of the culverts shown on the Preliminary Plan, thereby concentrating 80 acres of basin to the culvert beneath Vermont Road at Lot 1. It appears that this may have been done since no easements or adequate facilities existed through Vail Village West Filing #1 and 2 to accommodate flows from the upstream areas. The result of the drainage facilities constructed in Highland Meadows Filing #2 has been to concentrate the flows in areas not previously subject to such quantities. Surface drainage facilities such as culverts are nominally adequate to carry the 100 year flow. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 22 The affect of concentrating runoff into areas differing from the historic routes has a substantial impact on the subsurface flows. Areas which were previously subject to a relatively small drainage basin to replenish underground flows experience continual wetting. Springs may be expected to appear where they were not previously evident. Previously stable areas may become unstabledue to additional moisture. The concentration of flow to the intersection of Alpine Drive and Tahoe Drive may very well be a contributing factor to the Bitetto lot landside. Road subgrades are continuously saturated when roadside drainage ditches traverse long sections of hillside without culverts to remove the surface flows. This may contribute to fill slope instability. The Highland Meadows Filing #2 surface drainage system has reduced the surface drainage problems through Vail Village West Filings #1 & 2 by reducing the offsite tributary basins. The historic natural drainage that entered the Vail Village West filings all along their south boundaries has been intercepted and conveyed to the single culvert under Vermont Road at Lot 1. Only scattered sections of roadside ditch exist through the Vail Village West subdivisions and few culverts exist beneath driveways. Two culverts, as illustrated on Figure 3, carry flow accumulated in the ditches beneath Gore Creek Drive. Most areas flow directly across Gore Creek Drive or Alpine Drive to Gore Creek. Localized flooding may result when flow crossing a street at a random point encounters a house. Adequate surface drainage for both Vail Village West Filings can be provided if the roadside ditch system is improved and culverts installed at driveways. The quantities of flow are small enough that improved ditches, paved swales along the sides of the roads or curb and guttered sections would also be adequate to carry flows to the culverts beneath Gore Creek Drive. Consideration has been given to bringing the flow from the intersection of Alpine Drive and Tahoe Drive through Vail Village West Filing No. 1. This alternative has been ruled out due to lack of easements, topographic constraints, and the geologic hazard of the upper portion of Filing No. 1. A culvert should be extended along the lot line between Lots 47 and 48 of the 2nd Filing to intercept flow from the culvert beneath Alpine Drive at Vermont Road. Flows for the 10 year (10% probability) and the 100 year (1% probability) return period storm events have been calculated by Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. and are shown on Figure 3. The flows were calculated utilizing the Soil Conservation Service method for rainfall derived events and snowmelt flows were calculated based on gauge record analysis in the high mountain Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 23 area of Colorado and the procedures presented in the U.S. Geological Survey publication Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States, Part 9, Colorado River Basin. A table on Figure 1 shows the calculated capacity of the existing culverts and the calculated 10 year and 100 year flows. The surface runoff control facilities recommended by Claycomb Engineering Associates are illustrated on Figure 1. Improvements to minimize the concentration of flows and return flows as nearly as possible to historic drainage routes are normally recommended by our staff. However, extensive acquisition of easements and construction of drainage facilities through Vail Village West 1 and 2 would be required since none now exist. Due to these limitations, an alternate solution consisting of a combination storm sewer /underdrain from the vicinity of the Alpine Drive and Tahoe Drive intersection to the present culvert at Lot 1 on Vermont Road is recommended. By laying the storm drain in a gravel medium it will serve the dual purpose of a storm sewer and an underdrain along with a subdrain pipe. The surface drainage facilities through Highland Meadows are generally satisfactory. Less extensive concentration of flows has occured in Highland Meadows than in the 2nd filing. A well defined natural channel serves as an outlet for much of the area. This natural channel traverses the core of the Streamside development. The final details of grading around the Streamside project will be very important to prevent possible damage from this large drainage basin. The inlet to the culvert in Tract C beneath Vermont Road must be exposed as it is now covered with trash and fill material that appears to have been removed from the construction sites. This trash and spoils should be cleaned out of the road fill area and the fill revegetatec?. A satisfactory drainage path and facilities, together with appropriate easements, is needed from the west end of Vermont Road to Gore Creek. Runoff from the west end of Vermont Road flows into the Elliott Ranch Subdivision and has previoulsy done damage in the area. The location of Elliott Ranch Subdivision was shown as National Forest on the preliminary plat and no provisions for offsite drainage were provided. General overlot drainage improvements should be made in the area of lots 12, 13, 15 and 16. Proj. No. 1845.001 Page 24 VI. SLOPE STABILITY The Lincoln DeVore report contained in the appendix deals extensively with slope stability in the study area. The Preliminary Geologic Map, Preliminary Subsurface Drainage Map and Preliminary Geologic Hazards Map indicate the combined results of the studies by previous soils and geological engineers and the independent observations by Lincoln DeVore. By super imposing these maps onto Claycomb Engineering's Figure 1, Existing and Recommended Facilities, the extent of impact by each geologic feature may be observed on the building envelope areas and on existing structures. (The existing structures shown are only those illustrated on available topographic maps and do not represent all existing structures.) The primary conclusions of the Lincoln DeVore study and the work done by Claycomb Engineering Associates may be summarized as follow: 1) The majority of the Highland Meadows Subdivisions and a substantial portion of the Vail Village West subdivision are located on potentially unstable to meta- stable soils. 2) Most areas are subject to slope instability if excess subsurface flow exists. 3) Lots 10 -14, 22 -28, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 48 and 49 in Vail Village West Filing No. 1 and lots 42 -50 in Vail Village West Filing No. 2 are all in an area designated by Lincoln DeVore as metastable where extreme caution should be exercised in design of buildings. The provisions of Ordinance 16, Series of 1982 should continue to apply to these lots, with very thorough design of mitigation measures required. 4) Cut slopes into the steep hillside at the back of Lots 41 through 50 in Vail Village West Filing No. 2 and Lots 46 -48 in Filing No. 1 should be avoided or even prohibited. Existing cut slopes, such as those on Lots 41, 42 and 43, Vail Village West #2, should be carefully monitored for signs of failure. 5) Fill slope movement is evident along much of Alpine Drive, Tahoe Drive and Sequoia Drive in the form of longitudial cracks appearing in pavement surfaces less than 2 years old. The area wide subdrainage system recommended may Proj. No. 1845.001 Page reduce future movement to acceptable limits, except at the Alpine Drive Switchback. Removal and recompaction of the fill in the Switchback area is recommended along with subsurface drainage measures. The magnitude of movement of other fill slopes should be monitored by setting reference points in the asphalt and surveying their location at intervals. 6) Cut slope failures in the form of slumps or slides are evident at the Alpine Drive Switchback, the Sequoia Drive cul -de -sac, the Tahoe Drive /Sequoia Drive intersection and on Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing No. 1. Excess ground water is evident in each failure area. Following the installation of area wide subdrainage facilities, these areas should be repaired and monitored for evidence of movement. If movement persists, then installation of retaining walls is suggested. Treatment of Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing No. 1 is treated by a separate report. 7) Significant portions of Highland Meadows, Highland Meadows #2 and Hyland Park are with areas defined by Lincoln DeVore as possible solifluction zones which are a form of soil creep. Only a portion of the area wide subdrainage called for on the construction plans has been installed in this area. The existing installed system may not be sufficient to arrest this area wide movement to acceptable limits. 8) The degrees of stability of all of the study area is discussed in the Lincoln DeVore Report. 9) The stability condition of virtually all slopes may be summarized as follows: existing slopes and moderate height cut areas at slopes less than 1 1/2:1 and moderate height fill areas at slopes less than 1 1/2:1 will remain generally stable if excess subsurface flow does not exist. This statement is based on the assumption of proper initial construction. Excess subsurface flow may render any of the above mentioned slopes unstable. 10) The existing near vertical cut slopes on Alpine Drive and Sierra Trail in Vail Village West Filing 1 should be considered unstable. Corrective action should be taken consisting of cutting the slopes back at 2:1 and /or installing retaining walls. The slopes along Alpine Drive are of particular concern, as they exist in an area mapped as metastable by Lincoln DeVore. N Proj . No. 1£345.001 Page 26 11) A system of underdrains throughout Highland Meadows Filing #2 and Vail Village West Filing 1 is recommended, along with completing the underdrain system proposed for Highland Meadows and adding some additional drains. Not only will these drains serve to intercept subsurface flow throughout the area, but they will serve as the outlet for individual building subdrains. It should be a requirement that all building subdrains be connected to the centra subdrain system and that all roof and site drainage systems be connected to the area wide surface drainage system. Otherwise, water collected by an individual 'building system will be released on the ground surface to re -enter the ground water cycle. The recommended sytem is illustrated on Claycomb Engineering Associates, Figure 1, Existing and Recommended Facilities. 12. A surface drainage system that removes surface runoff from roadside ditches to minimize saturation of road fills i�, recommended. This system will both serve as a portion of the subdrain system and the surface runoff system. The recommended facilities are illustrated on Claycomb Engineering Associates Figure 1, Existing and Recommended Facilities. 13. Some localized slumping and raveling of slopes should still be expected even after installation of the subdrain system recommended in this report. This will occur during the actual spring snowmelt period and during rainstorms. The only adverse effect expected from these occurrences would be accumulation of soil in the ditches. If such accumulations are objectionable (that is, of such quanity that a normal good ditch cleaning program does not suffice) then small retaining walls such as shown in Figure 5 may be installed. These walls would actually be to catch debris and sloughing from the slopes, rather than true retaining walls. BASIN AREA Q(10) 1 24 acres 1.5 cfs 2 io 0.6 3 44 2 .6 1+2+3 78 4 .7 4 4.6 0.3 5 11 0.7 6 350 21 7 8 0.5 8 27 1.6 9 17 1.7 10 8 0.8 11 5 0.5 BASIN AREA j J Q (1(� 3 . O� ' — , 1.3 5 * 6 9.3 / ` \\ �� 0. 6 1 ) . 31 : 0 7.8 3.7 r - 2.3 �,, �r l�, '� � � �-- ;�./7. �J.Er Ef��GR -EEK �- - = __ _ -- _ __- r - 7 - T T - -A I, T Gi _ERHO�' - RESERVOIR -TRIBUTARY DRAINAG _s - BASINS l �\ FIGURE 3 E 1845.001 'OB /8¢5.00/ TD '. "h` O F CLAYCOMB ENGINEERING ASS0 `\TES, INC. Suite 207 Village Pia. GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945 -8676 SHEET NO. FIG OR F OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY SCALE / "= 20' NOR- IZ DATE / "= /O' VERT. 0 w N FORM 204 -1 Available from 1 5ei inc.. Groton. Mass. 01450 Z Q FORM 204 -1 Available from 1 5ei inc.. Groton. Mass. 01450 EXISTING CUT SLOPE THAT IS EXPERIENCING MINOR S URFI CIAL SLUMPING - RAILROAD TIE MINOR RETAINING WALL TO RETARD SLOUGHING /INTO DITCH MAX HEIGHT 2' N - TIE BAC KS N FOR RAILROAD TIE WALL 1 R J!/2 ROCK FILL WITH FILTER FABRIC ON TOP. TYPICAL DETAIL RAILROAD TIE MINOR RETAINING WALL TO INTERCEPT SLOUGHING CAUTION: - THIS IS NOT A RETAINING WALL TO HOLD THE SLOPE, IT IS A STRUCTURE TO INTERCEPT SURFICIAL SLOUGHING BEFORE IT ENTERS ROADSIDE DITCH. FIGURE 5 7 -14 -82 2° IE WO IN Lincoln DeVore Lincoln DeVore 1 000 Wes' F; ; r c; r �- �- colorac") Svin", Coloraj,� 3090 Ho -'e Office August 16, 1982 Claycomb Engineering Village Plaza, Suite 20 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attn: Mr. Elmer Claycomb Re: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION & SUBDIVISION EVALUATION HIGHLAND PARK SUBDIVISION HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISIONS & VAIL VILLAGE WEST, FILINGS 1 & 2 WEST VAIL, COLORADO Dear Mr. Claycomb: The following presents the results of a Geologic Hazards Investigation and subdivision evaluation for Highland Park, Highland Meadows and Highland meadows Filing No. 2, and Vail Village West Filings 1 and 2, in West Vail, Colorado. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LAB., INC. r By. Jo W mmelre ,1 Pro6essional GeolQgls ES&�, Reviewed by Mattin F. Ess—igmann, P. E. v 2 j WHj ' /I lm ' /h e h CC �,DT - Grane .7unct` on LDTL - Gienwoou S--- Col,,rodc Sprinq , 7- - -3 T ?-ABLE OF CONTENTS Page Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents Table of Figures INTRODUCTION 1 GEOLOGIC SETTING 4 Bedrock 5 Minturn Formation 4 Surficial Deposits 7 Debris Slide 7 Glacial Moraine 8 Terrace Deposits 9 Alluvial Fan Deposits 10 Colluvium & Slope Wash Deposits 10 Landslide Deposits 11 Solifluction 12 Recent Alluvium 13 Recent Slumps 13 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 16 Slope Stability 16 Subsurface Drainage 17 Soils Hazards 20 Debris Flows 21 Seismic Risk 21 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS DESIGNATIONS 22 Hazard Area 7 22 Hazard Area 6 22 Hazard Area 5 23 Hazard Area 4S 23 Hazard Area 4G 24 Hazard Area 4 24 Hazard Area 3G 25 Hazard Area 3 25 Hazard Area 3A 25 Hazard Area 2G 26 UNSTABLE FILL SLOPES 27 SUBDIVISION EVALUATION 29 Critical Areas 33 MITIGATION 37 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location Diagram Figure 2 - Geologic Map (]n Docket) Figure 3 - Geologic Hazards Map (in pocket) Figure 4 - Subsurface Drainage Map (in pocket) Figures 5 T, & B - Drilling Logs Figures 5 A & B - Soil Summary Sheets INTRODUCTION The ollovaing presents results of a geologic investigation and subdivision analysis of Highland Park, Highland Meadows, Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, and Vail Vill d?e West Filings 1 and 2, in West Vail, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to identify geologic hazards and potential geologic hazards on the sites, to review and address the existing subdivisions compatibility with the geologic setting, to identify general soil conditions on the subdivisions, and to character:;.ze those areas which possess subsurface drainage problems. Genera. recommendations to mitigate identified hazards are also included within this report. Information included in this report was gathered from 1) review of published literature which covers the site region, 2) review of previous geologic and soils inves- tigations of the subject subdivisions, 3) a geologic reconnais- sance and mapping of the site geology and geologic hazards, 4) the excavation of six exploratory test holes, 5) interpretation of high altitude aerial photographs, and 6) interpretation and analysis. The field mapping for this study was conducted from the period of June 25, 1982 to August 4, 1982. The test holes drilled as part of this investigation were drilled on July 29, 1982. At the time of writing this report, the following maps, references and reports were avaiiabl.e for our review. 1) Maps accompanying the =irk =tch plan sS ib?r.it a ., Highland Meadows No. 2. 31 2) ±_!attar report y Terra %ISls �oUq �it °_ttap 2. 3) .Netter reporIC by Woodw 1 _v_e Co:t7sult to City o{ Vail, 1 � r gars; ..�� h __..r. �p - w °_L_'i.aa �, __ ;a i tuLL ;3: v.b - i'hl7a �i a n, _. [.,C� '�. 1 Associates, 6/30,, n - - 1 g V ' to p c c,- a p h u o w, a 7 3, roug' f oa6 cuts, Scal a nc 1 fl e t- 2 7 0 0 t C r, t o ul n t e r v a I S No C!ate r i-f who mapped. J 0 - an 4 1 c .-1 L a p-re ii-ittinar,7 Subs -I d eolog'cal TnvestigatLn,Y 4 e s t , Fi No. 3 Subdivision, by Chen & Associat 1 0/ 1 0;'7 2. 11 '1/28/7 by Char l— as 7 Engjineeri Geology of Highland Meadows, I S. Roloinson an3 Associates Inc. 8) Gectechnical , 3i+- , Q- Evaluation, Lot 22, Vail Village West, "Piling L ', Chen & Associates, 7/3/80. 9) Dally reports by Woodward Clyde Consultants of compaction tests an6 observation of basecourse placement in Highland Meadows Filing 2, an' road fill construction in H Meadows from September 10 - !980 to November 19, 1980. Problem list prepaid by representatives of the City of Vail-, no date or author (mapped attached). For T ,1) pepolrt apr]1a 1- Hi-gh Meadows land Meado by CTL Thompson inc., 12/2/77 t( letter report) . tennis 12) T etter epor' I in reference to slope inspection at court in "Highland Heights", Vail, Colorado by A.G. Wassenaar, Inc., 10/29/81. 13) Soil Reports -for Residential Foundation Requirements, Lots 26 - 42, Highland Meadows Filing 1 by Berry Klug and Associates, dated 11/5/80 (with map). 14) Subsurface Soils investigation, Proposed Parking Lot and retaining wall for a condominium, Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 1, by Lincoln-DeVore Testing Lab., Inc., 6/25/80. 15) Soils Investigation, Lot 11, Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, by Lincoln-DeVore Testing Lab., Inc., 8/15/80. Soils Investigation, Lot 24, Highland Meadows Filing No. 2, by Lincoln-DeVore Testing Lab., Inc., 8/22/80. 1 Subsurface Soils Investigation at Landslide, Lot 22, Vail Village, Filing 1 by Lincoln-DeVore Testing Lab., 7/30/82. 18) Geologic Land Use Maps, Eagle County, Colorado, prepared for Colorado Geological Survey in Eagle County, Colorado, by CS Robinson and Associates Inc., 1975, revised 1/16/76. 19) Geology of the Minturn 15 minute quadrangle, Eagle and Summit Counties, Colorado, United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 956, 1977. 20) Geologic, Rapid Mass Wasting Process map, (a component of the coprehensive plan) Town of Vail, source, Arthur I. Mears, 1977. 21f Pre Matterhorn - iminary Soil and Foundation investigation, MatL - Village Subdivision, Filing No. 2 by Thomas E. Summerlee, 11/15/73. 22 Supplemental Subsurface Investigation and Slope Stability yS Anal Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Piling 2 1 by Thomas E. Summerleie, 9/24/ 1. .1 7, C . z.egard Matterhorn 2 - L,etter. by Richa-rd z- �1 . - Village, Filing No. 2, 4/4/75. ) Environmental Geology of V i l lage the Matterhorn Subdivision, Filing 2 by Water and Mineral Consultants, Inc., qoil and -nvest- 'P.eview by Eagle County and viliage :_: Filing 2 '.!Dy Thomas 'E'. suTr,:aerL_e 3/`1 /7 -5. 26) soil and Foundation Investigation, Matterhorn villaye Subdivision, Filing 2 by Thomas E. Summe-rieser -1/18/75. 27) soil and Foundation Investigation, Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Filing No. 2, Eagle County by Thomas E. Summerlee, 3/24/75. 28) Letter by Charles S. Robinson and Associates, Inc, regarding Matterhorn Village, Filing No. 2, 3/19/75. 29) Pages 2 and 3 of letter by C.S. Robinson and Associates, Inc. regarding Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Filing 2. 30) Preliminary Engineering Geology and Subsoil Investigation, Matterhorn Village by Chen and Associates, Inc., 7/13/73. 31) Letter by Robert W. Thompson, Inc. regarding Vail West Ridge, 12/16/73. 32) Subsurface investigation, Vermont Road Embankment, Highland Meadows by Chen and Associates, Inc., 6/5/79. 33) Fill Observation and Testing, Highland Meadows Subdivision by Chen and Associates, inc., 7/3/79. 341 Road Location investigation, Vermont Road, Highland Meadows Subdivision by Chen and Associates, Inc., 7 35) Letter by Leroy E. Tobler, p. E. regarding Alpine Drive, Highland Meadows, Filing 2, 10/31/79. 36) Preliminary Plan of Highland Meadows, Eagle County, date prepared, November, 1977. 37) Earthquake Potential in Colorado, A Preliminary Evaluation by Robert M. Kirkham and William P. Rogers, 1981. 38) Ordinance #16, series 1982, Town of Vail. 39) Denton Associates, inc., letter regarding Highland Park, dated 4-24-81. 40) Memorandum to Planning and Environmental Commission from Department of Community Development/Peter Patten regarding Highland Park, dated 5-14-81. 41) R.W. Thompson, Inc., 1973, Preliminary Geotechnical Investi gation, Vail Westridge Property, Eagle County, Colorado; Job No. 1232 42) Grading and Drainage Plan (Revised), April 27, 1981; Highland Park, by Denton Associates, Inc. r th m a 'he .,irina� cons dct! e at' n' 1 3 I- - .1 - "_ L I are shown on the Map (in pocket) Bedrock Minturn Formation (Pm) : As previously mentioned, the M Format is cove b surficial deposits througho•-it the entire nvest� .slte. Five outcrops of bedrock were found during this i I L ga tion. One outcrop was observed in the back portion of Tract C of Highland Meadows, another below the existing cul-de-sac of Vermont Road in the Highland Park/Streamside area. Rocks exposed here consisted primarily of interbedded sandstones, pebbly sandstones and conglomerates. The rocks dip at 16 to 20 degrees towards the northeast, which is consistent with the regional trend in this area. The other three outcrops were found i n the lowest parts of the site Raster of Streamside and consisted of moderately frac- Lur ed and jointed -analst. and pebbly sandstone. All strikes were northeast witli northwest dips ranging from 26 to 60 degrees. These steeper dips are generally consistent with regional dips of bedrock across the :sore '-reek Valley. Dips are steeper with the predominant dip towarc5s the northwest. Two faults which offset the Minturn Format-ior are concealed by sufFicial deposits) have been mapped 34s -he c in attitude no, a' hough they may ,Df th!? _roc�,s is t'r, e p e s e - i arge r : -wi -i the deb - u* .' � -'. - r I eq F 0 r t 1' -) � c c n S siltstones and sha The clast units generally brown to light gray. a n ds o n e s , -:!3 Dr-, er a t _- e s Les, wi some JInterbedded limestones. (sandstones, si,"+-stones, and shales) are L_ reddish in color, while the limestones are The northerly facing slopes on the sites and northerly dipping bedrock - form a dip slope condition which is considered to be unfavorable -1 1 7 or stability. Although the - -rue dips of bed-r-Ock, are, in some cases, steeper t1lan the s lopes on -site, the apparent dip (that component of dip measured perpendicular to the slope) are in some cases shallower. The depth to bedrock will vary con- S4 siderabley over the s depending on thickness of surficial deposits. Bedrock will possibly be encountered at the toes of some slopes In the lower reaches of the properties or possibly in deep excavations, although throughout the majority of the site area, bedrock will probably be deeper t-han 20 feet and possibly as deep as 100 feet. No bedrock was encountered in any of the test holes drilled in conjunct with this investigation although test holes by others reportedly encountered bedrock at a depth of 70 feet on Lot 22, Vail village West, Filing 1, at depths ranging from 6 to 51 feet In the - nlighland Meadows Subdivision; and at a depth of 6 feet 'n t'hia bottom which divides H _;�Ieadows. -ligh" and 'Dark aI7- - a -. - Debris i�lr_! An ancient debri S7-;de 4S the sur- ficial deposit w1lich underlies the majority of Highland Meadows Filing iio. 2, the southerly portion of Highland meadows Filing zoo. 1, and the southerly portion of Vail village West p4 �lings No. I and 2. This debris slide extends a few thousand feet upslope to the southeast, - S. Robinson (in a letter to Mr. David Elmore of Vail City Ccrporation, dated March 11, 1975) describes the process of failures in the area. When the bedrock slopes were undercut by "...stream erosion as a result of the melting of the glaciers, the bedrock slopes failed and formed landslides. These slope failures did not happen all at one time nor at one place. One cliff would fail by the undercutting of a sandstone ledge by a stream. In subsequent years the shale slope above the sand- stone would become saturated and fail forming a mudflow out across the previous landslide. The erosion of the toe of a landslide would reactivate part of an old landslide. These slopes have failed locally many times as Gore Creek has continued to erode its channel. The result is a deposit that ranges in thickness over the bedrock of a few feet to more than 100 feet and which consists of blocks and boulders of the more resistant bedrock units in a silty, sandy and locally clayey matrix. Slope failure is continuing in parts of the area, and will. continue unless special efforts are made to stabilize the area." Materials of the debris slide depo- sits are exposed in numerous cuts in the road system. For the umost part, the debris slide consists of silty and sandy clays containing c .iG am U!_I ;)f angu - ! 3r gr ?VE1 and rock , o ou� ear size, and consists mai-1y of materials developed from the Minturn Formation. The debris slide deposits contain scattered thin to thick zones of materials which classify as clayey, silty, and gravelly sands. These deposits can be described as an uncon- solidated heterogeneous mixture of soil and rock, with no strati- fication or structure. Scattered slip plains are probably pre- sent within these deposits. Portions of the debris slide material have been reactivated in the recent past. Reactivation has apparently been caused both by natural factors and by the works of man. This is evidenced by the very recent slumps in many rcadcuts; the landslide which occurred in March of this year on Vail Village West, .Piling 1, rot 22; other possible slumps or slides which have been mapped on the site; and by "spring line scarps" present in and to the east of Highland Meadows. It is probable that the debris slide is not active "in mass ", but that could not be determined under the scope of this investigation. Glacial Moraine (Qm) : Moraine deposits of glacial and/or glaciofluvial origin are inferred to underlie the westerly part of Highland Meadows, Filing 2 and a signi ficant area of highland Meadows, Filing 1 and Highland Park. These deposits are the base on which the terrace -live topography, Previously mapped by other authors, has been formed. The moraine deposits consist of an unaon= o"id.ted mixture of ^lay, silt, sand and gravel (to boul6er Mtost of the c_ S El C ar e 4 - -h f i.n e gr a d 1-2 are - wi t' s om e s u b a i aul a gm n S � e mat_�ix. Inspections of the road cuts and exposures along with, the data gathered in the test holes indicates that most 0 t uop,er surface of the moraine has been modified and covered by c, more recent surficial de pos i ts including landslides, oL tivium, slopewash, organic clays, and possible sol-ifluction deposits. Scattered remnants of moraine are probably present on other portions of the site as evidenced by local steps and benches. The mora- rests on a bedrock surface above the - ore- sent elevation of Gore Creek as indicated in two exposures. In the exposure on Lot 1 of Highland Meadows, Filing 2, the bedrock/ moraine contact is separated by displaced bedrock fragments of debris slide or colluvium. Terrace Deposits (Qt) : Two different levels of river terrace deposits are present in the site area. The most recent terrace is the sands, gravels and cobbles, which are presently being deposited and eroded in the flood plain of Gore Creek. The second level is terrace deposits located above the physio- graphic floodplain, adjacent to the Gore Creek drainage. These deposits can be found in the Streamside Subdivision and in por- tions of VaJLJ_ Village West, Filing No. 2. These terraces were deposited by Gore Creek at times during the geologic past, the highest- terrace being the oldest. Typically, these deposits con- siz=t of crudely s+ -' Fied mixtures of clay, .,_1' Sc.`4 an <1v._ of ��i i 4ei .� 1 t=, i.. �� are character e istGG.i� �� tF �:'E�c'. .. ... �. e?' C1 p criy .. ._�� t. r_-`i:, conta ... 9 1y' .j�`: =..'i.� ... ,`..)—.. i rock gyp >> and Fa �? <� . = ay1 the gravel part "iGleS S toi 7 Some deg'r -e of roundness. Alluvia! -T an Deposi t�. (Qa"f , . Alluvial fan deposits can be found extending iron. the mouths of the larger drainageways on tine sub- ject s=ites. -,he "Largest of these deposits are located in the Streamside Sub'ti -- vision and the northerly portion of Vail Village West 1 and 2. These deposits resulted from deposition at the mouths of the larger drainageways, and characteristically consist of non to crudely stratified mixtures of clay, silt, sand and gravel. Since they are the deposits which formed from the draining of the basins in the area, these deposits consist of a mixture of virtually all the other bock and soil units exposed within their drainage basin. Typically these deposits are uncon- solidated, poorly sorted, and contain gravel to boulder sized particles with varying degrees of roundness. Colluvium and Slope Wash Deposits (QC-Qsw) Deposits of colluvium and slopewash cover the majority of Highland Meadows and Highland Park, and relati aely thin 3e1pos`. is of slopewash cover the terrace level in the Va.i1 Village West, Filing 2 area. ^olluvium and slopewash - hater' al`: are depos ted oy she a_ ons o- sheetWaSh, gravity, 0- shallow slumping and 11andsliding as the result of erosion and mass 7. tll st slopes to the south of the site. For the most part, these materials appear to be derived from weathering of the Minturn Formation, with some materials con- sisting of both Minturn derived materials and alluvium or moraine. These deposit's are similar in character to the debris C I fl , - e S4 dep.o and consist of an unconsolidated mixture of soil and rock. In the areas dominated by poor subsurface drainage L I - conditions, these soils are wet to saturated. Included with the slopewashl deposits are layers of organic clay (encountered in Test Holes No. I and 2) apparently deposited in pre-existing depressions and/or spring areas. The older deposits such as moraine are covered with these layered mixtures of the materials. In most cases, the coarser slopewash deposits and colluvium cannot be distinguished from debris slide materials. Landslide Deposits (Qls): A few landslide deposits have been mapped on the site. The larger of these deposits exists in the northeast portion of the Highland Meadows on the steep slope which descends to the Streamside Subdivision. The other most significant landslide exists in the area of the cul -de -sac 4 3 1 - r or Vermont Court -in Highland Park. The presence of the landslide features indicates that some readaustment of surficial deposits (in addition to the debris si.ide) is also currently taking place, or has taken place in the re�:ent geologic past. Very recent - I _ -i 6e a"a:,V e lie r1or -- her 1 y 1 m, is , Di 7 L":'e Vermont Cour t could loot be determined at this time die - I d' 1i .;c tr Ur,t on. Uo road and bu-'! Several other smaller landslides and possible slides have also been mapped. The majority of these 4 S t features ap to e X .L on mode.rate to very steep slopes, and appear to have resulted from a combination of undercutting or over s -teepeni ng of the slope by Gore Creek and/or by saturation of the slope by springs and seepage. In the area of the slide at Vermont Court in Highland Park, it appears that this feature is a result of saturation of materials on moderate to gentle slopes. In addition to these landslide areas mapped, the presence of small scarps in other areas of the subdivisions (see Geologic Map) indicates that other areas of possible small slumps and sli- des exist. The many questioned features are a result of the fact that placement of utilities and construction of road and fills have obliterated or disturbed pre-existing natural features and vegetation. Solifluction (Qsol ) : A - few possible solif"Lucton zone:: have been mapped on-site. These occur in the extreme westerly portion of H3.9h1and Meadows, Filing No. 2, in Highland Meadows. and Highland Park, soli, is a form of soil creep and can be descriDed as -.he process 3-F sl 'flowage from higher to, - Lower gro oi= mzass :)t' soil" sat!. rat-d, wi t"? wa;ter Possible S o, h a oc c 1-1 r r- et a s, t h e re t --% th ,? Sat t Or 0, L co I u ai an E o p e w a s h materials ( a n 0 posslot m o r a nej y 4 1 springs. �ks has been indicated in all previous investigat.ons 1 numerous springs, seeps and wet areas are found on site. Areas previously mapped by Robinson and Thompson as tongue-shaped lobes in an active groundwater zone are (or were) possible solifluction areas. Cheri (in 1972) mapped an area in the region of Lot 8 Of T � J iigh land Meadows, Filing No. 2, as being characterized by "active spring sapping". This area could also be mapped as possible s.olif_ The possible solifluction zone which extends down f rom -Meadowbrook Drive degenerates into a landslide at the break in slope above Streamside. The possible solifluction area extending from Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2, Lot 8, is charac- terized by a distinct head scarp, active spring, a distinctive bulge in the slope as shown by a topographic map and a conspi- cuous grove of aspen in the down slope area. Recent Alluvium (Qal) : Recent alluvium can be found in the major drainageway which bisects Highland Meadows. These deposits consist of a mixture of sand, silt, clay and gravel currently being deposited and eroded in the stream channel. Recent Slumps (Qss) : Several recent slumps have been mapped on-site. For the most part, these slumps occur in the road _13- �. t `:' ^ G _ .C- C u ti . _a _ ._ �. _ �.. _ Jff th wi a o ✓ ��_ surface seepage; of the materials exposed in the road cut_ ' z Sl? de =r:ata'-ia' S « Onyy the larger or more significant s1 umps in the iq'r l and Meadows, k iling 2 area have been mapped. It should. be noted that most of the road cuts with .n the Highland Meadows, riling No. 2 Subdivision are characterized by rill ?ro -- sign, sheet erosion, small slumps, and /or thin "skin-type" failures, and were either too small or too numerous to map. The small slump mapped in Lot l of_ Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2 at Gore Creek consists of both severe gully erosion and small slumping as the result of erosion and saturation of slope materials from the surface drainage. Two other recent slumps were mapped in a northeasterly portion of Highland Meadows, Filing Igo. 1, in the landslide deposit which is located northerly of Clermont Road above the Streamside Subdivision. The northerly of these two slumps has occurred uphill from a gabion wall constructed as part of the development of Streamside. It appears that this slump occurred prior to construction of the wall but may have occurred when the cut for the wall was made. The other slump is located near the head scarp of the landslide, where mud has slumped and flowed down slope. With the exception of one possible area easterly of Tract B, no recognizable recent slumps were noted within the Highland Meadows or Highland Park road cuts. Tt should be noted, however, that most of the cuts within Highland Meadows are lower and /or laid back at a shallower angle than those in Highland Meadows, Filing 2. The cots asso- ciated with the realignment of roads in Highland Park nad not _4_. not 0 D S 'F� Observations of the cut s 11 y! Dine Drive and ` - I- -- a -I in Vail. Vll."Lage West Fi l ing -. indicates that most 0 t"Ciese slopes are very steep but iioc-; are not as deep ;high) as the ones in Highland Meadows, Filing 2. - The cuts are character :' zed by local s mal si umpi :iq and eros which has resulted in the undercutting of t he v e g e t .3 n ?Tin cap the cuts. seepage in the area of the cuts was noted t +) be minor at the time OE : inspection (8-3-82) ; but conditions in the spring of the year may differ. The m os 1 - 1 s 1 . ic a-t t ogic hazards which affect the site are (1) the presence of unstable and potent ally un:stabl-a slopes (including mapped -'andsli3es) , (2) the presence of areas characterized by poor subsurface drain- age and (3) areas of possib"Le present or past solif"luction. Other hazards which affect the site include variable soil cond tions nc sow and , "s nd soils prone to sel or con- 4 solidat-ion) , the poten ll for debris flows, and earthquake hazards. Slope Stability: Three major factors result in the presence of unstable slopes and potentially unstable slopes in the subdivision areas. These are (1) topographic setting, (2) geologic se`l and (3) surface and groundwater conditions. Topographically, the subdivisions are "Aominated by moderate to steep to locally very steep slopes which are a part of dominantly northwest "acing slopes of a large ridge. Areas of more gentle topography can be found in the northeast portion of the site area. (in Vail Village West, '-pilings 1 and 2' ; allong `ore C-reek at- various points, and _n the area o Highland Meadows and HIghland Park. Geologically, virtually the whole z site is underlai- by re thick urconsolidated surf icia-I deposits r_)1 various types. M-ost ,Df these d3eposits contain a 4 _L_a I amount -)": clad and silt si.7e part wit-Inin e,: 4 sl ope, etc. r a, In t 07) Q 'Llater L strength of bedrocK. Tt should be noted that bedrock in the site area is also in a '2ip slope condition and thus orientef unfavor- ably. The site is located on a northerly f ac i ng s 11 3pe . worth facing slopes accumulate very large snow p I slopes and thus a c��s, evaporation is less than on southilacing more accumu.L ,- "a moisture is retained in the subsurface. Poor subsurface drainage conditions result, for the most part, in (and from) numerous springs and seeps on the site. These springs and seeps, along with water which percolates down through the soil as a result of precipitation and snowmelt, decrease the slope stabi- lity by saturating the subsurface soils. The presence of the possible solifluction zones indicate that even the gentler slopes can become unstable if saturated. Our interpretation of the geologic hazards present on-site can be found on the Geologic Hazards Map (in pocket). This map is based on a review of previous studies on the sites, and our additional field investigat;ion and mapping. Hazard designations as shown on the Geologic Hazards Map are discussed in a later section of this report. Subsur Face Drainage - u. rs J r f a c e A rai n a 9 e c, o n d t i co ns On 2 ir t L s -.7 'br oa.d cat e,2or i es T '11 e s De --reek an c ace and c ubsur ace- 1D , as so- C 4 �r_d with spy=-' and seeps. � - - I ,iigh groundwater tables and areas of subsurface seepage can be anticipated as the result of the water table associated with Gore Creek, and with possible perched water tables and subsurface seepage associated with the two main tribu- taries which enter the sites. in the case of Gore Creek, 1 11iqh groundwater conditions can be anticipated in those areas underlain by the lower levels of the terrace deposits along Gore Creek. In addition, 'those areas of alluvial fan deposits adja- cent to Gore Creek can also be expected to have high groundwater tables as the result of the same condition. Those areas mapped as alluvial fan deposits (Qaf) might also be expected to contain local or seaso- nal shallow groundwater tables and local areas of subsurface seepage from surface and subsurface flow from the major tribu- - taries and upsiope springs. By far the most critical condition in terms of subsurface seepage on the site is the Door subsurface drainage conditions which exist as the result of the numerous springs and seeps. Throughout the hillside area of the sub- divisions, numerous seeps, springs and wet areas were noted during this investigation and have been the subject of much discussion in previous reports, letters and field reports. The seeps and springs in the area are erratic. This is the result of the wide range in character - 4 s - ics of 't soil Tatq_ s and their permeab.J.Llities. s, e e pa ge f ,: 11 ow s t h e " n__:� t a c^a 3t -, es Ii s nc e " w h --*, c h i ri '-r'i e s e ype s '2 n;D e -le i_i - 7 �ne of y-n- al -- ar 4- I 0 jf c - an c Ica n o C! L D.- (luring a year '.s a I s o controlled by many variable factors wh- vary from year to year and season to season. Tn the extreme westerly oort of - t �) e T;` h'. and dead' - vv :s , F il i nq No. 2, and tine e as t e-rn pal'" t, of H 4 ighland Meadows, F No. 1 area, it appears that the majority of the seeps and springs originate near the topographic break on National Forest property and in the southern and eastern part of this area (as recognized in previous jinvestlgat3ilons). Another area of rather intense past and present spring activity is located northerly of Vermont Road in the regions of Lots No. 21, 22 and 23 (Highland Meadows) at the landslide scarp and bench. Areas characterized by poor subsur- face drainage conditions, wet areas and seeps and springs are shown on the Subsurface Drainage Map. '?'his is a compilation of data and spring locations based on our investigation and previous reports and data ava actuality, the entire site lable to us. in r J- -L -L area can be characterized as possessing poor subsurface drainage conditions. 'It appears that some of the areas presently exhi- biting seeps and wet conditions were either not recognized in previous investigations or were not present. As development of the sites has proceeded, more an, more seeps, springs, and wet areas have been encounterle6, or uncovered. - it is likely that as development occur i-,, I j ar ---as of seeps. springs and wet areas will "-,- found, note .E or t area L - tote en- Hl"gh-'anc' - -Iz t' t ' -, L' 7 2`-` ::�-C _17 ar part of t In an area ot-ne-r.- L ,a C'_E�_r Zec 'by an s I a;. d" of asp F_ I wise dominated evergreens, indicating a probable nigher moisture condition he.-e. Soils Hazards: From a soils engineering standpoint, the site soils possess variable engineering properties. Although I - �.L 4- most soils probal- p os sess bea�ring capacities high enough o support l -1 l oaded a L int-Ly _ structures, mo to high loads may result in some settlement or consolidation of the soils. Areas of rather low density high moisture content soils were found in the test bor (particularly Test Borings No. 2, 4, and 5). Under these conditions, even lightly loaded structures may require special foundation considerations. Since the majority of the surficial deposits contain at least some clay in significant quantities, expansion of the clay soils could also be considered as a ooten- tial hazard in the subdivision area. Expansion pressures on the order of 900 psf were measured for both soil types encountered in the test borings. The basic soil conditions for individual sites should be taken into account during the individual investigation for the structures for each lot. The logs of Test Holes and Soil. Summary Sheets For the soils encountered are provided as - Figures 5A and B and E)A and B. _.20- Da r i. S F 1 � _ : c t1le mass Wasting Process Map (a component of the comprehensive plan, Town C Of - ) Indicates that the two tributaries of Gore C whicn - Cross through the sit have been mapped (by Arthur I. Mears) as Possessing a mode-rate debris flow hazard. This map described these hazards as "areas - Lncluded within this category can experience property damage, including flooding, erosion, ilnun- dation by mud, and impact by small boulders. Tt is unlikely that life wi-11 - )e endangered in Level 1 areas except at the ver erratic and in-Frequent intervals of unpredictably large rockfall and debris avalanche events." The debris flow hazard areas as indicated on this map are shown on the Geologic Hazards Map accompanying this report. Seismic Risk: The subject subdivisions are l ocated I located approximately six miles southwesterly of the Gore Fault. This Fault is considered to be potentially active (R. M. Kirkham and W. P. Rogers, 1981), and consists of a complex fault zone about 70 kilometers long and up to about 4.8 kilometers wide. Because of the proximity of this potentially active fault in addition to the Potential ea, hazard in this region of Colorado, the site is considered to be in Seismic Risk zone 2. This should be taken into account during foundation and stability analysis for construction in the subdivisions. _ ' � The geologic h'a7,-_ 3e010q1Lc unit, topograph_�..c setting, 'a deer, : 2QGr.L ;rased on and surface and S!JbSurFace drainage conditions. The hazal-is designations are shop -,7n on the Geologic Hazards ma-,, (in pocket), The 'I discussion will serve to describe these C"aSS4,:iCa_ -I- L - I t - ions. For the most part these designations correspond - 10 those mapped by previous investigations; however, they have been modi- fied based on the additional geologic mapping and analysis co3q_ ducted as part of t" investigation. It should be noted that this 1nvesti the hazard areas and slope stability characteristics are based orl theoretical analysis. Site specific studies may conclude that hazards are either '.Less or greater depending on site specific geology, slope, moisture conditions, etc. Hazard Area 7 - Physiographic Floodplain: These areas lie within the physiographic floodplain of the Gore Creek drainage and its tributaries. It should be noted tha along Gore Creek considerable construction has occurred, and man-made features have obliterated the pre-existing physiographic flood- plain which probably existed in this area. it is our understand- ing that Federal Insurance Administration maps exist which show the floodplain limits along Gore Creek. The floodplain limits on these maps should be checked in order to verify that buildings and lots are located outs the floodplain. Hazard Area 6 -- Hazard Area 6 generally consists of unstable and metastable slop in active groundwater areas. This designation generally characterizes areas of very steep to steep slopes, active seeps and springs, accelerated creep, local small T I aii 7) s- , a n d/o r pa ffi e n T s -jesignation Is -t?a limit - e ,, ] to mapped 1 andsli 3e de ='szt nvestigation of these areas - for construction is to be quite expensive and mitigation _L - I L likely to be quite extansllve. Depending on specific construction and conditions, development may not be economical. on other por- tions of the property bordering these areas, investigations for conz. shoi)!�'. anal_vze �he effect o'1' cons tr - �. , ct ii on to these'_ slopes. Adequate setbacks from these areas should be maintained. Investigations for S t a b4 li Will a probably involve off-site an- ysis. ,Tazard Area 5 - This area designation consists for the most part of metastable slopes. This area designation is gener- ally characterized by steep to very steep slopes and accelerated creep. Local seeps are also present within these areas. Con- struction in areas designated as Hazard Area 5 will require a very detailed and probably expensive geotechnical investigation, and probably very extensive mitigation. Depending on specific construction and conditions, development may not be economical. Construction planned adjacent to the Area 5 designation (both near the tops and toes of slopes) should evaluate the effect construction will have on designation 5 area, and effect these slopes will have on construction. investigations for stability will probably involve off-site analysis. T ior. -ons o'_F those .iazard Area 4-0 -- This area designal- - _L sts areas mapped as possible active solifluction zones. The a r - aa.=; are characterized 'ov orobab_'_� h.".gh gr•Dundwa-_,-__r, a.!-IU" POSS.Lble- Slow to accelerated creep in the form of solifluction. Slopes in these aryaz genera-1 e .a t e 'C; � 3 tea, .y - qec aC...1.___ <<I i .. t i j: ..i 0 w i 11_ %;c' nel , i J an a ,a? �?` �1_ �. _ ' �$tI ��_ �� v `� i tV �:Ons� �?� � _._, W to rounda, Dn recommendations. In some cases, mitigation wi 1 -1 probably be exper�s� -e, depending on site location in relation co other hazard zones, topographic setting, etc. In extreme cases, deaeloprment may not be economical. Investigations for vtabili`v ...:1d groundwater :coy dl' Lions W1 probably involve: of -f - site analy -- a 1 Hazard Area 4 - This area designation consists gener- ally of potentially unstable slopes in active groundwater areas. This area designation is characterized by moderate to steep slopes, local seeps and springs, recent but small slumping, and /or moderate creep. In these areas, detailed geotechnical investiga- tions will be necessary in order to analyze groundwater con- ditions and slope stability considerations along with foundation recommendations. In some cases, mitigation will be expensive because of the height of cuts needed in order to provide access and building areas, steepness of slope, and lateral pressures due to creep. investigations for stability may involve off -site ana- lysis. Hazard Area. 4 - This area designation consists of poten- tially unstable slopes. These areas are generally characterized by moderate slopes, possible creep, but appear to be fairly "dry" at the present time. It should be noted that, although areas within this designation appear to be characterized by low moisture conditions, excavations for access or foundations miry encounter subsurface seepage. It is, therefore, very importalt that individua?_ site geote-hnica investigations be performea -I!- a' s' )-T-)e s ta 111 1 a nd s �J �_ Ur E ace - : 0 e Cr A a 4 I e ze t - -' n hese inves tiga. t- ons i t _,ns be T..,)has.L d I J is area des.ignat consli.s -_s mai., Y Th of moderate to gentle slopes in active groundwater areas. These areas are characterized by act seeps and springs or possible shallow groundwater tabl'_s, and/or possible past solifi- On. Detailed qeotechnlcal s I i nvei n gatios are recommendeLi in order to -, I assess past or po-tent solifluction, subsurface drainage con- d - I r `ions, foundation condLtions and slope stabilit Hazard Area 3 - This area designation consists generally of gentle slopes characterized by apparent low moisture conditions. These areas may be subject to local or seasonal groundwater seep- page. individual subsurface soils investigations with emphasis on subsurface drainage, slope stability and foundation conditions are recommended in these areas. Where the designation 3 area abuts against higher hazard areas, the effect of construction on slope stability should be analyzed. Hazard Area 3A - These areas consist generally of moderate to gentle slopes, generally above the permanent ground- water table of Gore Creek. These areas may be subject to local or seasonal groundwater tables and possible flooding or debris flows. For the most part, these consist of the alluvial fans in the Streamside area and the northeasterly portion of Vail Village, Filings 1 and 2. Subsurface soils investigations are recommended for these ar with an emphasis on foundation con- ditions and subsurface drainage considerations. if deep cuts are Planned -in these areas, tney slnou.16 be specifica-Ily analyzed for s t a bi _1 t 1 - v or r e t a I K a Z a r Q 7, A `) 0: - - 1 -1 J' - are F, ss I g n a t o n s t s a e e s o , , a C r o L2 n d'w e r a a s T- g- a-reas are characterized by variable soils conditions, and by a liigh per- manent water table. emphasis in these areas should be directed towards subsurface drainage conditions and foundation conditions., Tr should be noted that the hazard boundaries, as delineated in this -eport (and others), are gener- ally drawn at approximate breaks in slope and that setbacks for the buildings from hazard zones should be based on the proposed construction and indi geotechnical analysis, not `01anket" set distances. UNS E F T - j T_, S ' a z a S .I- L possess pctent all Uns ta"'-Ile f ill slopes appear Ito be I-D-cated, for the most part, in Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2, and in Vail 4 I Village West, Filing 1 and 2 along Alpine !.' and Sierra Tr a �. T nS on 017 the r3a and pavement ;eveaied nuT-nerauc_7 areas _n which long cr acking (cracking parallel to the roadwa -I itudinal cra was observed. The most obvious area in which the cracking Was observed i 4- - 1) r - ve 1 , 1 the Inairplin loop of Alpine _.L In Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2. in this area, it appears that the road fill is either settling and/or moving down the hillside. Another area of significant cracking is located on the northerly side of the roadway near the cul-de-sac of Sequoia 'rive. Numerous other areas of longitudinal cracking were also noted along the roadway of Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2, and in Vail Village West, Filings 1. This longitudinal cracking would indicate either (1) that soil materials in utility trenches are possibly settling, Or (2) fi11 slopes created as a part of road construction zafe either settling or creeping downs Unless 'Che f 4 1 i were properly placed (with proper stripping, keying, benching and compact the fill slopes should be conside-red as potentially unstable. it is poss that these fills were not properly compacted and./or lie on an unscarified su.-face o" old topsoil and vegetation, and thus the fill- wedge .s are prone to creep, 3-L mpl io and set t I e m en t BuL id up of sLibsu--- ace nag b; e h i n ea ,3 'excess pore presure) or satura of the i il y seepage -would also reduce e he 1 s - e eyed, s e C: and P"acE- within the creep zone 0i natural soil.-3 :;jq movement could occur. in the area of the cul-de-sac for Vermont Road (Highland Park) a fill of substantial height exists. if not properly placed and compacted, this fill might also be Potent unstable. SUBDIVIS"'ON EVAJ UATION V __L1 ?-fit ' _ 1 1 1 e ti o - f the w r i t i n g o t h i report, most critical reEerences were available for our review. Review of the subdivision's layouts i n regards to previously mapped geologic hazards was accomplished. Based on our review of the available references, along with our field reconnaissance and review of subdivision ja,_,)u+s the following discussion is pre- sented. Vail Village West 1 and 2• In the case of Vail Village West, Filings, No. I and 2, it is our understanding that these sub- divisions were platted prior to any requirements for geological or soils reports, and therefore, no previous geologic hazards investigations have been accomplished for these two filings. Highland Meadows, Filing No. 1: The existing subdivision layout, as it pertains to original geological studies and previously mapped hazardous areas, appears to have been planned with due regard for site conditions recognizedl at those stages, at least to the satisfaction of the various consultants and reviewing bodies. Most consultants indicate in fetters that at least the prelirni- nary plat had takes into -consideration k conditions. An area enco.m I .Das7i- -D o f th rough 8, 12, 13, 14, 1 5� P 11 31 -a" �5 2 of� ii ghland Meadows waE az)p a r an t1v o L _kSSrr,4 ate S! 2 )7 7 , .) l. t wa'_ P,3 the R. W. Thompson repDrt c-f jujy, 1973. 1 ns, o e c t 1" o n C?` t. hi 1 9 7 3 study i n6 icates, 'Uhaat portions or the building areas riDr Tots 6 -2 and 8 lie within his "High Risk" zone although in a letter to KKBNA dated December 2, 1977, Thompson indicates: "The latest ma71 furnished our -fl-rm indicates substantial portions 0 moots ts 4 -.1rough 9, and 19 to 125 are restricted as open space. These restrictions a-re w` thin area-s described as high hazard zones n our or "ainal invest - :Lgation. We believe the open space as desig- nated on the plat should be maintained and building restricted from these areas." Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2: In Chen's 1972 report for Vail Village West, Filing No. 3 (Figure 1B) it shows an area including portions O , -F - ' Lots I through 5 (Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2) as "Potenti-al. sllde Area". This hazard area is also shown on the Sketch Plan Sub-mit-ta-I.- m.ap (Sheet 4) for Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2; however, the boundary differs somewhat between the two ("hen's june 30, maps. 1978, report was apparently not accom- panied by a similar map, and therefore, it is not known From what the hazard area Dn the Sketcl, Plan Submittal is based. -he Sketch Plan subrii tta-1 s dated May, 1978; Chen' s :.eoo-, L i 7 -ne 3 0, -97, gh_lan %ea6ows, is aze C; I - jd T c r e , P r e _ j i n a za r d t h e does not delineate t e a roe a r S DO r t .)ns enve som 3f zhese 'ots ( i tnroug'i 5, n.Lg,hland Meadow 1, F.1-L.L.. i s 4-hin this o ten t i -a 1 31 Area ". In Summerlee's 1974 report for Matterhorn Village Subdivision, Filing No. 2, it shows an area including portions of 1,otts 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 32 as his Area No. 4 very high risk of slope movement associated with any construction cuts and fills.") and Area No. 5 ("These areas are presently very steep and unstable due to active co]_1L!- vial movement or 'creep'."). These areas boundary is shown on the sketch plan submittal for Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2 as "Hazard Area". Portions of the building envelopes for Lots 17, 18 and 19 lie within this "Hazard Area". This hazard area is not on the Preliminary Plan for this filing. In Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2, the road system is such that it is feasible that access could be obtained from either the top or bottom of the lots. Tn the case where high cut slopes exist on the lot, this creates potential problems in that if access is on the downhill (cut) side, con- siderable excavation will be needed in order to access the building area. When accessing a lot from the top portion, it is usually the practice to construct a building on a cut and fill pad. By doing this, fill could possibly be placed close to the cut slope which forms the downhill boundary of the lot. The surcharge of f - Ill slopes ab cuts could hav-2 a 3etrimentai effect on cut slope st a b i I i t y. in tll- case of more 4 Chan one between 1-r - wo streets, such as iDetween Alpine Drive/`Gore Creed D r k ,7e anC' Vermont Roa"' j 'G7or,-_ Creeiv r'.vE, the Constractior, r)-,": ne t c7 Dpes e t. r *. T ne J. Co n s tr U c t iD n 0 t P. e effects on the downhill lots. Highland Park: The Highland Park Subdivision is a re of ilighlarld Meadows, Tots 26 through 42. This area was covered under ahe '1 1 .9 7 13 and Robinson, 1977 reports. The Preliminary Plan for highland Meadows (including Lots 26 ti 42) was apparently reviewed by both Robinson and Thompson and 1--y the Colorado Geological Survey. The general conclusion in the Colorado Geological Survey's letter is: "Development of the west-upper meadow is feasible but like all mountain developments will need good construction supervision." To our knowledge, neither Thompson, Robinson, nor the Colorado Geological Survey have reviewed the Highland Park Subdivision plans. Biy overlaying the 1977 Robinson "Engineering Geologic Classification Map" onto the Highland Park Grading and Drainage Plan (Revised) dated April 27, 1981; and plotting the landslide area indicated by Jerry Klug and Associates ill his letters of November 5, 1 980, the ' conclusions, can be drawn. 1) F our un-'7zz (w"'ch have already been bai't) lie within Robinson'_s, nee Seol - -lassi.Fication 5. 71 2) Portion, h r e lie within a land- bV A sso ciates. slide area as .3ent_ K_ an�� A, -ciates, Critical Areas The iden of crit ical problems and potential 111azardous areas due to construction is complicated by the fact that the type, size and nature of as yet unbuilt structures is unknown. There are also difficulties involved in evaluating the effect of present construction because we have no idea who did the subsurface soils investigations for the individual building sites, what they Bland, what they recom- mended, and if the developer followedi the recommendations. Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2: The -first example of a potentially hazardous area due to present construction is the area of Lot 2 of Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2. This lot is in an area of possible solifluction. The northerly part of this lot is an area of metastable slope =s. In the area of Lots 41 and 42 of the Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, construction 'has Created high retaining walls and high steep unretained cuts in this slope. The combination of these factors results in a higher hazard potential for instabilities for construction on this lot. Severe gully erosion was noted to be occurring at two main points. Tn the Lot 1 area of Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2 and in Lot 5 of Highland meadows, Filing No. 2. In Lot 1, surface sraiaaqe Is directed down a metastable slope and the saturation z) the c,oils "-ias created a gully and s'_umping. In Iot 5, gully erosion JiLs occurring around the area of a man-hole and sewer tre Fi.• A some mad is being washed down the swale. c oil t -; .!Ue,' Of this ea-re� could cause slope instabilities and/or jepoS ,L �- tion of the eroded soils could occur in the house area immediately below the swale. Vail Village West, Filing No. 1: Another critical problem area is the L L T ot 22 of Vail Village West, Filing No. 1. 7t appears that miti- gation of the landsli-.3e which has occurred on this lot will be will quite expensive. Depending on how much money could be expendeJ to salvage a bui portion of this lot, the lot may have to be abandoned for building purposes for the sake of stabilizing the slope and road. Potentially hazardous areas exist within the unstudied Vail Village, Filing No. 1. In this sub- division, entire lots have been mapped as being on metastable slopes. These "Lots will require very detailed site evaluations prior to construction, mitigation probably being quite expensive. Highland Park: The area around Vermont Court including portions of former Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33 and 34 is another critical problem, area, 7n this area, Robinson recognized a landslide. Subsequent Invest—igatIons by Jerry i!' ;— -iq and ?associates del 1 neat �d a slide a r en compa i., port 4 . ons of Lots 28, 30, 31, 13 and' 34. .7 ---con ,aissance of this area :3 t -1- :3 n a I �-, n 9 4 � t: ". i 1 1's � -X s 0 ' Te 3 o r i n g No. I indicates this area 1-c :J� a We vor- -:, cons _der the 4 j ia ppe c D C o' n s o e. r In, e 6 i � e i r, a z � p E d by 1 a q et S t e s a M-. e feature and thus combined and exparded the two slide are_as, This slide area is considered to be in our Hazard Zone 6 and mitiga- tion of this feature would probably have to involve a combined effort of all lots involved. It is suggested that - the Highland Park Subdivision plan be reviewed by the previous cons tants and the Colorado Geological Survey for their comments on the proposed de ve l opment In this area. Highland Meadows: In the Streamside area, although not a part of this studies area, it appears that previous investiga- tions recommended fills in the area to buttress the landslide, while present con-struction has undercut the toe in part. It is not known whether the existing gabion and re airing walls in these cuts were designed as buttresses. Gutting of this toe 'without retention J. t I ) could have negat effects on stability of the lots in Highland Meadows above this area. Regional: -i he most _ ti cal area lies in the poor subsurface ',o;h ex___nt in Ithe site. This, 'nowever, can ti - '� - - l ; " -, �- r:X '. -- 1; �. - 4" - b r stantially educed' 1 �, by an extensive Highland _ Nc 2 viliage We-st Filing !qo. 1; The stability of cut ;lopes in highland Meadows, Filing No. 2 and Vail Village West, Filing No. 1 is also a critical area. .,ks previously discussed, many of the cut slopes in Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2 exhibit slumping, seepage and erosion. These cuts will continue to fail if not stabilized. -,he pr mitigation technique recommended for this area is to install -a subsurface drainage system in order to intercept the subsurface seepage. Tt is possible that buttressing or retention of some of the cut slopes will also be required. MITIGAT ON Manv ��iiffefent types of uncon- solidated surficia-I de;Dosits underlie the site and various problems and combinations of problems affect the site. AS pre- viously discussed, slope stability on the site appears to be controlled by three main factors, the topography, both surface and subsurface drainage, and the geologic units. Due to these many variable factors, the type of mitigation used on any par- ticular site or problem area will Depend on Its site specific characteristics. DepenG on the type and extent of the hazar5, a joint effort may have to be made by two or more lot owners in 4- order to mitigate the hazard and reduce the potential for ins, bilities on their lots. in the case of small to medium sized Landslides, mitigation could involve removal of the slide debris and replacement with compacted fill, drainage and buttressing of the 'Landslide, or in the worst of cases, complete avoidance of the hazard. Tn tie case of possible soliflucti on, this can probab,11 be at -least slowed to an acceptable level of risk by a system of dra which drain the water from the deposit. In the case of gully erosion, simple installation of drainage structures w are non would prevent gully erosion. - 1 �D -:, the case 3f tt� sldmpinq 3bserv7e d i rh- rDad a =n:_'I, 0 subsirface and s:_ Jrainay, e :; ?T wou' I 'x, I- l iza f7 rst mi t. gation measure for by b - :or ret a I - i rIg struct �Ur es a I al ;o 'be r equ i r ead Depending on the amount Tli a 1' era I - ,�'e �7` ci car. t 03_cr a t ec iic) S "I L' �_:i 1 1 -1 r e and rill and sheet eros slough walls or slough catchment berms may be necessary. In reference to the possible movement of road - mit could include continuous maintenance of cracking, stabilization 'by some sort of retaining structure, or In the worst case, Complete reaioval stripping, Keying, benching, compactior, and drainage. One pro'Jlem with the solution of con- tinueJ .Maintenance and cracking is that if the fill moves to an extent that it reaches a water or sewer line, a similar failure could occur as has on the Bitetto property. The primary mitigation technique which should be investigated, planned and designed for the s'L'i'- is a subdivision-wide drainage system. This point cannot be emphasized enough. This drainage system should be installed based on a detailed subsurface investigation and analysis of the groundwater conditions on -site, analysis of the existing utili- ties systems (some utilities could intercept subsurface seepage and not designed to do so, <�ould increase the problems), and careful design. Critical problem areas should be investigated in more detail as soon as possible in order that solutions can be found to these problems. *ded you calf,, Mope ;:gas, pro, the information require-l". - f you an questions or requi.re additional ��'_ate -L",catl* o , I e e C_'. g ee 1-1 o conta Lincoln- DeVore. B _�-- 1 1 ' i SOILS DESCRIPTIONS: SYMBOL USCS DESCR/P - Topsoil ROCK --- -Mare -made Fill GW Well - graded Gravel D D:0:0:0: 5 �G;O:O; ):ID ' : ;c?'..O•C.7A SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Z, O O O CONGLOMERATE >000 5 0 00 GP Poorly- graded Grove! LOCO SANDSTONE -C SILTSTONE GM Silty Grove! SHALE �j 00 )o GC Clayey Graves COAL SW IbV!- graded Sand LIMESTONE s 1 r_r Sp Poorly gruded Salvd U(JLOMITE SM SlIty Scjnd ROCK DESCRIPTIONS: SYMBOL DESCR /PT /ON ;c?'..O•C.7A SEDIMENTARY ROCKS CONGLOMERATE SANDSTONE -C SILTSTONE SHALE X X X X X :x CL.AYSTONE COAL i r' 7 LIMESTONE s 1 r_r N M � q .. U(JLOMITE .T ___r. -- MARLSTONE I SYMBOLS a NOTES: SYMBOL DESCR /P• 0_1V 9 /12 Standard penetration drive Numbers indicate 9 blows to drive the spoon 12" into ground. ST 2- l/i ' Shelby thin wall sample W Natural Moisture Content Wx Weathered Material Free aoter Free water table I YONatural dry density T.B, -Disturbed Bulk Sample SC Clayey Scnd I GYPSUM / Z I ML LOW- plasticity Silt - Other Sedimentary Rocks I - /I / IGNEOU ROCKS CL Loy piastiraty Clay , I GRANITIC ROCKS z , 0 Low- plasticity Orgonic L DiORITIC ROCKS Silt and Clay MH High - plasticity' S!(" *. / GABBRO CH Wi jtt , 1 lsll i ; Cloy RHYOLITE _ f tt IZ — 0s_' Hioh- piostscity ANDESITE -' 000niC Clay I� zJ Pt y'e0i � BASALT ASH FLOWS GF{ TUFF BI GW /'GM Well graded i;rovel, I FF •�? I Silty F4 ° i GW /GC Wellr- crudeu Grave', i � 3 i, BRECCiA & Other Voleanics 00 Clayey r ' 0 0 01010 ° 00 °o GP /GM Poorly - graded Gravel, i Other Igneous Rocks 0 0i0io Silty ,.�,.," �� O 00 �) �� ! ME TAMOR P HIC ROCKS o ° o on GP /GC Poorly- graded Gravel, f�J 1 GNEISS 0 n i + s; f, D Clayey f', f i' GM /GC Silty Gravel, ! ; �,' SCHIST Clayey —rA� GC /GM Clayey Gravel, '� " %�� r � PHYLLITE Silty SW /SM Well - graded Sand, I I SLATE Silty I " SW ✓SC Well— graded Sand, i i;f METAQUARTZITE Clayey i • i I ir�za cy i I I I SP /Sm Poorly- graded Solid, -J� MARBLE i l l I l l Silty I L,, i j i I SP /SC Poorly -- graded Sand, j 3 HORNFELS I Clayey I I I SM /SC Silty Sand, Clayey SERPENTINE s 0, Soli type related to samples I in report 1 15' Wx,. - ) Top of formation 011'est Boring location ME Test Pit Loo ltion ►•• --°A Seismic or R sis',ivity Station, Lineation indicates approx. length a orientation of spread (S = Seismic , R= Resistivity) Standard Penetration Drives are made ' by driving a standard 1.4 Split spoon sampler into the ground by dropping a 140 lb. weight 3o ". ASTM test i des. D - +566. Samples may be bulk, standard split spoon ( both disturbed) or 2 - I.D. thin wall ( "undisturbed ") Shelby tube samples. See log for type. The boring log:5 show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations shown and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. SC /SM Clayey Sand, Silty LO I ` "I Other Metamorphic Rocks LINCCLN COLORADO: Colorcdo Springs, Pueblo, EXPLANAT40N OF BOREHOLE LOGS 11 1 CL /ML Silty Clay + DeVVRE Glenwood Springs, Montrose, Gunnison, TcsTINO AND LO DIAGRAMS __ LAB0RAr0RY Grand Junction.- WYO. -Rock Springs TEST HOLE NO- 1' u � 3 TOP ELEVATION CL CL.9Y, CL, CLAY _ CL, CLAY y W /T//SCATT. W�T/� 3CogTT. 6 ?A' ✓EL $� 1 6CATT. GR.o ✓ELf clew YEL S' ,pEO -B.PN• SALTY SA.vdY ,P ED -BRN. FREE W .4 ER ,PEd -ERN. 9 1 1 Z MO /ST 4 9 e� H /6NA90 /STl/� 9.3 2�a9�5 FARM, O S' /LT � SAND (D Mo /sT, MED. pE.vsiTy wx.So.+�DSTO.v EXP,4NS /YE EXPANS/YE, 'FRAGMENTS ,SOME L!/X. /z rz / rz/iz r9B 0 SANDSTONE wO of /9.7 /c EZ.00& CL Y / � 23.2 SAME � © FRAGMENTS r oRG,4N /C/ 2 1 Mo PE SAND S r , SAaoY ,9LAC,(' CLAY -ToFr, WET, �c",�pgN3 /✓E 4 - i SAME 36/iz 15 D.PGON /C �oz / ; y/GHDE.yS/TY r 15 CL AY .SANDY 2 �PEF/JSAL Lam' /3 S /LT Y� WA TN ON BolAL DER "do rr. 6RAYE4 26/1Z F /R�YI� rz�i2 8 4 20 MolorTo /9 /% s � OM � 1 20 — WBT / -R- F EE W.4 TER SAME C,4✓ED Z ¢ 2411Z 25 HARDER 66/ I 25 O DR«...FD7 - 2, 7-22 DRaLLED ? - s�9 -8 AG9E2 eHood AF7L°R $ /y00 5 AFTER 8 No aTE� 4-r is sv,4TEQ ,4T a No waT 30 30 4- � H w w w 35 35 Z_ 40 40 a w � � F /FjU S.9 LINCOLN COLORADO' COLORADO SPRINGS, DRILLING LAG s �eV0RE PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS , B MONTROSE ENGINEERS• GRAND JUNCTION , , GEO OC €STS ROCK SPRINGS $ WYOMING.' TE ST HOLE NO- TOP ELEVAT 5WAZE' tLlO' JB. z Q) S_AN_D WATER Cow rW7 f}i"rF�e BNoue2 - 30 WJThl SGATT, VE ?Y Sa--T 2 4 ° 0 W /r// SGATT. OO ,Cl,eAl Te 6T /.C-, W /TN SCAT7: zg //z y /fiN G�'NS /TY w a, e.4 S Q GRAVE(-5 -82, AFTE,Q GRAVEL S� `V,4 r "-,e. 4 r z '.Soft 1 SS 1711Z 5 LoWDEXS /TY l /LT jSANO� /3.2 O 5 .E XP.4NS /YE FiRAd /190 /ST / F /RM MosST EXP4KS/YE EXPlJNS /VE / / //P 6 11P 6//1 4 ® 5�4ME / 6 Y.�RY SOFT s 9 / - 'S�oME Q/ 10 � Gorr DENSirY / i5 ! F/RiNE.2 20 1 SAME tiro = �fAME 5WAZE' tLlO' JB. z Q) S_AN_D WATER Cow rW7 f}i"rF�e BNoue2 30 NO —4 rex VE ?Y Sa--T 2 4 ° 0 WET OO ,Cl,eAl Te 6T /.C-, zg //z y /fiN G�'NS /TY w � 23.3 Q �j�ccEO 7 -82, AFTE,Q `V,4 r "-,e. 4 r z 36 /2 VERY sr/ fF ° ' /s,7llo ,y /cv vENSiTY rQ 15 REF&ff,OL (V /7 / BoatDER uJn - /7.P 25 5WAZE' Q) f}i"rF�e BNoue2 30 NO —4 rex i- 4! w W 35 z 20 -4 25 -4 'DEI ,-EO 7- -9z- AF'T��e 8 J,bu /Vo w.a rte,¢ 30 35-4 40--1 a F- a W F /1 J�Q LINCOLN COLORADO. COLORADO SPRINGS, DeVORE PUEBLO , SLENWOOD SPRINGS , DRILLING LO L? ENGINEERS- GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE , GEO'_OG;STS WY ROCK SPRINGS Loco tic Boring No S Ncturai Water Content SpecCfi, Grcvit' . "C'S` SIEVE AW Sieve No. 7 /oil 1/2 l 20 40 1 00 200 S4.7 4ET HO D r)cf v c n S% --YO HYDROMETER Grair, size (mm) O?OQ- 00—Ir --ps "S�Cn psf 16 LIZ= N G L A T 0 R Y GS, COOORADO SUMMARY SHEET Sot I Sample CL _CLAY- O.PGAN /C�BL_AGK� Location 111G11LAN0 m oyows SoB01Y. Boring No. Tf1-Z Depth 1o' Sample No. 2 Natural Water Content (w) 23.2 % Specific Gravity (Gs) SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. % Passing 1 1/2 1" 3/4 11 1 4 10 100.0 20 99.7 40 96.7 100 81.9 2.00 70.8 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Grain size (mm) ,f0 — .0Z00 4Z.5 . 00s ZS. t Tesi ; , 44 - D-ic 7 -30 -82 In Place Density (3o) pcf Plastic Lima P.L 20.9 Liquid Limit L. L 33.1 Plasticity Index P.I. 1Z.2 Shrinkage Limit Flow Index Shrinkage Ratio Volumetric Change Lineal Shrinkage ° lo MOIST DRE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD Optimum Moisture Content - w° 1 4 7 °06 Maximum Dry Density - 7' d p cf California Bearing Ratio (av ° ./o Swell- 1 Days 0.ZZ % Swell against L0 pcf Wo gain% - M Housel Penetrometer (av p sf Unconfined Compression (qu) psf Plate Bearing: psf Inches Settlement Consoiidation % under psf PERMEABILITY: K (at 20 ° C) Void Ratio— Sulfates ppm . SOIL ANALYSIS LINCOLN- DeVORE. TESTING LABORATORY COLOR,4DO SPRIN COLORADO TABLE OF CONTENTS OF GENERAL CONDITIONS Article Number Title Page 1 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GC -1 2 PRELIMINARY MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . GC -4 3 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: INTENT AND REUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . GC -6 4 AVAILABILITY OF LANDS; PHYSICAL CONDITIONS; REFERENCE POINTS . . . . . . . GC -8 5 BONDS AND INSURANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . GC -10 6 CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . GC -16 7 WORK BY OTHERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GC-24 8 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . GC -25 9 E14GINEER STATUS DURING CONSTRUCTION . . . GC -26 10 CHANGES IN THE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . GC -29 11 CHANGE OF CONTRACT PRICE . . . . . . . . . GC -30 12 CHANGE OF THE CONTRACT TIME . . . . . . . . GC -35 13 WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE; TESTS AND INSPECTIONS; CORRECTION, REMOVAL OR ACCEPTANCE OF DEFECTIVE WORK . . . . . . . GC -36 14 PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR AND COMPLETION . . . GC -40 15 SUSPENSION OF WORK AND TERMINATION . . . . GC -47 16 ARBITRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GC -49 17 MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GC -51 INDEX TO GENERAL CONDITIONS Article Or Paragraph Number Acceptance of Insurance Access to the Work Addenda - definition of (See definition of Specifications) Agreement - definition of All Risk In Application Application Application Application Arbitration sura for for for for nce Payment - definition of Payment Final Progress Payment Progress Payment - review of Availability of Lands Award, Notice Of - definition of Before Starting Construction Bid - definition of Bonds and Insurance - in general Bonds - definition of Bonds, Delivery of Bonds, Performance and Other Cash Allowances Change Order - definition of Changes in the Work Claims, Waiver of - on Final Payment Clarifications and Interpretations Cleaning Completion Completion, Substantial Conference - Pre - Construction Construction Machinery, Equipment, etc. Continuing Work Contract Documents - definition of Contract Documents - intent and reuse Contract Documents - reuse of Contract Price, Change of Contract Price - definition of Contract Time, Change of Contract Time, Commencement of Contract Time - definition of Contractor - definition of Contractor May Stop Work or Terminate Contractor's Continuing Obligation Contractor's Duty to Report Discrepancy In Documents Contractor's Fees - Costs Plus Contractor's Liabil.4.ty Insurance Contractor's Responsibilities - in ieneral Contractor's Warranty of Title 5.13 13.2 1 1 5.6 1 14.12 14.2 14.4 thru 14.7 16 4.1 1 2.5 thru 2.7 1 5 1 2.1, 5.1 5.1, 5.2 11.10 1 10 14.16 9.3 6.17 14 14.8, 14.9 2.8 6.4 6.29 1 3 3.6 11 1 12 2.3 1 1 15.5 14.15 2.5, 3.2 11.6 5.3 6 14.3 (ii) Article or Paragraph Number Contractural Liability Insurance S.4 Copies of Documents 2.2 Correction or Removal of Defective Work 13.11 Correction Period, One Year 13.12 Correction, Removal or Acceptance of Defective Work - in general 13.11 thru 13.14 Cost of Work 11.4, 11.5 Costs, Supplemental 11.4.5 Day - definition of 1 Defective Work, Acceptance of 13.13 Defective Work, Correction or Removal of 13.11 Defective - definition of 1 Defective Work - in general 13 Defective Work, Rejecting 9 . 4 Definitions 1 Delivery of Bonds 2.1 Disagreements, Decisions by Engineer 9.9, 9.10 Documents, Copies of 2.2 Documents, Record 6.19 Documents, Reuse 3.6 Drawings - definition of 1 Effective Date of Agreement - definition of 1 Emergencies 6.22 Engineer - definition of 1 Engineer's - Notice Work is Acceptable 14.3 Engineer's Responsibilities, Limitations on 9.11 thru 9.14 Engineer's Status During Construction - in general 9 Engineer's - Recommendation of Payment 14.4, 14.13 Equipment, Labor, Materials and 6.3 thru 6.6 Equivalent Materials and Equipment 6.7 Fee, Contractor's - Costs Plus 11.6 Field Order - definition of 1 Field Order - issued by Engineer 10.2 Final Application for Payment 14.12 Final Inspection 14.11 Final Payment, Recommendation of 14.13, 14.14 Final Payment and Acceptance 14.13 General Requirements - definition of 1 General Provisions 17.3, 17.4 Giving Notice 17.1 Guarantee of Work - by Contractor 13.1 Indemnification 6.30 thru 6.32 Inspection, Final 14.11 Inspection, Tests and 13.3 thru 13.7 Insurance, Bonds and - in general 5 Insurance, Certificates of 2.7 and 5 Insurance, Contractor's Liability 5.3 Insurance, Contractural Liability 5.4 (iii) Article or Paragraph Number Insurance, Owner's Liability 5.5 Insurance, Property 5.6 thru 5.12 Intent of Contract Documents 3.1 thru 3.4,9.12 Interpretations and Clarifications 9.3 Investigations of Physical Conditions 4.2 Labor, Materials and Equipment 6.3 thru 6.6 Laws and Regulations 6.14 Liability Insurance - Contractor's 5.3 Liability Insurance - Owner's 5.5 Limitations on Engineer's Responsibilities 9.11 Materials and Equipment - furnished by Contractor 6.3 Materials or Equipment - Equivalent 6.7 Miscellaneous Provisions 17 Modification - definition of 1 Notice, Giving of 17.1 Notice of Award - definition of 1 Notice of Acceptability of Project 14.13 Notice to Proceed - definition of 1 Notice to Proceed, Giving of 2.3 "Or- Equal" Items 6.7 Other Contractors 7 Overtime Work, Prohibition of 6.3 Owner - definition of 1 Owner May Correct Defective Work 13.14 Owner May Stop Work 13.10 Owner May Suspend Work, Terminate 15.1 thru 15.4 Owner's Duty to Execute Change Orders 11.8 Owner's Liability Insurance 5.5 Owner's Representative, Engineer to Serve As 9.1 Owner's Responsibilities - in general 8 Owner's Separate Representative at Site 9.8 Partial Utilization 14.10 Partial Utilization - Property Insurance 5.14 Patent Fees and Royalties 6.12 Payments to Contractor - in general 14 Payments, Recommendation of 14..4 thru 14.7.5 Pre - Construction Conference 2 Performance and Other Bonds 5„1 thru 5.2 Permits 6,.13 Physical Conditions - Investigations and Reports 4..2 Physical Conditions, Unforeseen 4.3 Preconstruction Conference 2.8 Preliminary Matters 2 Premises, Use of Price, Change of Contract 6. 16, 6.17, 6.18 Price - Contract - definition of 11 1 Progress Payment, Applications for 14.2 Progress Schedule 2.6, 14.1 Project - definition of 1 (iv) Arti e or Paragraph Number Project Representative, Resident - definition of 1 Project Representation, Provision for 9.8 Project, Starting 2.4 Property Insurance 5.6 thru 5.12 Property Insurance - Receipt and Application of Proceeds 5.11, 5.12 Property Insurance - Partial Utilization 5.14 Protection, Safety and 6.20 thru 6.21 Recommendation of Payment 14.4, 14.13 Record Documents 6.19 Reference Points 4.4 Regulations, Laws and 6.14 Rejecting Defective Work 9.4 Remedies Not Exclusive 17.5 Removal or Correction of Defective Work 13.11 Resident Project Representative - definition of 1 Resident Project Representative, Provision for 9.8 Responsibilities, Contractor's 6 Responsibilities, Owner's 8 Reuse of Documents 3.6 Royalties, Patent Fees and 6.13 Safety and Protection 6.20 thru 6.21 Samples 6.23 Schedule of Shop Drawings Submissions 2.6, 14.1 Schedule of Values 2.6, 14.1 Shop Drawings and Samples 6.23 thru 6.29 Shop Drawings - definition of 1 Site, Visits to -by Engineer 9.2 Specifications - definition of 1 Starting Construction, Before 2.5 thru 2.9 Starting the Project 2.4 Stopping Work - by Contractor 15.5 Stopping Work - by Owner 13.10 Subcontractor - definition of 1 Subcontractors - in general 6.8 thru 6.11 Substantial Completion, Certificate of 14.8 Substantial Completion - definition of 1 Subsurface Conditions 4.2, 4.3 Supplemental Costs 11.4.5 Surety - Consent to Payment 14.12, 14.14 Surety - Notice of Changes 10.5 Surety, Qualification of 5.1, 5.2 Suspending Work - by Owner 15.1 Suspension of Work and Termination - in general 15 Superintendent, Contractor's 6.2 Supervision and Superintendence 6.1, 6.2 Taxes - Payment by Contractor 6.15 Termination - by Contractor 15.5 Termination - by Owner 15.2 thru 15.4 Termination, Suspension of Work and - in general 15 Tests and Inspections 13.3 thru 13.7 Time, Change of Contract 12 Time, Computation of 17.2 (v) Article or Paragraph Number Time Contract - definition of Uncovering Work Unit Prices Unit Prices, Adjustment of Use of Premises Values, Schedule of Visits to Site - by Engineer Waiver of Claims - on Final Payment Waiver of Rights by Insured Parties Warranty and Guarantee - by Contractor Warranty of Title, Contractor's Work, Access to Work by Others - in general Work, Cost of Work Continuing During Disputes Work - definition of Work - Neglected by Contractor Work - Stopping by Contractor Work - Stopping by Owner 1 13.8, 13.9 11.3.1 11.9 6.16, 6.17, 6.18 .14.1 9.2 .14.16 5.10 13.1 14.3 13.2 7 11.4, 11.5 6.29 1 13.14 15.5 15.1 thru 15.4 (vi) GENERAL CONDITIONS ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS Wherever used in these General Conditions or in the other Contract Documents, the following terms have the meanings indi- cated which are applicable to both the singular and plural thereof: Addenda - Written or graphic instruments issued prior to the opening of Bids which clarify, correct or change the bidding docu- ments or the Contract Documents. Agreement - The written agreement between OWNER and CONTRACTOR covering the Work to be performed; other Contract Documents are attached to the Agreement and made a part thereof as provided therein. Application for Payment - The form accepted by ENGINEER which is to e used by CONTRACTOR in requesting progress or final payment and which is to include such supporting documentation as is re- quired by the Contract Documents. Bid - The offer or proposal of the Bidder submitted on the pre- scribed form setting forth the prices for the Work to be performed. Bonds - Bid, performance and payment bonds and other instru- ments of security. Change O rder - A written order to CONTRACTOR signed by OWNER authorizing an addition, deletion or revision in the Work, or an adjustment in the Contract Price or the Contract Time issued after the effective date of theAgreeme.nt. Contract D ocuments - The Agreement, Addenda (which pertain to t e Contract Documents), CONTRACTOR's Bid (including documentation accompanying the Bid and any post -Bid documentation submitted prior to the Notice of Award) when attached as an exhibit to the Agreement, the Bonds, these General Conditions, the Special Conditions, the Specifications, the Drawings as the same are more specifically identified in the Agreement, together with all Modi- fications issued after the execution of the Agreement. Contract Price - The moneys payable by OWNER to CONTRACTOR under the Contract Documents as stated in the Agreement. Con tract Time - The number of days (computed as provided in para- graph 17.2 ) or the date stated in the Agreement for the comple- tion of the Work. CONTRACTOR - The person, firm or corporation with whom OWNER has entered into the Agreement. i Day - A calendar day of twenty -four hours measured from midnight to the next midnight. Defective - An adjective which when modifying the word Work refers to Work that is unsatisfactory, faulty or deficient, or does not conform to the Contract Documents or does not meet the require- ments of any inspection, test or approval referred to in the Con- tract Documents, or has been damaged prior to ENGINEER's recom- mendation of final payment. Drawings - The drawings which show the character and scope of the Work to be performed and which have been prepared or approved by ENGINEER and are referred to in the Contract Documents. Effective Date of Agreement - The date indicated in the Agreement on thich which it becomes effective, but if no such date is indicated, it means the date on which the Agreement is signed and delivered by the last of the two parties to sign and deliver. ENGINEER - Wherever the word "ENGINEER" occurs in these Contract Documents, the word shall signify the firm of Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc., which has been designated by the 0!°NER to be the ENGINEER for the Work. Field Order - A written order issued by ENGINEER which orders minor changes in the Work in accordance with paragraph 10.2 but which does not involve a change in the Contract Price or the Contract Time. General Requirements - Sections of Division 1 of the Specifi- cations. Modification - (a) A written amendment of the Contract Documents signe d TFy moth parties, (b) a Change Order, or (c) a Field Order. A modification may only be issued after the effective date of the Agreement. Notice of Award - 'The written notice by OWNER to the apparent successful Bidder stating that upon compliance by the apparent successful Bidder with the conditions precedent enumerated there- in, within the time specified, OWNER will sign and deliver the Agreement. Notice to Proceed - A written notice given hY OWNER to CONTRACTOR (with a copy to ENGINEER) fixing the date on which tic Contract Time will commence to run and on which CONTRACTOR shell start to perform his obligation under the Contract Documents. OWNER - The public body or authority, corporation, association, partnerhsip, or individual with whom CONTRACTOR has entered into the Agreement and for whom the Work is to be provided. Pro'ect -The total construction of which the Work to be provided un er t eContract Documents may be the whole, or a part as indi- cated elsewhere in the Contract Documents. GL - ? Resident Pro;cct Representative - The authorized representative of ENGINEER who is assigned to the site or any part thereof. Shop Drawings - All drawings, diagrams,illustrations, schedules, and other data which are specifically prepared by CONTRACTOR, a Subcontractor, manufacturer, fabricator, supplier or distributor to illustrate some portion of the Work and all illustrations, � ochures, standard schedules, performance charts, instructions, uiagrams and other information prepared by a manufacturer, fabri- cator, supplier or distributor and submitted by CONTRACTOR to illustrate material or equipment for some portion of the Work. S�ecifications - Those portions of the Contract Documents con - sistin�written technical descriptions of materials, equip- ment, construction systems, standards and workmanship as applied to the Work and certain administrative details applicable thereto. Subcontractor - An individual, firm or corporation having a direct contract witIT CONTRACTOR or with any other Subcontractor for the performance of a part of the Work at the site. Substan Completion - The Work (or a specified part thereof) as progressed to the point where, in the opinion of the ENGINEER as evidenced by his definitive certificate of Substantial Com- pletion, it is sufficiently complete, in accordance with the Contract Documents, so that the Work (or specified part) can be utilized for the purposes for which it was intended; or if there be no such certificate issued, when final payment is due in ac- cordance with. paragraph 14.13. The terms "substantiall complete" and "substantially completed" as applied to any Work refer to Substantial Completion thereof. Work - The entire completed construction or the various sepa- rately identifiable parts thereof required to be furnished under the Contract Documents. Work is the result of perform- ing services, furnishing labor and furnishing and incorporating materials and equipment into the construction, all as required by the Contract Documents. GC -3 ARTICLE 2 PRELIM INARY MATTERS Delivery of Bonds: 2.1. When CONTRACTOR delivers the executed .Agreements to OWNER, CONTRACTOR shall also deliver to OWNER such Bonds as CONTRACTOR may be required to furnish in accordance with para- graph 5.1. Copies of Documents 2.2. OWNER shall furnish to CONTRACTOR up to ten copies (unless otherwise specified in the General Requirements) of the Contract Documents as are reasonably necessary for the execution of the Work. Additional copies will be furnished, upon request, at the cost of reproduction. Commencement of Contract Time; Notice to Proceed 2.3-The Contract Time will commence to run on the thir- tieth day after the effective date of the Agreement, or, if a Notice to Proceed is given, on the day indicated in the Notice to Proceed; but in no event shall the Contract Time commence to run later than the ninetieth day after the day of Bid open- ing orthe thirtieth day after the effective date of the Agree- ment. A Notice to Proceed may be given at any time within thirty days after the effective date of the Agreement. Startinz the Proiect: 2.4. CONTRACTOR shall start to perform the Work on the date when the Contract Time commences to run, but: no Work shall be done at the site prior to the date on which the Contract Time commences to run. B efore Starting Construction 2.5. Before undertaking each part of the Work, CONTRACTOR shall carefully study and compare the Contract Documents and check and verify pertinent figures shown thereon and all appli- cable field measurements. CONTRACTOR shall promptly report in writing to ENGINEER any conflict, error or discrepancy which CONTRACTOR may discover; however, CONTRACTOR shall not be liable to OWNER or ENGINEER for failure to report any conflict, error, or discrepancy- in the Drawings or Specifications, unless CON- TRACTOR had actual knowledge thereof or should reasonably have known thereof. 2.6. Within ten days after the effective date of the Ag ;e- ment (unless otherwise specified in the Special Conditions or General Requirements), CONTRACTOR shall submit to ENGINEER for review and acceptance an estimated progress schedule indicating the starting and completion dates of the various stages of the Work, a preliminary schedule of Shop Drawing submissions, and a preliminary schedule of values of the Work. GC -4 2.7. Before any Work at the site is started, CONTRACTOR shall deliver to OWNER, with a copy to ENGINEER, certificates (and other evidence of insurance requested by OWNER) which CON- TRACTOR is required to purchase and maintain in accordance with paragraphs S.3 and 5.4, and OWNER shall deliver to CONTRACTOR certificates (and other evidence of insurance requested by CON- TRACTOR) which OWNER is required to purchase and maintain in accordance with paragraphs S.6 and S.7. Pre - Construction Conference 2.8. Within twenty days after the effective date of the Agreement, but before CONTRACTOR starts the Work at the site, a conference will be held for review and acceptance of the schedules referred to in paragraph 2.6, to establish procedures for handling Shop Drawings and other submittals and for pro- cessing Applications for Payment, and to establish a working understanding among the parties as to the Work. ;;C_ ARTICLE 3 CONTRACT DOCUM ENTS: INTENT AND REUSE Intent: 3.1. The Contract Documents comprise the entire Agreement between OWNER and CONTRACTOR concerning the Work. They may be altered only by a Modification. The Contract Documents con- stitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto, re- lating to the project, and they set forth the rights, duties and obligations of each to the other as of the date of execu- tion thereof. Any prior or subsequent p- ,omises, negotiations, or rePreSer?tatl:?T1S Of �111�" Ii,:iilll'C, not CYI- >TCSsly set forth in the Contract Documents are no force or effect. 3.2. The Contract �):Jlli1'lentS a1'(: C tiJhit 1 called for by one is as binding as if call,;;! for by all. 1f, during the performance of the 1'orr,, CONTRACTfOR) finds a confli( -L error or discrepancy n the (_,ontr Documents, ocuments, he shall_ report . it to ENGINEER in writin, at once a i�efoz e proceedin�7 with the Work affected thereby; ho�,evei , CONTRACTOR shall , °,'o be. liable to OWNER or ENGINI;ER f,�r f.ii lure to report an,,- conflict, error or discrepancy in the Specifications or Drawin.�s unless CONTRACTOR had actual knowlc; age thereof or should rc�sor,ahl.y have known thereof. 3. 3. It is the intelit 0I' the Specifications and Draw nzTs to describe a complete project (or part tlarreof) to i�.c; con- structed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Arne lvork that may reasonably be inferred from the Specifications or Drawings as being required to produce the intended result shall be supplied whether or not it is specifically calied for. When words which have a well known technical or trade: meaning are used to describe Worl_, materials or equipment, such words shall be interpreted in accordance with such meaning. ��cfer- once to standard specifications, manuals or ::odes of an-:- tech- nical society, organization or association, or to the code of any governmental_ authorit'-r, whether such reference be specific or by implication, shall mean the latest standard specification, manual or code in effect at the time of opening of Bids (or on the effective date of the Agreement if there were no :aids }, except as may be otherwise specifically stated. however, no provision of any referenced standard specification, manual or code (whether or not specifically incorporated by reference in the Contract Documents) shall change the duties and respon- sibilities of OWNER, CONTRACTOR or ENGINEER, or any of their agents or employees from those set forth in the Contract Docu- ments. Clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents shall be issued by ENGINEER as provided for in paragraph 9.3. GC -6 3.4. The Contract Documents and any and all related matters thereto and thereunder shall be interpreted in accord- ance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 3.5. These Contract Documents :hall inure to and be binding i the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. Reuse of the Documents: 3.6. Neither CONTRACTOR nor an Subcontractor, manufacturer, fabricator, supplier or distributor shall have or acquire any title to or ownership rights in any of the Drawings, Specifica- tions or other documents (or copies of any thereof) prepared by or bearing the seal of ENGINEER; and then shall not reuse any of them on extensions of the Project or any other project with- out written consent of OWNER and ENGINEER and specific written verification or adaptation by ENGINEER. GC -7 ARTICLE 4 AVAILABILITY OF LANDS; PHYSICAL CONDITIONS; REFERENCE POINTS Availability of Lands: 4.1. OWNER shall furnish, as indicated in the Special Con- ditions, the lands upon which the Work is to be performed, rights - of -way for access thereto, and such other lands which are desig- nated for the use of CONTRACTOR. Easements for permanent struc- tures or permanent changes in existing facilities will be obtained and paid for by OWNER, unless otherwise provided in the Special Conditions. If' CONTRACTOR believes that any delay in OWNER's furnishing these lands or easements entitles him t:o an extension of the Contract Time, CONTRACTOR may make a claim therefore as provided in - ?rticle 12. CONTRACTOR shall provide for all addi- tional lands and access thereto that may be required for tempo- rary construction facilities for storage of nnaterials and ecit,ipm ---rnt. Physical. Co ,!dit7 ons - In vestigations a nd Reports 4 Rcferc..nce is to the Special Conditions for identi ficatir)n of tl reports of investigations and tests of sub - surf<:cU and l�� ti nt physical conditions at the site or otherwise affecting cost, progress or performance of the Work which have been relied upon by ENGINEER in preparation of the Drawings and Spec ifi cat if_,ns. Such reports are not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness and are not part of the Contract Documents. Unforeseen Pl;ysical Conditions: 4. i. CONTRAC'T'OR shall promptly notify OWNER and ENGINEER in writing of any subsurface or latent ph conditions at the site or in ;.r_ existing structure diIftiing materially from those indicated c < - referred to in the Contract Documents. ENGINEER will. promptly re�, - iew those conditions and �!,�'vise OWNER in writing if further investigation or tests are necessary. Promptly there- after, OWNED shall obtain the necessary additional investigation: and tests aid furnish copies to ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR. If ENGINEER fi,ids that the results of such investigations or tests indicate that there are subsurface or latent physical conditions which differ materially from those intended in the Contract Docu- ments, and which could not reasonably have been anticipated by CONTRACTOR a ClIan(Te Order shall be issued incorporating the necessary revisions. Reference Points: 4.4. C)WNER shall provide engineering surveys -for construe ion to establish reference points which in his judgement are nece5_�ary to enable "ONTRACTOR to proceed with the Work. CONTRACTOR shall be responsi}-le for laying out the Work (unless otherwise specified in the Spe:- Conditions or General Requirements), shall protect and preser�.,-e the established reference points and shall make no changes or relocations without the prior written approval of OWNER. GC -8 CONTRACTOR shall report to ENGINEEFZ whenever any reference point is lost or destroyed or r,-,quires relocation because of necessary changes in grade or locations, and shall be responsible for re- placement or relocation of such reference points by professionally qualified personnel_. GC -0 ARTICLE 5 BONDS AND INSURANCE Performance and Other Bonds 5.1. CONTRACTOR shall furnish performance and payment Bonds, each in an amount at least equal to the Contract Price as security for the faithful perforr..::c and pay- ment of all CON'TRACTOR's obligations under tk— Contrast Documents. Those Bonds shall remain in effc-t at least until one year after the ,late of final payr.elit, except as otherwise provided by law. COV[i?: CTOR shall also ft,r- nish such other Bonds as are required hY tho Si; Condi- tions. All Bonds shall, be in the forms prescribed by the bidding documents or Special Conditions and be execute;! by such Sureties as (:i) are licunscd to conduct business in the state where the Project is locate:!, and (ii) are named in the current list of "Companies Bolding Certi- ficates of Aut!_ority as Acceptably Surutics on Federal Bonds and as Acceptable Reinsuring Compaii1cs" as pub- lished in Circular 570 (amended) by the ,1u�li t Staff Bureau of Accounts, U.S. Treasury Department. y11 Ponds s ned by an agent must be accompanied b a hick! copy of th,: authority to act. Each SurctN hereunder �1ia11 in:_licatc in writing its state of incorporation, i!i(.? if not registered to do business in Colorado, or 1 icens._�:: to write bonds in Colorado, shall inclicate iii writing t1, tates iti - here it is so registered and so licensed. 5.2. If the Surety on any Bond furilishcd by CONTRACTO1: is declared a bankrupt or beCOmeS insolVcnt or its right to do business is terminated in any state where any part of the Project is located or it ceases to meet the require- ments of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph 5.1, CO�rTR,%CTOR shall within five (5) days thereafter substitute another Bond and Surety, both of which shall be acceptable to OWNLR. Contractor's Liability Insurance: 5.3. The CONTRACTOR shall purchase and maintain such insurance as will protect him from claims set forth below which may arise out of or result from the CONTRACTOP11's execution of the (CORK, whether such execution be by him- self or by any Subcontractor or by anyone directly or indirectly employed b } any of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them magi be liable: In 5.3.1. Claims under workmen's campcnsation, ci isa1) l i t '!) c n c f i t ar)d cthcr s imiiar eEl 1) 1 C) v ec benefits a t 5.3.2. Claim's for 1 1 ama( c.s because of bodiIV injury and occupational sickness or disease, or death of the C0 "TRACTOR's employces ; 5.3.3. Claims for damages because of bodily injury, sickness or diseasL:, or death of any person other than the CONTRACTOR's employees; 5.3.4. Claims for damages insurcd by usual personal injury liability coverage which are sustained (i) by any person as a result of an offense directly or indirectly related to the employment of such person by the CO'� or (ii) by any other person for any other reason. 5.3.5. Claims for damages, other than to the WORK itself, because of injury to or destruction of tangible property, in- cluding loss of use resulting there- from; and, 5.3.6. Claims for damages because of bodily injury or death of any person or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle. 5.3.7. General Liability, Property Damage and Vehicle Expense The Insurance required by this para- graph shall include CONTRACTOR's Gen- eral Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, including vehicle coverage issued to the CONTRACTOR and protecting him from all claims for personal injury, including death, and all claims for destruction of or damage to property, arising out of or in con - ne::tion with any operations under the Contract Documents, whether such operations be by himself or by any Subcontractor under him, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by the CONTRACTOR or by a Subcontractor under him. The Insurances shall con- form to the minimum limits as listed in the Special Conditions. GC -1.1 5.3.8. Workmen's Compensation Insurance The CONTRACTOR shall to e out and maintain during the life of this Contract the statutory Workmen's Compensation and Employee's Liability Insurance for all his employees to be engaged in Work on the Project under this Contract and, in case any such work is sublet, the CONTRACTOR shall require the Subcontractor similarly to provide Workmen's Compensation Insurance for all of the latter's employees to be engaged in such Work, in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Colorado. 5.3.9. Fire and Standard Extended Covera Insurance Buil er s Risk Insurance Unless otherwise provede for in the Special Conditions, the CONTRACTOR will be required to maintain Fire and Extended Coverage Insurance on a 100 percent completed value basis or the insurable portion of the Project for the benefit of the OWNER, until the Project is completed and accepted by the OWNER. This provision shall not release the CONTRACTOR from his obligation to completion, according to plans and specifications, the Project covered by the CONTRACT, and the CON- TRACTOR and his Surety shall be obligated to full performance of the CONTRACTOR's undertaking. 5.3.10. Certificates of Insurance Certificates of Insurance acceptable to the OWNER shall be filed with the OWNER prior to commence- ment of the Work. These Certificates shall con- tain a provision that coverages afforded under the policies will not be cancelled unless at least fifteen (15) days prior written notice has been given to the OWNER. Contractual Liability Insurance: 5.4. The comprehensive general liability insurance required by paragraph 5.3will include contractual liability insurance appli- cable to CONTRACTOR's obligations under paragraphs 6.30 and 6.31. Owner's Liability Insurance 5.5. OWNER shall be responsible for purchasing and maintain- ing his own liability insurance and, at his option, may purchase and maintain such insurance as will protect OWNER against claims which may arise from nperations under the Contract Documents. Property Insurance 5.6. Unless otherwise provided in the Special Conditions, OWNER shall purchase and maintain property insurance upon the Work at the site to the ful' insurable value thereof (subject to such GC -12 deductible amounts as may be provided in the Special Conditions or required by law). This Insurance shall include the interests of OWNER, CONTRACTOR, and Subcontractors in the Work, shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage and shall in- clude "all risk" insurance for physical loss and damage including theft, vandalism and malicious mischief, collapse and water dam- age, and such other perils as may be provided in the Special Condi- tions, and shall include damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from any insured loss or incurred in the re- pair or replacement of any insured property (including fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys and other profession- als). If not covered under the "all risk" Insurance or otherwise provided in the Special Conditions, CONTRACTOR shall purchase and maintain similar property insurance on portions of the Work stored on and off the site or in transit when such portions of the Work are to be included in an Application for Payment. The policies of insurance required to be purchased and maintained by OWNER in accordance with paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 shall contain a provision that the coverage afforded will not be cancelled or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to CONTRACTOR. 5.7. OWNER shall purchase and maintain such boiler and machinery insurance as may be required by the Special Conditions or by law. This Insurance shall include the interests of OWNER, CONTRACTOR and Subcontractors in the Work. 5.8. OWNER shall not be responsible for purchasing and main- taining any property insurance to protect the interest of CON- TRACTOR or Subcontractors in the Work to the extent of any de- ductible amounts that are provided in the Special Conditions. If CONTRACTOR wishes property insurance coverage within the limits of such amounts, CONTRACTOR may purchase and maintain it at his own expense. 5.9. If CONTRACTOR requests in writing that other special insurance be included in the property insurance policy, OWNER shall, if possible, include such insurance, and the cost thereof shall be charged to CONTRACTOR by appropriate Change Order. Prior to commencement of the Work at the site, OWNER will in writing advise CONTRACTOR whether or not such other insurance has been procured by OWNER. Waiver of Rights 5.10. OWNER and CONTRACTOR waive all rights against each other and the Subcontractors and their agents and employees and against ENGINEER and separate contractors (if any) and their subcontractors' agents and employees, for damages caused by fire or other perils to the extent covered by insurance pro- vided under paragraphs S.6 and 5.7, inclusive, or any other prop- erty insurance applicable to the Work, except such rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance held by OWNER as trustee. OWNER shall require similar written waivers by GC -13 ENGINEER and from each separate contractor, and CONTRACTOR shall require similar written waivers from each Subcontractor (in ac- cordance with paragraph 6.11 as applicable); each such waiver will be in favor of all other parties enumerated in this para- graph 5.10. Receipt and Application of Proceeds 5.11. Any insured loss under the policies of insurance re- quired by paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 shall be adjusted with OWNER and made payable to OWNER as trustee for the insureds, as their interests'Snay appear, subject to the requirements of any appli- cable mortgage clause and of paragraph 5.12. OWNER shall deposit in a separate account any money so received, and he shall distri- bute it in accordance with such agreement as the parties in interest may reach. If no other special agreement is reached, the damaged Work shall be repaired or repla ed, the moneys so received applied on account thereof and the Work and the cost thereof covered by an appropriate Change Order. 5.12. OWNER as trustee shall have power to adjust and settle any loss with the insurers unless one of the parties in interest shall object in writing within fifteen (15) days after the occur- rence of loss to OWNER's exercise of this power. if such objec- tion be made, OWNER as trustee shall make settlement with the insurers in accordance with such agreement as the parties in interest may reach. If required in writing by any party in interest, OWNER as trustee shall upon the occurrence of an insured loss, give bond for the proper performance of his duties. Acceptance of Insurance 5.13. If OWNER has any objection to tho coverage afforded by or other provisions of the insurance required to be purchased and maintained by CONTRACTOR in accordarve with paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 on the basis of its not complyin;_:, with the Contract Docu- ments, OWNER will notify CONTRACTOR in titiriting thereof within ten (10) days of the date of delivery of such certificates to OWNER in accordance with paragraph 2.7. If CONTRACTOR has any objection to the coverage afforded by or other provisions of the policies of :insurance required to bw purchased and maintained by OWNER in accordance with paragraphs :.6 and 5.7 on the basis of their not complying with the Contrac! Documents, CONTRACTOR will notify OWNER in writing thereon within ten (10) days of the date; of delivery of such certificates to CONTRACTOR in accord- ance with paragraph 2.7. OWNER and CONTRACTOR will each pro- vide to the other such additional information in respect of in- surance provided by him as the other may reasonably request. Failure by OWNER or CONTRACTOR to give any such notice of objec- tion within the time provided shall constitute acceptance of such insurance purchased by the other as complying with the Contract Documents. GC_ 11 Partial Utilization - Property Insurance: 5.14. If OWNER finds it necessary to occupy or use a por- tion or portions of the Work prior to Substantial Completion of all the Work, such use or occupancy may be accomplished in accord- ance with paragraph 14.10; provided that no such use or occupancy shall commence before the insurers providing the property insur- ance have acknowledged notice thereof and in writing effected the changes in coverage necessitated thereby. The insurers pro- viding the property insurance shall consent by endorsement on the policy or policies, but the property insurance shall not be cancelled or lapse on account of any such partial use or occupancy. GC -15 ARTICLE 6 CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES Supervision and Superintendence 6.1.CONTRACTOR shall supervise and direct the Work compe- tently and efficiently, devoting such attention thereto and apply- ing such skills and expertise as may be necessary to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures of construction, but CONTRACTOR shall not be solely responsible for the negligence of others in the design or selec- tion of a specific means, method, technique, sequence or proQe- dure of construction which is indicated in and required by the Contract Documents. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible to see that the finished Work complies accurately with the Contract Documents. 6.2. CONTRACTOR shall keep on the Worm: at all times during its progress a competent resident superintendent, who shall not be replaced without written notice to OWNER and ENGINEER except under extraordinary circumstances. The superintendent will be CONTRACTOR's representative at the site and shall have authority to act on behalf of CONTRACTOR. All communications given to the superintendent shall be as binding as if given to CONTRACTOR. Labor Materials and Eq 6.3. CONTRACTOR shall provide competent, suitably qualified personnel to survey and lay out the Work and perform construc- tion as required by the Contract Documents. CONTRACTOR shall at all times maintain good discipline and order at the site. �Ex- cept in connection with the safety or nrctect.ion of persons or the Work or property at the site or adjacent thereto, and except as otherwise indicated in the Special Conditions, all Work at the site shall be performed during regular working hours, and CONTRACTOR will not permit overtime work ar the performance of Work on Saturday, Sunda; or any legal holiday without CWNER's written ;_onsent given after prior written notice to ENGINEER. 6.4. CONTRACTOR shall furnish all materials, equipment, labor, transportation, construction equipment aid machinery, tools, appliances, fuel, power, light, heat, telephone, water and sanitary facilities and all other facilities and incidentals necessary for the execution, testing, initial operation and completion of the Work. 6.S. All materials and equipment shall be of good quali+ and new, except as otherwise provided in the Contract Documen.s . If required by ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR shall furnish satisfactory evidence (including reports of required tests) as to the kind and duality of materials and equipment. GC -16 6.6. All materials and equipment shall be applied, installed, connected, erected, used, cleaned and conditioned in accordance with the instructions of the applicable manufacturer, fabricator, supplier or distributor, except as otherwise provided in the Con- tract Documents. Equivalent Materials and Equipment 6.7. Whenever materials or equipment are specified or de- scribed in the Drawings or Specifications by using the name of a proprietary item or the name of a particular manufacturer, fabri- cator, supplier or distributor, the naming of the item is intended to establish the type, function and quality required. Unless the name is followed by words indicating that no substitution is per- mitted, materials or equipment of other manufacturers, fabricators, suppliers or distributors may be accepted by ENGINEER if sufficient information is submitted by CONTRACTOR to allow ENGINEER to deter- mine that the material or equipment proposed is equivalent to that named. The procedure for review by ENGINEER will be as set forth in paragraphs 6.7.1 and 6.7.2 below as supplemented in the General Requirements or Special Conditions. 6.7.1. Requests for review of substitute items of material and equipment will not be accepted by ENGINEER from anyone other than CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR wishes to furnish or use a sub- stitute item of material or equipment, CON- TRACTOR shall make written application to ENGINEER for acceptance thereof, certifying that the proposed substitute will perform ade- quately the functions called for by the general design, be similar and of equal substance to that specified and be suited to the same use and capable of performing the same function as that specified. The application will state whether or not acceptance of the substitute for use in the Work will require a change in the Drawings or Specifications to adapt the design to the substitute and whether or not incorporation or use of the substitute in connection with the Work is subject to payment of any license fee or royalty. All variations of the proposed substitute from that specified shall be identified in the application and available maintenance, repair and replacement service will be indicated. The application will also contain an itemized estimate of all costs that will result directly or indirectly from acceptance of such substitute, including costs of redesign and claims of other con- tractors affected by the resulting change, all of which shall be considered by ENGINEER in evaluating the proposed substitute. ENGINEER may require CONTRACTOR to furnish at CONTRAC- TOR's expense additional data about the pro- posed substitute. ENGINEER will be the sole judge of acceptability, and no substitute will GC -17 be ordered or installed without ENGINEER's prior written acceptance. OWNER may require CONTRACTOR to furnish at CONTRACTOR's expense a special performance guarantee or other surety with respect to any substitute. 6.7.2. ENGINEER will record time required by ENGINEER and ENGINEER's consultants in evaluating sub- stitutions proposed by CONTRACTOR and in making changes in the Drawings and Specifications occasioned thereby. Whether or not ENGINEER accepts a proposed substitute, CONTRACTOR shall reimburse OWNER for the charges of ENGINEER and ENGINEER's consultants for eval- uating any proposed substitute. Concerning Subcontractors: 6.8. CONTRACTOR shall not employ any Subcontractor or other person or organization (including those who arc to furnish the principal items of materials or equipment), whethez initially or as a substitute, against whom OWNER or ENGINEER may have reasonable objection. A Subcontractor or other person or organization identi- fied in writing to OWNER and ENGINEEI: by CONTRACTOR prior to the Notice of Award and not objected to in writing by OWNER or ENGINEER prior to the Notice of Award will be deemed acceptable to OWNER and ENGINEER. Acceptance of any Subcontractor, other person or organization by OWNER or ENGINEER shall not constitute a waiver of any right of OWNER or ENGINEER to reject defective Work. If OWNER or ENGINEER after due investigation has reasonable objection to any Subcontractor, other person oror�;arni�ation proposed -by CON- TRACTOR after the Notice of Award, CONTRACTOR shall submit an acceptable substitute and the Contract Price shall be increased or decreased by the difference in cost occasioned by such substi- tution, and an appropriate Change Order shall be issued. CONTRAC- TOR shall not be required to employ any Subcontractor, other person or organization against whom CONTRACTOR has reasonable objection. 6.9. CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible for all acts and omissions of his Subcontractors and of persons and organization directly or indirectly employed by them and of persons and organi- zations for whose acts any of them may be liable to the same ex- tent that CONTRACTOR is responsible for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by CONTRACTOR. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall create any contractual relationship between OWNER or ENGINEER and any Subcontractor or other person or organization having a direct contact with CONTRACTOR, nor shall it create any obligation on the part of OWNER or ENGINEER to pay or to see to the payment of any moneys due any Subcontractor or other person or organization, except as may otherwise be required by law. OWNER or ENGINEER may furnish to any Subcontractor or other person or organization, to the extent practicable, evidence of amounts paid to CONTRACTOR on account of specific Work done. GC -18 6.10. The divisions and sections of the Specifications and the identifications of any Drawings shall not control CONTRACTOR in dividing the Work among Subcontractors or delineating the Work to beperformed by any specific trade. 6.11. All Work performed for CONTRACTOR by a Subcontractor will be pursuant to an appropriate agreement between CONTRACTOR and the Subcontractor which specifically binds the Subcontractor to the applicable terms and conditions of the Contract Documents for the benefit of OWNER and ENGINEER and contains waiver pro- visions as required by paragraph 5.10. CONTRACTOR shall pay each Subcontractor a just share of any insurance moneys received by CONTRACTOR on account of losses under policies issued pursuant to paragraphs 5.6 through 5.8. Patent Fees and Royalties: 6.12. CONTRACTOR shall pay all license fees and royalties and assume all costs incident to the use in the performance of the Work or the incorporation in the Work of any invention, design, process, product or device which is the subject of patent rights or copyrights held by others. If a particular invention, design, process, product or device is specified in the Contract Documents for use in the performance of the Work and if to the actual know- ledge of OWNER or ENGINEER its use is subject topatent rights or copyrights calling for the payment of any license fee or royalty to others, the existence of such rights shall be disclosed by OWNER in the Contract Documents. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless OWNER and ENGINEER and anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses (including attorneys' fees) arising out of any infringement of patent rights or copyrights incident to the use in the performance of the Work or resulting from the incor- poration in the Work of any invention, design, process, product or device not specified in the Contract Documents, and shall de- fend all such claims in connection with any alleged infringement of such rights. Permits: 6.13. Unless otherwise provided in the Special Conditions, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and pay for all construction permits and licenses. OWNER shall assist CONTRACTOR, when necessary, in ob- taining such permits and license. CONTRACTOR shall pay all governmental charges and inspection fees necessary for the prose- cution of the Work, which are applicable at the time of opening of Bids. CONTRACTOR shall pay all charges of utility service companies for connections to the Work, and OWNER shall pay all charges of such companies for capital costs related thereto. Laws and Regulations 6.14. CONTRACTOR, shall give all notices and comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the Work. If CONTRACTOR observes that the Specifications or Drawings are at variance therewith, CONTRACTOR shall give ENGINEER prompt GC-19 written notice thereof, and any necessary changes shall be adjusted by an appropriate Modification. If CONTRACTOR performs any Work knowing or having reason to know that it is contrary to such laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, and without such notice to ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR shall bear all costs arising therefrom; how- ever, it shall not be CONTRACTOR's primary responsibility to make certain that the Specifications and Drawings are in accordance with such laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Taxes: 6.15. CONTRACTOR shall pay all sales, consumer, use and other similar taxes required tobe paid by him in accordance with the law of the place of the Project. All bids shall include all such taxes with no adjustment for any refund the OWNER will receive. The CONTRACTOR is entitled to no benefit whatever on account of such refunds. The CONTRACTOR shall maintain and furnish to the OWNER,records required by governmental regulations of sales taxes paid to enable recovery of the same by the OWNER. Use of Premises: 6.16. CONTRACTOR shall confine construction equipment, the storage of materials and equipment and the operations of workmen to areas permitted by law, ordinances, permits or the requirements of the Contract Documents, and shall not unreasonably encumber the premises with construction equipment or other materials or equip- ment. 6.17. During the progress of the Work, CONTRACTOR shall keep the premises free from accumulations of waste materials, rubbish and other debris resulting from the Work. At the completion of the Work, CONTRACTOR shall remove all waste materials, rubbish and debris from and about the premises, as well as all tools, appliances, construction equipment and machinery, and surplus materials, and shall leave the site clean and ready for occupancy by OWNER. CONTRACTOR shall restore to their original condition those portions of the site not designated for alteration by the Contract Documents. 6.18. CONTRACTOR shall not load nor permit any part of any structure to be loaded in any manner that will endanger the struc- ture, nor shall CONTRACTOR subject any part of the Work or adja- cent property to stresses or pressures that will endanger it. Record Documents 6.19. CONTRACTOR shall keep one record copy of all Specifi- cations, Drawings, Addenda, Modifications, Shop Drawings and - mples at the site, in good order and annotated to show all changes ; „ade during the construction process. These shall be available to ENGI- NEER for examination and shall be delivered to ENGINEER for OWNER upon completion of the Work. GC -?0 Safety and Pr otection : 6.20. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for initiating, main- taining and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work. CONTRACTOR shall take all necessary pre- cautions for the safety of, and shall provide the necessary pro- tection to prevent damage, injury or loss to: 6.20.1. all employees on the Work and other persons who may be affected thereby; 6.20.2. all the Work and all materials or equipment to be incorporated therein, whether in storage on or off the site; and, 6.20.3. other property at the site or adjacent thereto, including trees, shrubs, lawns, walks, pave- ments, roadways, structures and utilities not designated for removal, relocation or replace- ment in the course of construction. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable laws, ordi- nances, rules and regulations and orders of any public body having jurisdiction for the safety of persons or property or to protect them from damage, injury or loss, and shall erect and maintain all necessary safeguards for such safety and protection. CONTRACTOR shall notify owners of adjacent property and utilities when prosecu- tion of the Work may affect them. All damage, injury or loss to any property referred toin paragraph 6.20.2 or 6.20.3 caused, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by CONTRACTOR, any Subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, shall be remedied by CONTRACTOR (except damage or loss attribut- able to the fault of Drawings or Specifications or to the acts or omissions of OWNER or ENGINEER or anyone employed by either of them or anyone for whose acts either of them may be liable, and not attributable, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, to the fault or negligence of CONTRACTOR). CONTRACTOR's duties and responsibilities for the safety and protection of the Work shall continue until such time as all the Work is completed and ENGINEER has issued a notice to OWNER and CONTRACTOR in accordance with paragraph 14.13 that the Work is acceptable. 6.21. CONTRACTOR shall designate a responsible member of his organization at the site whose duty shall be the prevention of accidents. This person shall be CONTRACTOR's superintendent unless otherwise designated in writing by CONTRACTOR to OWNER. Emergencies 6.22. In emergencies affecting the safety or protection of persons or the Work or property at the site or adjacent thereto, GC -21 CONTRACTOR, i special instruction o ENGINEER or 01VNER, is obligated to act to damage, injury or loss. CONTRACTOR shall written notice of any significant changes ations from the Contract Documents caused S hop Drawings and Samples r authorization from prevent threatened give ENGINEER prompt in the Work or devi- thereby. 6.23. After checking and verifying all field measurements, CONTRACTOR shall submit to ENGINEER for review and approval, in accordance with the accepted schedule of Shop Drawing submissions (see paragraph 2.8), five copies (unless otherwise specified in the General Requirements or Special Conditions) of all Shop Draw- ings, which shall have been checked by and stamped With the ap- proval of CONTRACTOR and identified as require. The respect to data shown on the Shop Drawings will he co��tplete with dimensions, design criteria, materials t_ �ristruction and like information to enable ENGI`, ', to revic�� ri the information as re- quired. 6.24. CONTRACTOR shall also submit to and approval with suc :. "vGI'�`EER for rcvic�� such promptness as to cause no delay cvICI all samples rcquircd by the Contract 1)ocumunt -s , 1 am have been checked by and stamped with the aphrovai identified clearly as to material, manufacturer, any pertinent catalog numbers and the use for which intended. 6.2S. At the time of each submission, CONTRACTOR shall in writing call ENGINEER's attention to anY deviations that the Shop Drawings or samples may have from the requirements of the Contract Documents. 6.26. ENGINEER will review and approrc with reasonable promptness Shop Drawings and samples, but iitiCIIVF,ER's review and approval shall be only for conforrlancc wi tli the design concept of the Project and for compliance with tlic information given in the Contract Documents and shall not e;ctcnd to means, methods, sequences, techniques or procedures of construction or to safety precautions orl incident thereto. The rc and approval of a separate item as such will not indicate approval of the assembly in which the item fun, :bons . C'0"' "IIUk(;,T0R shall rake any- corrections required by ENGINLI1: and shall return the required number of corrected copies of Shop Drawings and resubmit new samples for review and approval. CONTR, \CT()R shall_ direct specific attention in writing to revisions other than the corrections called for by ENGINEER on prcriolis sub;?1 1; ttaI . C0NTRACT0R's stamp of approval on any Shop I)rat�ing or san,pl, shall constitute. a representation to OIdNER and ENGINI1.l' that CONTRACTOR has either determined and verified all quantities, di1aensions, field construc- tion criteria, materials, catalog numbers, and similar data or assumes full responsibility for doing so, and that CON has reviewed or coordinated each Shop Drawing or sample: ,�itll the re- quirements of the Work and the Contract Documents. GC -22 6.27. Where a Shop Drawing or sample is required by the Specifications, no related Work shall be commenced until the sub- mittal has been reviewed and approved by ENGINEER. 6.28. ENGINEER's review and approval of Shop Drawings or samples shall not relieve CONTRACTOR from responsibility for any deviations from the Contract Documents unless CONTRACTOR has in writing called ENGINEER's attention to such deviation at the time of submission and ENGINEER has given written concurrence and ap- proval to the specific deviation, nor shall any concurrence or approval by ENGINEER relieve CONTRACTOR from responsibility for errors or omissions in the Shop Drawings. Continuing the Work: 6.29. CONTRACTOR shall carry on the Work and maintain the progress schedule during all disputes or disagreements with OWNER. No Work shall be delayed or postponed pending resolution of any disputes or disagreements, except as CONTRACTOR and OWNER may otherwise agree in writing. Indemnification 6.30. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless OWNER and ENGINEER and their agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including but not limited to attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work, provided that such claim, damage, loss or expense (a) is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than the Work itself), including the loss of use resulting therefrom, and (b) is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of CONTRAC- TOR, any Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by a party in- demnified hereunder. 6.31. In any and all claims against OWNER or ENGINEER or any of their agents or employees by any employee of CONTRACTOR, any Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, the indemnification obligation under paragraph 6.30 shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for CONTRACTOR or any Subcontractor under workers' or workmen's compensation acts, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts. 6.32. The obligations of CONTRACTOR under paragraph 6.30 shall not extend to the liability of ENGINEER, his agents or employees arising out of the preparation or approval of maps, drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, Change Orders, designs or specifications. GC -23 ARTICLE 7 WORK BY OTHERS 7.1. OWNER may perform additional work related to the Pro - ject-by himself, or have additional work performed by utility service companies, or let other direct contracts therefore which shall contain General Conditions similar to these. CONTRACTOR shall afford the utility service companies and the other contrac- tors who are parties to such direct contracts (or OWNER, if OWNER is performing the additional work with OWNER's employees) reason- able opportunity for the introduction and storage of materials and equipment and the execution of work, and shall properly con- nect and coordinate his Work with theirs. 7.2. If any part of CONTRACTOR's Work depends for proper execution or results upon the work of any such other contractor or utility service company (or OWNER), CONTRACTOR shall inspect and promptly report to ENGINEER in writing any patent or apparent defects or deficiencies in such work that render it unsuitable for such proper execution and results. CONTRACTOR's failure so to report shall constitute an acceptance of the other work as fit and proper for integration with CONTRACTOR's kork except for latent or non - apparent defects and deficiencies in the other work. 7.3. CONTRACTOR shall do all cutting, fitting and patching of his Work that may be required to make its several parts come together properly and integrate with such other work. CONTRACTOR shall not endanger any work of others by cutting, excavating or otherwise altering their work and will only cut or alter their work with the written consent of ENGINEER and the others whose work will be affected. 7.4. If the performance of additonal work by other contrac- tors or utility service companies or OWNER was not noted in the Contract Documents, written notice thereof shall be given to CON- TRACTOR prior to starting any such additional work. If CONTRAC- TOR believes that the performance of such additional work by OWNER or others involves additional_ expense to CONTRACTOR or re- quires an extension of the Contract Time, CONTRACTOR may make a claim therefor as provided in Articles 11 and 12. GC -24 ARTICLE 8 OWNER'S RESPONSIB 8.1. OWNER shall issue all communications to CONTRACTOR through ENGINEER unless otherwise stated in the Special Conditions. 8.2. In case of termination of the employment of ENGINEER, OWNER shall appoint an engineer against whom CONTRACTOR makes no reasonable objection, whose status under the Contract Documents shall be that of the former ENGINEER. Any dispute in connection with such appointment shall be subject to arbitration. 8.3. OWNER shall furnish the data required of OWNER under the Contract Documents promptly and shall make payments to CON- TRACTOR promptly after they are due as provided in paragraphs 14.4 and 14.13. 8.4. OWNER's duties in respect of providing lands and ease- ments and providing engineering surveys to establish reference points are set forth in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.4. Paragraph 4.2 refers to OWNER's identifying and making available to CONTRACTOR copies of reports of investigations and tests of subsurface and latent physical conditions at the site or otherwise affecting performance of the Work which have been relied upon by ENGINEER in preparingthe Drawings and Specifications. 8.5. OWNER's responsibilities in respect of purchasing and maintaining liability and property insurance are set forth in paragraphs S.S through 5.7. 8.6. In connection with OWNER's rights to request changes in the Work in accordance with Article 10, OWNER (especially in certain instances as provided in paragraph 10.4) is obligated to execute Change Orders. 8.7. OWNER's responsibility in respect of certain inspec- tions, tests and approvals is set forth in paragraph 13.4. 8.8. In connection with OWNER's right to stop Work or suspend Work, seeparagraphs 13.10 and 15.1. Paragraph 15.2 deals with OWNER's right to terminate services of CONTRACTOR under cer- tain circumstances. GC -2S ARTICLE 9 ENGINEER'S STATUS DURING CONSTRUCTION Owner's Representative: 9.1. ENGINEER will be OWNER's representative during the construction period. The duties and responsibilities and the limitations of authority of ENGINEER as OWNER's representative during construction are set forth in the Contract Documents and shall not be extended without written consent of OWNER and ENGINEER. Vists to Si te: 9.2. ENGINEER will make visits to the site at intervals appropriate'to the various stages of construction to observe the progress and quality of the executed Work and to determine, in general, if the Work is proceeding in accordance with the Con- tract Documents. ENGINEER will not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. ENGINEER's efforts will be directed toward providing for OWNER a greater degree of confidence that the completed Work will conform to the Contract Documents. On the basis of such vists and on -site observations as an experienced and qualified design professional, ENGINEER will keep OWNER informed of the pro- gress of the Work and will endeavor to guard OWNER against defects and deficiencies in the Work. Clarification and Interpretations: 9.3. ENGINEER will issue with reasonable promptness such written clarifications or interpretations of the Contract Docu- ments (in the form of Drawings or otherwise) as ENGINEER may deter- mine necessary, which shall be consistent with or reasonably inferable from the overall intent of the Contract Documents. If CONTRACTOR believes that a written clarification or interpretation justifies an increase in the Contract Price or Contract Time, CONTRACTOR may make a claim therefor as provided in Article 11 or Article 12. Rejecting Defective Work: 9.4. ENGINEER will have authority to disapprove or reject Work which is defective, and will also have authority to require special inspection or testing of the Work as provided in paragraph 13.9, whether or not the Work is fabricated, installed or completed. Shop Drawings, Change Orders and Payments 9.S. In connection with ENGINEER's responsibility for Shop Drawings and samples, see paragraphs 6.23 through 6.29, inclusive. GC -26 9.6. In connection with ENGINEER's responsibilities as to Change Orders, see Articles 10, 11 and 12. 9.7. In connection with ENGINEER's responsibilities in respect to Applications for Payment, etc., see Article 14. Project Representation: 9.8. If OWNER and ENGINEER agree, ENGINEER will furnish a Resident Project Representative to assist ENGINEER in observing the performance of the Work. The duties, responsibilities and limitation of authority of any such Resident Project Represent- ative and assistants will be as provided in the Special Condi- tions. If OWNER designates another agent to represent him at the site who is not ENGINEER's agent or employee, the duties, responsiblities and limitations of authority of such other per- son will be as provided in the Special Conditions. Decisions on Disagreements: 9.9. ENGINEER will be the initial interpreter of the re- quirements of the Contract Documents and judge of the accept- ability of the lVork thereunder. Claims, disputes and other matters relating to the acceptability of the Work or the inter- pretation of the requirements of the Contract Documents per- taining to the execution and progress of the Work shall be re- ferred initially to ENGINEER in writing with a request for a formal decision in accordance with this paragraph, which ENGI- NEER will render in writing within a reasonable time. Written notice of each such claim, dispute and other matter shall be delivered by the claimant to ENGINEER and the other party to the Agreement within fifteen (1S) days of the occurrence of the event giving rise thereto, and written supporting data will be submit- ted to ENGINEER and the other party within forty -five (4S) days of such occurrence unless ENGINEER allows an additional period of time to ascertain more accurate data. In his capacity as inter- preter and judge, ENGINEER will not show partiality to OWNER or CONTRACTOR and will not be liable in connection with any inter- pretation or decision rendered in good faith in such capacity. 9.10. The rendering of a decision by ENGINEER pursuant to paragraph 9.9 with respect to any such claim, dispute or other matter (except any which have been waived by the making or acceptance of final payment as provided in paragraph 14.16) will be a condition precedent to any exercise. by OWNER or CONTRACTOR of such rights or remedies as either may otherwise have under the Contract Documents or at law in respect of any such claim, dispute or other matter. Limitations on ENGINEER's Responsibilities: 9.11. Neither ENGINEER's authority to act under this Article 9 or elsewhere in the Contract Documents nor any decision made by ENGINEER in good faith either to exercise or not exercise,-such authority shall give rise to any duty or responsibility o-f ENGI- NEER to CONTRACTOR, any Subcontractor, any manufacturer, fabricator, GC -27 supplier or distributor, or any of their agents or employees or any other person performing any of the Work. 9.12. Whenever in the Contract Documents the terms "as ordered ", "as directed ", "as required ", "as allowed ", or terms of like effect or import are used, or the adjectives "reasonable ", "suitable ", "acceptable ", "proper" or "satisfactory" or adjectives of like effect or import are used to describe requirement, direc- tion, review or judgement of ENGINEER as to the Work, it is intended that such requirement, direction, review or judgement will be solely to evaluate the Work for compliance with the Contract Documents (un- less there is a specific statement indicating otherwise). The use of any such term or adjective never indicates that the ENGINEER shall have authority to undertake responsibility contrary to the pro- visions of paragraphs 9.13 or 9.14. 9.13. ENGINEER will not be responsible for CONTRACTOR''s means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction, or the safety precautions and programs incident thereto, and ENGINEER will not be responsible for CONTRACTOR's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 9.14. ENGINEER will not be responsible for the acts or omis- sions of CONTRACTOR or of any Subcontractors, or of the agents or employees of any CONTRACTOR or Subcontractor, or of any other persons at the site or otherwise performing any of the Work. GC -28 ARTICLE 10 CHANGES IN THE WORK 10.1. Without invalidating the Agreement, OWNER may, at any time or from time to time, order additions, deletions or revisions in the Work; these will be authorized by Change Orders. Upon receipt of a Change Order, CONTRACTOR shall proceed with the Work involved. All such Work shall be executed under the appli- cable conditions of the Contract Documents. If any Change Order causes an increase or decrease in the Contract Price or an exten- sion or shortening of the Contract Time, an equitable adjustment will be made as provided in Article 11 or Article 12 on the basis of a claim made by either party. 10.2. ENGINEER may authorize minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment in the Contract Price or the Contract Time, which are consistent with the overall intent of the Contract Docu- ments. These may be accomplished by a Field Order and shall be binding on OWNER, and also on CONTRACTOR who shall perform the change promptly. If CONTRACTOR believes that a Field Order justi- fies an increase in the Contract Price or Contract Time, CONTRAC- TOR may make a claim therefor as provided in Article 11 or Article 12. 10.3. Additional Work performed without authorization of a Change Order will not entitle CONTRACTOR to an increase in the Contract Price or an extension of the Contract 'Time, except in the case of an emergency as provided in paragraph 6.22 and except as provided in paragraphs 10.2 and 13.9. 10.4. OWNER shall execute appropriate Change Orders pre- pared by ENGINEER covering changes in the Work which are required by OWNER, or required because of unforeseen physical conditions or emergencies, or because of uncovering Work found not to be defective, or as provided in paragraphs 11.9 or 11.10, or because of any other claim of CONTRACTOR for a change in the Contract Time or the Contract Price which is recommended by ENGINEER. 10.5. If notice of any change affecting the general scope of the Work or change in the Contract Price is required by the provisions of any Bond to be given to the Surety, it will be CONTRACTOR's responsibility to so notify the Surety, and the amount of each applicable Bond shall be adjusted accordingly. CONTRACTOR shall furnish proof of such adjustment to OWNER. GC -29 ARTICLE 11 CHANGE OF CONTRACT PRICE 11.1. The Contract Price constitutes the total compensation (subject to authorized adjustments) payable to CONTRACTOR for per- forming the Work. All duties, responsibilities and obligations assigned to or undertaker. by CONTRACTOR shall be at his expense without change in the Contract Price. 11.2. The Contract Price may only be changed by a Change Order. Any claim for an increase in the Contract Price shall be based on written notice delivered to OWNER and ENGINEER within fifteen (15) days of the occurrence of the event giving rise to the claim. Notice of the amount of the claim with supporting data shall be delivered within forty -five (45) days of such occur- rence unless ENGINEER allows an additional period of time to as- certain accurate cost data. All claims for adjustment in the Contract Price shall be determined by ENGINEER if OWNER and CON- TRACTOR cannot otherwise agree on the amount involved. Any change in the Contract Price resulting from any such claim shall be in- corporated in a Change Order. 11.3. The value of any Work covered by a Change Order or of any claim for an increase or decrease in the Contract Price shall be determined in one of the following ways: 11.3.1. Where the Work involved is covered by unit prices contained in the Contract Documents, by application of unit prices to the quanti- ties of the items involved (subject to the provisions of paragraph 11.9). 11.3.2. By mutual acceptance of a lump sum. 11.3.3. On the basis of the Cost of the Work (deter- mined as provided in paragraphs 11.4 and 11.5) plus a Contractor's Fee for overhead and profit (determined as provided in para- graph 11.6). Cost of the Work: 11.4. The term Cost of the Work means the sum of all costs necessarily incurred and paid by CONTRACTOR in the proper perform- ance of the Work. Except as otherwise may be agreed to in writing by OWNER, such costs shall be in amounts no higher than those pre- vailing in the locality of the Project, shall include only the following items and shall not include any of the costs itemized in paragraph 11.5: GC- 30 11.4.1. Payroll costs for employees in the direct employ of CONTRACTOR in the performance of the Work under schedules of job classifications agreed upon by OWNER and CONTRACTOR. Payroll costs for employees not employed full time on the Work shall be appor- tioned on the basis of their time spent on the Work. Payroll costs shall include, but not be limited to, salaries and wages plus the cost of fringe benefits which shall include social security contri- butions, unemployment, excise and payroll taxes, workers' or work- men's compensation, health and retirement benefits, bonuses, sick leave, vacation and holiday pay applicable thereto. Such employ- ees shall include superintendents and foremen at the site. The expenses of performing Work after regular working hours, on Sunday or legal holidays, shall be included in the above to the extent authorized by OWNER. 11.4.2. Cost of all materials and equipment furnished and incorporated in the Work, including costs of transportation and storage thereof, and manufacturers' field services required in connection therewith. All cash discounts shall accrue to CON- TRACTOR unless OWNER deposits funds with CONTRACTOR with which to make payments, in which case the cash discounts shall accrue to OWNER. All trade discounts, rebates and refunds, and all returns from sale of surplus materials and equipment shall accrue to OWNER, and CONTRACTOR shall make provisions so that they may be obtained. 11.4.3. Payments made by CONTRACTOR to the Subcontractors for Work performed by Subcontractors. If required by OWNER, CON- TRACTOR shall obtain competitive bids from Subcontractors accept- able to CONTRACTOR and shall deliver such bids to OWNER who will then determine, with the advice of ENGINEER, which bids will be accepted. If a subcontract provides that the Subcontractor is to be paid on the basis of Cost of the Work Plus a Fee, the Subcon- tractor's Cost of the Work shall be determined in the same manner as CONTRACTOR's Cost of the Work. All subcontracts shall be sub- ject to the other provisions of the Contract Documents insofar as applicable. 11.4.4. Costs of special consultants (including, but not limited to, engineers, architects, testing laboratories, sur- veyors, lawyers and accountants) employed for services specifically related to the Work. 11.4.5. Supplemental costs including the following: 11.4.5.1. The proportion of necessary transporta- tion, travel and subsistence expenses of CONTRACTOR's employees incurred in dis- charge of duties connected with the Work. 11.4.5.2. Costs,including transportation and main- tenance, of all materials, supplies, equip- ment, machinery, appliances, office and temporary facilities at the site and hand tools not owned by the workmen, which are .consumed in the performance of the Work, and cost less market value of such items used but not consumed which remain the property of the CONTRACTOR. GC-31 11.4.5.3. Rentals of all construction equipment and machinery and the parts thereof whether rented from CONTRACTOR or others in accordance with rental agree- ments approved by OWNER with the advice of ENGINEER, and the costs of transport- ation, loading, unloading, installation, dismantling and removal thereof, all in accordance with terms of said rental agreements. The rental of any such equip- ment, machinery or parts shall cease when the use thereof is no longer necessary for the Work. 11.4.5.4. Sales, use or similar taxes related to the Work, and for which CONTRACTOR is liable, imposed by any governmental authority. 11.4.5.5. Deposits lost for causes other than CON - TRACTOR's negligence, royalty payments and fees for permits and licenses. 11.4.5.6. Losses and damages (and related expenses), not compensated by insurance or otherwise to the Work or otherwise sustained by CONTRACTOR in connection with the execu- tion of the Work, provided they have re- sulted from causes other than the negli- gence of CONTRACTOR, any Subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such losses shall in- clude settlements made with the written consent and approval of OWNER. No such losses, damages and expenses shall be in- cluded in the Cost of the Work for the purpose of determining CONTRACTOR's Fee. If, however, any such loss or damage requires reconstruction and CONTRACTOR is placed in charge thereof, CONTRACTOR shall be paid for services a fee proportionate to that stated in paragraph 11.6.2. 11.4.5.7. The cost of utilities, fuel and sanitary facilities at the site. 11.4.5.8. Minor expenses, such as telegrams, long distance telephone calls, telephone service at the site, expressage and similar petty cash items in connection with the Work. 11.4.5.9. Cost of premiums for additional Bonds and insurance required because of changes in the Work. 11.5. The term Cost of the Work shall not include any of the following: GC -32 11.5.1. Payroll costs and other compensation of CON - tractors officers, executives, principals (of partnership and sole proprietorships), general managers, engineers, architects, esti- mators, lawyers, auditors, accountants and pur- chasing and contracting agents, expeditors, timekeepers, clerks and other personnel em- ployed by CONTRACTOR whether at the site or in his principal or a branch office for gene- ral administration of the Work and not speci- fically included in the agreed upon schedule of job classifications referred to in sub- paragraph 11.4.1., all of which are to be considered administrative costs covered by the CONTRACTOR's Fee. 11.5.2. Expenses of CONTRACTOR's principal and branch offices other than CONTRACTOR's office at the site. 11.5.3. Any part of CONTRACTOR's capital expenses, including interest on CONTRACTOR's capital employed for the Work and charges against CONTRACTOR for delinquent payments. 11.5.4. Cost of premiums for all Bonds and for all in- surance whether or not CONTRACTOR is required by the Contract Documents to purchase and main- tain the same (except for additional Bonds and insurance required because of changes in the Work). 11.5.5. Costs due to the negligence of CONTRACTOR, any Subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or for whose acts any of them may be liable, including but not limited to, the correction of defective Work, disposal of materials or equipment wrongly supplied and making good any damage to property. 11.5.6. Other overhead or general expense costs of any kind and the costs of any item not specifically and expressly included in paragraph 11.4. CONTRACTOR's Fee 11.6. The CONTRACTOR's Fee allowed to CONTRACTOR for overhead and profit shall be determined as follows: 11.6.1. a mutually acceptable fixed fee; or if none can be agreed upon. 11.6.2. a fee based on the following percentages of the various portions of the Cost of the Work: GC -33 11.6.2.1. for costs incurred under paragraphs 11.4.1 and 11.4.2, the CONTRACTOR's Fee shall be ten percent, 11.6.2.2. for costs incurred under paragraph 11.4.3, the CONTRACTOR's Fee shall be five (5) percent; and if a subcontract is on the basis of Cost of the Work Plus a Fee, the maximum allowable to the Sub- contractor as a fee for overhead and pro- fit shall be ten (10) percent, and 11.6.2.3. no fee shall be payable on the basis of costs itemized under paragraphs 11.4.4, 11.4.5 and 11.5. 11.7. The amount of OWNER for any such change cost, will be the amount additions and credits are overhead and profit shall crease, if any. credit to be allowed by CONTRACTOR to which results in a net decrease in Df the actual net decrease. When both involved in any one change, the combined be figured on the basis of the net in- Adjustment of Unit Prices: 11.8. Whenever the cost of any Work is to be determined pur- suant to paragraphs 11.4 and 11.5, CONTRACTOR will submit in form acceptable to ENGINEER an itemized cost breakdown together with supporting data. 11.9. Where the quantity of Work with respect to any time that is covered by a unit price differs materially and signifi- cantly from the quantity of such Work indicated in the Contract Documents, an appropriate Change Order shall be issued on'recom- mendation of ENGINEER to adjust the unit price. Cash Allowances: 11.10. It is understood that CONTRACTOR has included in the Contract Price all allowances so named in the Contract Docu- ments and shall cause the Work so covered to be done by such Sub- contractors, manufacturers, fabricators, suppliers or distribu- tors and for such sums within the limit of the allowances as may be acceptable to ENGINEER. Upon final payment, the Contract Price shall be adjusted as required and an appropriate Change Order issued. CONTRACTOR agrees that the original Contract Price in- cludes such sums as CONTRACTOR deems proper for costs and profit on account of cash allowances. No demand for additional cost or profit in connection therewith will be valid. GC- 34 ARTICLE 12 CHANGE OF THE CONTRACT TIME 12.1. The Contract Time may only be changed by a Change Order. Any claim for an extension in the Contract Time shall be based on written notice delivered to OWNER and ENGINEER within fifteen (15) days of the occurrence of the event giving rise to the claim. No- tice of the extent of the claim with supporting data shall be de- livered within forty -five (45) days of such occurrence unless ENGI- NEER allows an additional period of time to ascertain more accurate data. All claims for adjustment in the Contract Time shall be determined by ENGINEER if OWNER and CONTRACTOR cannot otherwise agree. Any change in the Contract Time resulting from any such claim shall be incorporated in a Change Order. 12.2. The Contract Time will be extended in an amount equal to time lost due to delays beyond the control of CONTRACTOR if a claim is made therefor as provided in paragraph 12.1. Such delays shall include, but not be limited to, acts or neglect by OWNER or others performing additional Work as contemplated by Article 7, or to fires, floods, labor disputes, epidemics, abnor- mal weather conditions, or acts of God. 12.3. All time limits stated in the Contract Documents are of the essence of the Agreement. The provisions of this Article 12 shall not exclude recovery for damages (including compensation for additional professional services) for delay by either party. GC- 35 ARTICLE 13 WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE:; TESTS AND INSPECTIONS; CORRECTION, RB40VAL O R ACCEPTANCE OF DEFECTIVE WORK Warranty and Guarantee: 13.1. CONTRACTOR warrants and guarantees to OWNER and ENGI- NEER that all Work will be in accordance with the Contract Docu- ments and will not be defective. Prompt notice of all defects shall be given to CONTRACTOR. All defective Work, whether or not in place, may be rejected, corrected or accepted as provided in this Article 13. Access to Work 13.2. ENGINEER and ENGINEER's representatives, other repre- sentatives of OWNER, testing agencies and governmental agencies with jurisdictional interests will have access to the Work at reasonable times for their observation, inspection and testing. CONTRACTOR shall provide proper and safe conditions for such access. Tests and Inspections: 13.3. CONTRACTOR shall give ENGINEER timely notice of readi- ness of the Work for all required inspections, tests or approvals. 13.4. If any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, code or order of any public body having jurisdiction requires any WORK (or part thereof) to specifically be inspected, tested or approved, CONTRAC- TOR shall assume full responsibility therefor, pay all costs in con- nection therewith and furnish ENGINEER the required certificates of inspection, testing or approval. CONTRACTOR shall also be responsible for and shall pay all costs in connection with any inspection or testing required in connection with OWNER'S or ENGI- NEER's acceptance of a manufacturer, fabricator, supplier or dis- tributor of materials or equipment proposed to be incorporated in the Work, or of materials orcquipment submitted for approval prior to CONTRACTOR's purchase thereof for incorporation in the Work. The cost of all other inspections, tests and approvals required by the Contract Documents shall be paid by OIVN1 (unless otherwise specified). 13.5. All inspections, tests or approvals other than those required by law, ordinance, rule, regulation, code or order of any public body having jurisdiction shall be performed by organi- zations acceptable to OWNER and CON'T'RACTOR (or by ENGINEER if so specified). GC -36 13.6. If any Work that is to be inspected, tested or approved is covered without written concurrence of ENGINEER, it must, if requested by ENGINEER, be uncovered for observation. Such uncover- ing shall be at CONTRACTOR's expense unless CONTRACTOR has given ENGINEER timely notice of CONTRACTOR's intention to cover such Work and ENGINEER has not acted with reasonable promptness in response to such notice. 13.7. Neither observations by ENGINEER nor inspections, tests or approvals by others shall relieve CONTRACTOR from his obligations to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Uncovering Work: 13.8. If any Work is covered contrary to the written request of ENGINEER, it must, if requested by ENGINEER, be uncovered for ENGINEER's observation and replaced at CONTRACTOR's expense. 13.9. If ENGINEER considers it necessary or advisable that covered Work be observed by ENGINEER or inspected or tested by others, CONTRACTOR, at ENGINEER's request, shall uncover, expose or otherwise make available for observation, inspection or testing as ENGINEER may require, that portion of the Work in question, furnishing all necessary labor, material and equipment. If it is found that such Work is defective, CONTRACTOR shall bear all the expenses of such uncovering, exposure, observation, inspection and testing and of satisfactory reconstruction, including compensation for additional professional services, and an appropriate deductive Change Order shall be issued. If, however, such Work is not found to be defective, CONTRACTOR shall be allowed an increase in the Contract Price or an extension of the Contract Time, or both, di- rectly attributable to such uncovering, exposure, observation, inspection, testing and reconstruction if he makes a claim there- for as provided in Articles 11 and 12. OWNER May Stop the Work 13.10. If the Work is defective, or CONTRACTOR fails to supply sufficient skilled workmen or suitable materials or equip- ment, OWNER may order CONTRACTOR to stop the Work, or any portion thereof, until the cause for such order has been eliminated; however, this right of OWNER to stop the Work shall not give rise to any duty on the part of OWNER to exercise this right for the benefit of CONTRACTOR or any other party. Correction or Removal of Defective Work 13.11. If required by ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR shall promptly, without cost to OWNER and as specified by ENGINEER, either correct any defective Work,whether or not fabricated, installed or com- pleted, or, if the Work has been rejected by ENGINEER, remove it from the site and replace it with nondefective Work. GC- 37 One Year Correction Period 13.12. If within one year after the date of Substantial Com- pletion or such longer period of time as may be prescribed by law or by the terms of any applicable special guarantee required by the Contract Documents or by any specific provision of the Contract Documents, any Work is found to be defective, CONTRACTOR shall promptly, without cost to OWNER and in accordance with OWNER's written instructions, either correct such defective Work, or, if it has been rejected by OWNER, remove it from the site and replace it with nondefective Work. If CONTRACTOR does not promptly com- ply with the terms of such instructions, or in an emergency where delay would cause serious risk of loss or damage, OWNER may have the defective Work corrected or the rejected Work removed and replaced, and all direct and indirect costs of such removal and replacement, including compensation for addtional professional services, shall be paid by CONTRACTOR. Accept of Defective Work: 13.13. If, instead of requiring correction or removal and replacement of defective Work, OWNER (and, prior to ENGINEER's recommendation of final payment, also ENGINEER) prefers to accept it, OWNER may do so. In such case, if acceptance occurs prior to ENGINEER's recommendation of final payment, a Change Order shall be issued incorporating the necessary revisions in the Contract Docu- ments, including appropriate reduction in the Contract Price; or, if the acceptance occurs after such recommendation, an appro- priate amount shall be paid by CONTRACTOR to OWNER. OWNER May C orrect Defective Work: 13.14. If CONTRACTOR fails within a reasonable time after written notice of ENGINEER to proceed to correct and to correct defective Work or to remove and replace rejected Work as required by ENGINEER in accordance with paragraph 13.11, or if CONTRACTOR fails to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Docu- ments (including any requirements of the progress schedule), OWNER may, after seven (7) days' written notice to CONTRACTOR, correct and remedy any such deficiency. In exercising his rights under this paragraph, OWNER shall proceed expeditiously. To the extent necessary to complete corrective and remedial action, OWNER may exclude CONTRACTOR from all or part of the site, take possession of all or part of the Work, and suspend CONTRACTOR's services re- lated thereto, take possession of CONTRACTOR's tools, appliances, construction equipment and machinery at the site and incorporate in the Work all materials and equipment stored at the site or for which OWNER has paid CONTRACTOR but which are stored elsewhere. CONTRACTOR shall allow OWNER, OWNER's representatives, agents and employees such access to the site as may be necessary to enable OWNER to exercise his rights under this paragraph. All direct and indirect costs of OWNER in exercising such rights shall be charged against CONTRACTOR in an amount verified by ENGINEER, and GC -38 a Change Order shall be issued incorporating the necessary revisions in the Contract Documents and a reduction in the Contract Price. Such direct and indirect costs shall include, in particular but without limitation, compensation for additional professional ser- vices required and all costs of repair and replacement of work of others destroyed or damaged by correction, removal or replacement of CONTRACTOR's defective Work. CONTRACTOR shall not be allowed an extension of the Contract Time because of any delay in perform- ance of the Work attributable to the exercise by OWNER of OWNER'S rights hereunder. GC- 39 ARTICLE 14 PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR AND COMPLETION Schedules: 14.1. At least ten (10) days prior to submitting the first Application for a progress payment, CONTRACTOR shall (except as otherwise specified in the General Requirements or Special Condi- tions) submit to ENGINEER a progress schedule, a final schedule or Shop Drawings submission and where applicable a schedule of values of the Work. These schedules shall be satisfactory in form and substance to ENGINEER. The schedule of values shall include quantities and unit prices aggregating the Contract Price, and shall subdivide the Work into component parts in sufficient detail to serve as the basis for progress payments during construction. Upon acceptance of the schedule of values by ENGINEER, it shall be incorporated into a form of Application for Payment acceptable to ENGINEER. Application for Progress Payment 14.2. At least ten (10) days before each progress payment falls due (but not more often than once a month), CONTRACTOR shall submit to ENGINEER for review an Application for Payment filled out and signed by CONTRACTOR covering the Work completed as of the date of the Application and accompanied by such support- ing documentation as is required by the Contract Documents and also as ENGINEER may reasonably require. If payment is requested on the basis of materials and equipment not incorporated in the Work, but delivered and suitably stored at the site or at another loca- tion agreed to in writing, the Application for Payment shall also be accompanied by such data, satisfactory to OWNER, as will es- tablish OWNER'S title to the material and equipment and protect OWNER's interest therein, including applicable insurance. Each subsequent Application for Payment shall include an affidavit of CONTRACTOR stating that all previous progress payments re- ceived on account of the Work have been applied to discharge in full all of CONTRACTOR's obligations reflected in prior Appli- cations for Payment. The amount of retainage with respect to progress payments will be as stipulated in the Agreement. C Warranty of Title: 14.3. CONTRACTOR warrants and guarantees that title to all Work, materials and equipment covered by any Application for Pay- ment, whether incorporated in the Project or not, will pass to OWNER at the time of payment free and clear of all liens, claims, security interests and encumbrances (hereafter in these General Conditions referred to as "Liens "). GC -40 t i I 1%i th ill t,-'n (10) days after I'eccipt OF c ac ti A I ica tio n nor P J \ i " , 11 t , r I C r i ncli c t c in v"r i till a rccom ill C 11 d a t 1 On I t 171C! 1) 1' 11 t t he A 1) 1) 1 i I i on t iA' "' I ' R , Or r e- turn the 1 ) 1 i a t 1 0 1), t c C OVI 1 R O , 1", i n d i c a t i n g in v: r i t 't n,_), F' NG I '�I] h P s reasons For rc fus i iil t o C I n th,2 la tt e r c a s c , i p. lit. CONTRACT0 i make th,_ , i 1 2 L: : s a i'v I and resubmit the App I 'cat ioll . with tcii E10 I ays of pr(2,st_ to h i'm O F t j l C I T 1 ) 1 i ca t 1 1 for Pavm _ , n t w i t h "\(� I NITR ' s rccomi od at i on pay CO_N'l'PAC'II the amount recomme 14 . S. LN'(',INI:IIT'.'_; rCC of an,, paN*r,1,t_ rcquo_-tcd in an Application For P;i\ will constitute a oil by , f,) I t 1�1�1 N T F, 1) N G I NI: I R ' s o i i - s ' tc ohscrvat ' oils o the ENGiNI'll' has�2d o.n F L I I Work in pro�ross as an cxperJcnccd and qualified design professional and on review of the .Application For Payment and the accompanying data and schedules that the Work has progressed to the point indi'cat,2d; that, to tho hest of knoltiIcdgc, information and belief, the quality of the ! is in accordance with the Contract Documents (sub - icct to an cvaluation of the Work as a functionin Project upon Suhstantial Completion, to the re sults of any suhseclucnt tests called for in tho Contract Documents and any qualifications stated in the recommcnclation) and that CON- TPACTOR is entitled to payment of the amount recommended. llov, by recommending any such payment, ENGINEER vi Ill not thorel) be deemed to have represented that exhaLlStiVO or continuous on-site inspections have been made to check the quality or the quantity of the Work, or that the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures of construction have been reviewed or that any examination has been made to ascertain how or for what purpose CONTRACTOR has used the moneys paid or to he paid to CONTRACTOR on account of the Contract Price, or that title to any W or k, materials or equipment has passed to OWNER f ree and clear of any LICIIS. ENGINI:f:R's recommendation of final pavmtent kill con- stitute an additional rerrcscntation by ENGINEER to 0 that the conditions precedent to CCINTI��WfOR's being entitled to Final pay- ment as set Forth in para'Trapjj 14.15 have been Fulf i I I d I` Nk' I I ELIZ may r,2fLisc to recommend the icholc or anv p a r t 0 f a 11 '_ pay if , in his OpInIOTI, It would he incorrect to make - to n P . Ile ma also rcfus:2 to rccoiii- rricnd in\ such payi:iCiit, or, because of di-,,:ovcrod evidence or the results of stihscCluclit inspections or torts, Ilullif" aliv stich -pavIlIci"t pr,2kiously rkzcoii1viejWcd to <iich extent P's orinion to protec froii? a s ma he 11 "_: C C S i r 1� I loss : t t I 'C or O'l! Ic I ha C t 1 1) "1 1 1 1 CC 11 t 14.7.2. written claims have been made against 0IVNER or Liens have been filed in connection with the Work; 14.7.3. .he Contract Price has been reduced because of ;`codifications; 14.7.1. OlVNER has been required to correct defective Work or to complete the 1�ork in accordance with paragraph 13.11; 14.7.5. of CONTRACTOR's unsatisi:ictorN prosecution of the Work in accordan ;_th the Contract Documents; or, 14.7.6. CONTRACTOR's failure to make payment to Sub- contractors, or for labor, material or equip- ment. Substantial Completion: 14.8. When CONTRACTOR considers the entire 1%ork ready for its intended use, CONTRACTOR shall, in writing to OWNER and ENGI- NEER, certify that the entire 1 %'ork is substantially complete and request that ENGINEER issue a certificate of Substantial Comple- tion. Within a reasonable time thereafter, OIVNER, CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER shall make an inspection of the Work to determine the status of completion. If INGINEER does not consider the Work substantially complete, ENGINEER will notify CONTRACTOR in writing, jiving his reasons therefor. If ENGINEER considers the Work sub- stantially complete, ENGINEERz will_ prepare and deliver to 01`rNER a tentative certificate of Substantial Coi�ipletion wh ch shall fix the date of Substantial Completion. There shall he attached to the certificate a tentative list of items to be completed or cor- rected before final payment. OWNER shall have seven (7) dabs after receipt of the tentative certificate during which he may make written objection to ENGINEER as to any prok of the certificate or attached list. If, after considering such objec- tions, ENGINEER concludes that the Work is not substantially complete, ENGINEER will within fourteen (14) days after submis- sion of the tentative ccrtific;it,2 to O1�NER notif I,"," in writing, stating his reasons therefor. If, _ -ttcr considcra- tion of OWNER 's objections, 1 NGINI'1J'R considers the Work sub- stantially complete, 1'NGINI:1'1: will within said fourteen (14) da�-s execute and deliver to OWNER and CONTRACTOR a definitive certificate of Substantial Completion (i %pith a revised tentative list of items to be completed or corrected) reflecting; such changes from the tentative certificate as he believes justified after consideration Of any ohjecti_ons from OWNER. At the time of delivery of the tentative certificate of Substantial Comple- tion, ENGINEER will deliver to Oh'NER and CONTRACTOR a written recommendation as to dik of responsibilities pending final payment between OWNER and CONTRACTOR with respect to security, operation, safety, maintenance, heat, utilities and insurance. Unless OWNER and CONTRACTOR agree otherwise in uri.ting and so inform ENGINEER prior to his issuing the definitive certificate of Substantial Completion, ENGINEER's aforesaid recommendation will be binding on OWNER and CONTRACTOR until final payment. 14.9. OWNER shall have the right to exclude CONTRACTOR from the Work after the date of Substantial Completion, but OWNER shall allow CONTRACTOR reasonable access to complete or correct items on the tentative list. Partial Utilization 14.10. Use by Owner of completed portions of the Work may be accomplished prior to Substantial Completion of all the Work subject to the following: 14.10.1. OWNER at any time may request CONTRACTOR in writing to permit OWNER to use any part of the Work which OWNER believes to be sub- stantially complete and which may be so used without significant interference with construction of the other parts of the Work. If CONTRACTOR agrees, CONTRACTOR will certify to OWNER and ENGINEER that said part of the Work is substantially complete and request ENGINEER to issue a certificate of Substantial Completion for that part of the Work. Within a reasonable time thereafter, OWNER, CONTRAC- TOR and ENGINEER shall make an inspection of that part of the Work to determine its status of completion. If ENGINEER does not consider that part of the Work to he substantially complete, ENGINEER will notify OWNER and CON- TRACTOR in writing, giving his reasons therefor. If ENGINEER considers that part of the Work to be substantially complete, ENGINEER will execute and deliver to OWNER and CONTRACTOR a certificate to that effect, fixing the date of Substantial Completion as to that part of the h'ork, attaching thereto a tentative list of items to be completed or corrected before final payment. Prior to issuing a certificate of Substantial Completion as to part of the Work, ENGINEER wi11 deliver to OWNER and CON- TRACTOR a written recommendation as to the division of responsibilities pending final pay- ment between OWNER and CONTRACTOR with respect to security, operation, safety, maintenance, utilities and insurance for that part of the Work which shall become binding upon OWNER and CONTRACTOR at the time of issuing the de- finitive certificate of Substantial Completion as to that part of the Work OWNER and CONTRACTOR shall have otherwise agreed in writing and so informed ENGINEER. OWNER shall GC- 43 have the right to exclude CONTRACTOR from any part of the Work which ENGINEER has so certi- fied to be substantially complete, but OWNER shall allow CONTRACTOR reasonable access to complete or correct items on the tentative list. 14.10.2. In lieu of the issuance of a certificate of Substantial Completion as to part of the Work, OWNER may take over operation of a facility constituting part of the Work whether or not it is substantially complete if such facility is functionally and separately useable; pro- vided that prior to any such takeover,,OWNER and CONTRACTOR have agreed as to the division of responsibilities between OWNER and CONTRAC- TOR for security, operation, safety, mainten- ance, correction period, heat, utilities and insurance with respect to such facility. 14.10.3. No occupancy of part of the Work or taking over of operations of a facility will be accomplished prior to compliance with the requirements of paragraph 5.14 with respect of property insurance. Final Inspection: 14.11. Upon written notice from CONTRACTOR that the Work is complete, ENGINEER will make a final inspection with OWNER and CONTRACTOR and will notify CONTRACTOR in writing of all particu- lars in which this inspection reveals that the Work is incomplete or defective. CONTRACTOR shall immediately take such measures as are necessary to remedy such deficiencies. Final Application for Payment 14.12. After CONTRACTOR has completed all such corrections to the satisfaction of ENGINEER and delivered all maintenance and operating instructions, schedules, guarantees, Bonds, certificates of inspection, marked -up record documents and other documents, all as required by the Contract Documents, and after ENGINEER has indi- cated that the Work is acceptable (subject to the provisions of paragraph 14.16), CONTRACTOR may make application for final pay- ment following the procedure for progress payments. The final Application for Payment shall be accompanied by all documentation called for in the Contract Documents and such other data and schedules as ENGINEER may reasonably require, together with com- plete and legally effective releases or waivers (satisfactory to OWNER) of all Liens arising out of or filed in connection with the Work. In lieu thereof and as approved by OWNER, CONTRACTOR may furnish receipts or released in full; an affidavit of CONTRACTOR that the releases and receipts include all labor, services, GC- 44 material and equipment for which a Lien could be filed, and that all payrolls, material and equipment bills, and other indebtedness connected with the [York for which OWNER or his property might in any way be responsible, have been paid or otherwise satisfied; and consent of the Surety, if any, to final payment. If any Subcontrac- tor, manufacturer, fabricator, supplier or distributor fails to furnish a release or receipt in full, CONTRACTOR may furnish a Bond or other collateral satisfactory to OWNER to indemnify OWNER against any Lien. Final Payment and Acceptance: 14.13. If, on the basis of ENGINEER's observation of the Work during construction and final inspection, and ENGINEER's review of the final .Application for Payment and accompanying documentation, all as required by the Contract Documents, ENGINEER is satisfied that the Work has been completed and CONTRACTOR has fulfilled all of his obligations under the Contract Documents, ENGINEER will, within ten (10) days after receipt of the final Application for Payment, indicate in writing his recommendation for payment. There- upon ENGINEER will give written notice to OWPJER and CONTRACTOR that the Work is acceptable subject to the provisions of paragraph 14.16. Otherwise, ENGINEER will return the Application to CONTRAC- TOR, indicating in writing the reasons for refusing to recommend final payment, in which case CONTRACTOR shall make the necessary corrections and resubmit the Application. If the Application and accompanying documentation are appropriate as to form and substance, OWNER shall, within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof pay CONTRACTOR the amount recommended by ENGINEER. 14.14. If, through no fault of CONTRACTOR, final completion of the Work is significantly delayed thereof and if ENGINEER so confirms, OWNER shall, upon receipt of CONTRACTOR's final Appli- cation for Payment and recommendation of ENGINEER, and without terminating the Agreement, make payment of the balance due for that portion of the Work fully completed and accepted. If the remaining balance to be held by OWNER for Work not fully completed or corrected is less than the retainage stipulated in the Agreement, and if Bonds have been furnished as required in paragraph 5.1, the written consent of the Surety to the pay- ment of the balance due for that portion of the Work fully com- pleted and accepted shall be submitted by CONTRACTOR to ENGINEER with the Application for such payment. Such payment shall be made under the terms and conditions governing final payment, except that it shall not constitute a waiver of claims. CONTRACTOR's Continuing Obligation: 14.15. CONTRACTOR's obligation to perform and complete the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents may be absolute. Neither recommendation of any progress or final payment by ENGI- NEER, nor the issuance of a certificate of Substantial Completion, nor any payment by OWNER to CONTRACTOR under the Contract Documents, nor any use or occupancy of the Work or any part thereof by OWNER, nor any act of acceptance by OWNER nor any failure to do so, nor the issuance of a notice of acceptability by ENGINEER pursuant GC -45 to paragraph 14.13, nor any correction of defective Work by OWNER shall constitute an acceptance of Work not in accordance with the Contract Documents or a release of CONTRACTOR's obligation to per- form the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Waiver of Clai 14.16. The making and acceptance of final payment shall constitute: 14.16.1. a waiver of all claims by OWNER against CONTRACTOR, except claims arising from un- settled Liens, from defective Work appear- ing after final inspection pursuant to paragraph 14.11 or from failure to comply with the Contract Documents or the terms of any special guarantees specified there- in; however, it shall not constitute a waiver by OWNER of any rights in respect to CONTRACTOR's continuing obligations under the Contract Documents; and, 14.16.2. a waiver of all claims by Contractor against OWNER other than those previously made in writing and still unsettled. GC- 46 ARTICLE 15 SUSPENSION OF WORK AND TERMINATION OWNER May Suspend Work: 15.1. OWNER may, at any time and without cause, suspend the Work or any portion thereof for a period of not more than ninety (90) days by notice in writing to CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER which shall fix the date on which Work shall resume. CONTRACTOR shall resume the Work on the date so fixed. CONTRACTOR will be allowed an increase in the Contract Price or an extension of the Contract Time, or both, directly attributable to any suspension if he makes a claim therefor provided in Articles 11 and 12. OWNER May Terminate 15.2. Upon the occurrence of any one or more of the follow- ing events: 15.2.1. if CONTRACTOR is adjudged a bankrupt or becomes insolvent; 15.2.2. if CONTRACTOR makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; 15.2.3. if a trustee or receiver is appointed for CONTRACTOR or for any of CONTRACTOR's property; 15.2.4. if CONTRACTOR files a petition to take advantage of any debtor's act, or to re- organize under the bankruptcy or similar laws; 15.2.5. if CONTRACTOR repeatedly fails to supply sufficient skilled workmen or suitable materials or equipment; 15.2.6. if CONTRACTOR repeatedly fails to make prompt payments to Subcontractors or for labor, materials or equipment; 15.2.7. if CONTRACTOR disregards laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders of any public body having jurisdiction; 15.2.8. if CONTRACTOR disregards the authority of ENGINEER; or, 15.2.9. if CONTRACTOR otherwise violates in any sub- stantial way any provision of the Contract Documents, GC -47 OWNER may after giving CONTRACTOR and his Surety seven (7) days' written notice, terminate the services of CONTRACTOR, exclude CON- TRACTOR from the site and take possession of the Work and of all CONTRACTOR's tools, appliances, construction equipment and machinery at the site and use the same to the full extent they could be used by CONTRACTOR (without liability to CONTRACTOR for trespass or con- version), incorporate in the Work all materials and equipment stored at the site or for which OWNER has paid CONTRACTOR but which are stored elsewhere, and finish the Work as OWNER may deem expedient. In such case, CONTRACTOR shall not be entitled to re- ceive any further payment until the Work is finished. If the un- paid balance of the Contract Price exceeds the direct and indirect costs of completing the Work, including compensation for additional professional services, such excess shall be paid to CONTRACTOR. If such costs exceed such unpaid balance, CONTRACTOR shall pay the difference to OWNER. Such costs incurred by OWNER shall be verified by ENGINEER and incorporated in a Chan Order, but in finishing the Work, OWNER shall not be required to obtain the lowest figure for the Work performed. 15.3. Where CONTRACTOR's services have been so terminated by OWNER, the termination shall not affect any right of OWNER against CONTRACTOR then existing or which may thereafter accrue. Any retention or payment of moneys due CONTRACTOR by OWNER will not release CONTRACTOR from liability. 15.4. Upon seven (7) days' written notice to CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER, OWNER may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy, elect to abandon the Work and terminate the Agreement. In such case, CONTRACTOR shall be paid for all Work executed and any expense sustained plus reasonable termina- tion expenses. C ONTRACTOR May Stop Work or Term inate: 15.5. If, through no act or fault of CONTRACTOR, the Work is suspended for a period of more than ninety (90) days by OWNER or under an order of court or other public authority, or ENGINEER fails to act on any Application for Payment within thirty (30) days after it is submitted, or OWNER fails for thirty (30) days to pay CONTRACTOR any sum finally determined to be due, the CON- TRACTOR may, upon seven (7) days' written notice to OWNER and ENGINEER, terminate the Agreement and recover from OWNER payment for all Work executed and any expense sustained plus reasonable termination expenses. In addition and in lieu of terminating the Agreement, if ENGINEER has failed to act on an Application for Payment or OWNER has failed to make any payment as aforesaid, CONTRACTOR may upon seven (7) days' notice to OWNER and ENGINEER stop the Work until Payment of all amounts then due. The pro- visions of this paragraph shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of his obligations under paragraph 6.29 to carry on the Work in accord- ance with the progress schedule and without delay during disputes and disagreements with OWNER. GC -48 ARTICLL 16 AiRI I'RATION 16.1. All claims, disputes and other matters in question be- tween OWNER and CONTRACTOR arising out of, or relating to the Con- tract Documents or the breach thereof except for claims which have been waived by the making or acceptance of final payment as provided by paragraph 14.16, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining subject to the limitations of this Article 16. This agreement so to arbitrate and any other agreement or consent to arbitrate entered into in accordance herewith as provided in this Article 16 will be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law of any court having jurisdiction. 16.2. No demand for arbitration of any claim, dispute or other matter that is required to be referred to ENGINEER initially for decision in accordance with paragraph 9.9 shall be made until the earlier of (a) the date on which ENGINEER has rendered a de- cision, or (b) the tenth day after the parties have presented their evidence to ENGINEER if a written decision has not been rendered bar ENGINEER before that date. No demand for arbitration of any such claim, dispute or other matter shall be made later than thirty (30) days after the date on which ENGINEER has render- ed a written decision in respect thereof in accordance with para- graph 9.9; and the failure to demand arbitration within said thirty (30) days' period shall result in ENGINEER's decision being final and binding upon OWNER and CONTRACTOR. If ENGINEER renders a decision after arbitration proceedings have been initiated, such decision may be entered as evidence but shall not supersede the arbitration proceedings, except where the d- ecisi_on is acceptable to the parties concerned. 16.3. Noticc of the dci;land for arbitration shall be filed in wrthin; with the other party to the Agreement and with the American Arbitration Association, and a copy shall be sent to ENGINEER for information. The demand for arbitration shall he made within the thirty (SO) day period specified in paragraph 16.2 where applicable, and in all other cases within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen, and in no event shall any such demand be made after in- stitution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the appli- cable statute of limitations. 16.1. No arbitration arising out of or tract Documents shall include by consolidati any other manner any other parson or entity his agents, cn;hlovccs or consultants) who is Agrecracnt unless relating to the Con on, joinder or in (including L GINEER, not a party to this (- , - ; �) 16.4.1. the inclusion of such other person or entity is necessary if complete relief is to be afforded among those who are already parties to the arbitration; 16.4.2. such other person or entity is substantially involved in a question or law or fact which is common to those who are already parties to the arbitration and which will arise in such proceedings; and, 16.4.3. the written consent of the other person of entity sought to be included and of OWNER and CONTRACTOR has been obtained for such inclu- sion, which consent shall make specific refer- ence to this paragraph; but no such consent shall constitute consent to arbitration of any dispute not specifically described in such consent or to arbitration with any party not specifically identified in such consent. 16.5. The award rendered by the arbitrators will be final; judgement may be entered upon it in any court having jurisdiction thereof, and will not be subject to modification or appeal except to the extent permitted by Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Sections 10 and 11). GC -50 R"FICLE 11 jN11SCELLANEOUS Giving Notice: 17.1. Whenever any provision of the Contract Documents requires the giving of written notice, it shall be deemed to have been validly given if delivered in person to the individual or to a member of the firm or to an officer of the corporation for whom it is intended,or if delivered at or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses as shown on Page A -3 of the Agreement or to the last business address known to the giver of the notice. The CONTRACTOR, OWNER or the ENGINEER may change its address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this paragraph. Commutation of Time: 17.2. When any period of time is referred to in the Contract Documents by days, it shall be computed to exclude the first and include the last day of such period. If the last day of any such period falls on a Saturday or Sunday or on a day made a legal holiday by the law of the applicable jurisdiction, such day shall be omitted from the computation. General: 17.3. Should 019N'ER or CONTRACTOR suffer injury or damage to his person or property because of any error, omission or act of the other party or of any of the other party's employees or agents or others for whose acts the other party is legally liable, claim shall be made in writing to the other party with- in a reasonable time of the first observance of such injury or damage. 17.4. The duties and obligations imposed by these General Conditions and the rights and remedies available hereunder to the parties hereto, and, in particular but without limitation, the warranties, guarantees and obligations imposed upon CON - TRACTOF: by ragraphs 6.30, 13.1, 13.11, 13.14, 14.3 and 15.2 and all of the rights and remedies available to OWNER and ENGINEER thereunder, shall be in addition to, and shall not be construed in any way as a limitation of, any rights and remedies available to any or all of them which are otherwise imposed or available by law or contract, by special warranty or guarantee or by other provisions of the Contract Documents, and the pro- visions of this paragraph shall be as effective as if repeated specifically in the Contract Documents in connection each GC- 51 particular duty, obligation, right and remedy to which they apply. All representations, warranties and guarantees made in the Contract Documents shall survive final payment and termination or completion of this Agreement. Assignment 17.5. Neither the Contract Documents nor duties hereunder may be assigned or delegated person or entity by any party hereto without written consent of the other affected parties any rights or to any other the express hereto. GC -52 m m DRAINAGE AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISIONS PRELIMINARY DRAFT Developed for the Town of Vail, Colorado Job No. 1845.001 July ,1982 PREPARED BY: CLAYCONIB ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. SUITE 207 VILLAGE PLAZA GLENWOOD SWINGS, CO 81601 DRAINAGE AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISIONS PRELIMINARY DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES I. SUMMARY ...................... 1 -5 II. BACKGROUND ................... 6 -10 III.PREVIOUS SOILS AND GEOLOGICAL REPORTS ...................... 11 -13 IV. EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ................... 13 -15 V. EXISTING SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ................... 16 -20 VI. EXISTING SLOPE INSTABILITY ... 20 -21 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 ........ FOLDED SEPARATELY FIGURE 2 ........ FOLDED SEPARATELY FIGURE 3 ........................... 17 FIGURE 4 ........................... 22 FIGURE 5 ........................... 23 DRAINAGE AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISIONS PRELI MINARY DRAFT I. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS General cut -slope instability characterized by slumps and slides in the exposed cut slopes is evident throughout the second filing of Highland Meadows. All of the slump and slide areas are in locations where sub - surface flow is evident at free flowing water (springs) or saturated soil during the spring of the year. All soils and geological reports prepared durinq the preliminary phases of both Highland Meadows and Highland Meadows Filing #2 noted that cut slopes and other construction areas could only be considered stable when dry. Cautions about possible failures due to instability of cut and fill slopes were indicated if the areas were saturated. The only difference between the individual reports is in the degree of the verbage indicating the extent of the hazards. It is our opinion, following review of the available soils and geological information, review of the construction drawings for the subdivisions, and site observations, that virtually all areas presently indicating instability can be arrested by proper drainage of both the surface and subsurface areas. There is no evidence of extensive landside areas with the exception of the Bitetto lot. The Bitetto lot landside was created due to a construction excavation far exceeding the limits recommended by the 1 soils engineers for the Highland Meadows Subdivisions coupled with the existence of a spring in the cut slope. Specific recommendations for remedial action on the Bitetto lot are being dealt with separate from this report. The surface drainage plan for the -,Pcnn(. f;.l;nrT has tended to accentuate the subsurface drainage conditions since the surface drainage pattern criss- crosses the slope as drainage is carried in the roadside ditches. This criss- crossing effect has tended to prolong the exposure of surface runoff to the subsoil, allowing more infiltration and thereby increasing the available ground water. In addition, the surface drainage pattern has concentrated flows into specific areas while the natural drainage pattern consisted of difuse overland flow directly to Gore Creek. In particular, at the intersection of Tahoe Drive and Alpine Drive, directly above the Bitetto property, being Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1, the drainage area has been increased from a historic basin of some two to five acres, to a present drainage basin of approximately 24 acres. The slope failure on the Bitetto lot appears to be the result of an extreme case, illustrating the cumulative effects of increased ground water and excessive site grading cuts during the construction period. 2 The available evidence indicates that with proper area wide drainage of both the surface and subsurface, development of the ma3ority of the area will Le possible with a minimum of risk which is normally associated with typical mountainside development. If the excessively steep areas and natural drainage paths are avoided, development should be possible with little probability of recurring problems such as are currently evident. Surface drainage improvements consisting of a combination storm sewer and underdrain along with inlets and ditch improvements are recommended. The recommended improvements are illustrated on i ure 1. The extensive subsurface drainage system installed in the Highland Meadows Subdivision has functioned quite satisfactorily to remove subsurface flow and minimize any areas of slope instability. The same type of drainage system needs to be installed in the second filing to remove excess subsurface flow. The location of recommended subdrains and typical cross - sections are illustrated on Figure 1. The current areas of slope instability in the form of slumps and slides may be regraded and revegetated once the area has been properly drained. The corrective measures for the major slide that occurred on the Bitetto lot is being dealt with separately, as correction 3 of subsurface drainage is only a portion of the solution. Specific improvements such as providing an inlet to the culvert on Vermont Road between Tracts A and B and recompacting the backfill on the Alpine Drive switchback should also be accomplished as noted on Figure 1. As built drawings should be prepared of the subdrains in Highland Meadows and easements obtained for the subdrains to prevent building operations cutting the subdrain lines. An acceptable outfall should also be established from the west end of Vermont Road. A requirement should be imposed on all future development within Highland Meadows and Highland Meadows #2 that individual lot soil tests and reports be prepared based on analysis done during the spring of the year or the conditions of fully saturated soils should be considered for design standards. Subdrains should be required for all buildings regardless of conditions at the time of the soils analysis. This will allow for the future probability of plugging of the area wide drainage system. If the Town desires to consider density transfers from the present duplex unit per lot to a group of multi - family sites, a map can be developed which illustrates the progressive degree of hazard on the site. Based on this analysis map, units could be transferred from the highest hazard area to the lowest hazard areas. It is our opinion, however, that all presently indicated building envelopes can be utilized with an acceptable degree of hazard if the subsurface drainage improvements recommended in this report are completed. 4 If the drainage improvements are not completed, then virtually all portions of Highland Meadows Filing #2 will remain subject to a high probability of slope failures due to slumping or sliding initiated by excessive subsurface flow. The depth of this analysis has been restricted primarily by time limitations and the availability of material such as soils reports and construction drawings. Since many of the critical items of reference data such as soils reports and construction drawings were not obtained until July 8, 1982, while the report due date is July 14, 1982, it has left little time to review the material in detail and to contact individuals for additional information. It is our feeling, however, that the reference material is sufficiently clear to allow the necessary conclusions to be drawn as outlined in this report. It would be appropriate to distribute this draft to all parties who have knowledge of the area with the request that they provide any additional applicable information or notify us of any errors or omissions in the text. There are also several other specific reference items, most notably being the Soils Report by R. W. Thompson, Inc., that should be obtained and reviewed prior to issuance of the final report. 5 II. BACKGROUND The preliminary plan for the Highland meadows Subdivision was prepared in !�ovcmber of 1977 and revised in January of 1973 for submittal to the Eagle County Commissioners. The final plat was recorded in Eagle County in June of 1978. The construction plans for the project, were prepared in 1978 by KKBNA. The only specifically noted da on any of the plans is June 30, 1978. A soils report was prepared by R.W. Thompsor an_-_'Al_-sociates. The engineering geology report was by Charles S. Robinson and Associates. Construction of the roads was observed and testing provided by Woodward -Clyde Consultants in the period from September through November of 1980. A discrepancy in dates exists,as the as -built drawings for the area are dated December 1979 and January 1980, being almost a year before the actual road construction as indicated by the Woodward -Clyde reports. The project was accepted by the Town of Vail since it had been annexed subsequent to the platting in Eagle County. The actual acceptance is dated November 19, 1981 following a lengthy checklist and corrective action by the contractor, Schmidt Tiago. The Highland Meadows Filinq #2 Subdivision is a replat of Vail Village West Filing #3,together with some additional area. The Vail Village West Filing #3 area was platted in May of 1973. The roads had been rough cut in at the time of platting which was a common practice in the early Vail Village [-lest Subdivision. The soils report for Vail Village West Filing #3 was prepared by Chen and Associates. The preliminary plan for the resubdivision of Vail Village West into Highland Meadows Filing #2 was submitted to the county with a date of June 30, 1978 by KKBNA. The soils report for the replat was also by Chen and Associates. The final plans for the project by KKBNA are also dated June 30, 1978. The as -built drawings for the project are dated December 1979 and January 1980. The base course placement on the road was observed and tested by Woodward Clyde in September through November of 1980. The project was accepted by the Town of Vail, having been annexed to the Town since the time of platting in Eagle County. The approval letter is dated November 18th, 1981, following a length checklist and corrective action.by the contractor, Schmidt Tiago. C:ontinuai problems of slope slumping and sliding, together with localized areas of road settlement have occurred in the second filing since construction was completed. The largest problem surfaced on the Bitetto lot,which is Lot 22 of Vail Village West Filing #l,where a slide extends from Mr. Bitetto's lot onto lot 15 of Highland Meadows Filing #2 and into the right -of -way and paved surface of Alpine Drive. This slide, first documented in 1980, moved with devastating swiftness on March 8, 1982, knocking a partially completed house from its foundation. The approximate outline of the.slide area is indicated on Figure 1. Little evidence of cut or fill slope slumping is evident in the Highland Meadows Subdivision itself. The construction drawings for Highland Meadows indicate that an extensive subsurface drainage system was to be constructed including both separate trench drains and the installation of subdrains in all sewer trenches. The as -built drawings for the project do not indicate the actual expanse of these subdrains, nor do there appear to be easements for these subdrains when they are located outside of sanitary sewer easements or the road right -of -way. 7 In June, 1982, the Town contracted with Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. to perform an analysis consisting of: a. evaluating the existing subdivision layouts, b. identifying the critical problem areas, C. verifying the construction of drainage facilities, d. identifying areas requiring additional drainage improvements, e. identifying areas of possible high density.housing, f. conducting additional geological investigations, g. preparing a report of the analysis, h. preparing a cost estimate of recommended improvements. The following material was provided to Claycomb Engineering Associates for review prior to July 8, 1982: a. Highland Meadows Construction Plans, Roads, Water & Sewer,noted as as builts, 21 sheets, (some pages taped at edges). As- builts dated 1 -5 -80. (This is filing No. 1) . b. Same set as (a), but poor copy and missing sheets 2 -5 and 14 -19, prints. C. Highland Meadows, Construction Plans, Roads, Water and Sewer, Filing 2, as- builts, 10 sheets, date of as- builts, 1 -5 -80, 1- 10 -80, 12- 16 -79, prints. d. Mylar sepia, Elliott Ranch Sub,Plat, 1 sheet. e. _ylar :sepia, Highland 1 7, 1eadows Fil _rg l`2, Plat, 2 sheets. f. Mylar sepia, Resub, Lots 29 -40, Vail Village I #2, plat, 1 sheet. n. g. Mylar sepia, Highland Meadows, plat, 2 sheets. h. Mylar sepia, Vail Village West, Filing 2, plat two sheets. i. Mylar sepia, Vail Village West, Filing #1, plat, 1 sheet j. Mylar sepia, Matterhorn Village, Filing #1, plat, 1 sheet. k. Sketch plan submittal, Highland Meadows #2 1. Letter report by Terra Task to Doug Bitetto, 3 -5 -82 M. Letter report by Woodward -Clyde Consultants to City of Vail re: Bitetto property dated 3- 18 -82. n. Preliminary Engineering Geology and Subsoil Investigation, Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing #2, by Chen and Associates, June 30, 1978. The following items were received by Claycomb Engineering Assoc,7 /8/82. o. Highland Meadows Filing #2 topo showing VVW III roads in place, 1" = 100' 2' intervals. No date or record of who mapped. p. Vail West Ridge topo, 1" = 50', no date of flight or record of who mapped. q. Sheets 1,2,17 of 7, Highlands Meadows Filing #2 preliminary plan submittal by KKBNA. #1 preliminary plan #2 utility plan #7 typical cross sections r. Sheets 2,3,4,5,6 & 11, Highland Meadows. Preliminary plan submittal by KKBNA #2 preliminary plan #3 grading and drainage plan #4 utility layout n 45 landscape plan #6 typical cross sections ,,ll preliminary architecture by Harold Engstro, AIA ( =Note that Robert Thompson and Associates, Inc. is listed as soils engineers on preliminary plan) S. Specifications for construction (not titled as such) Highland _Meadows Filing r2, ?ay, 1979, executed by Schmidt Tiago Construction Company. t. Preliminary subsoil and geological i nvesti^ on, Lu11 West "'ding 'Vo. 3, Chen. and A SSOC 4 a eS, vCto!_a_ 10 1972. u. Engineering Geology, I ighland Meadows, = , o,,-ei - L<ber 28, 1977, by Charles S. Robinson, ancl, "_ssociates, Inc. with out - out f i Tura" (- ir,u=eS cue a' t-e h re7c r s t � � ' i1e,_ d t0 eV _� �a �� L___S _ J_ t li a �eV 4 " , I iustra- = . azar:: zone, . lico - In icC 1 Si tc o v -- '..� C- �v vim I r- = --7�� _1 _ 7 j C'l�e— an' t', sr a i _�c / - 3 90 _ t W. D a_iy = �r �- I- b- �': "stiuru' �1y� S �GnSu . jai_ S Ci co -mnac tion tests and cbser-ation of bas: course placement in Jigrland bleadows Filing 2 ac. road - fill cons truction 1- 1 L3ovember 19, 1980. x. Vail Villa_g� Wiest, Filing 3, plat. y. Specifications for construction (not titled as such) H ighland °Mea(iows, May, 1979, executed by Schmidt- - Tiago Construction Company. Z. Numerous items of correspondence relative subdivisions. 10 III. PREVIOUS SOILS AND GEOLOGICAL REPORTS Numerous reports have previously been prepared dealing with the subject subdivisions including the following: .... Preliminary Subsurface and ;,eological Investigation, Vail (Village) West Filing #3, Chen and Associates, October 10, 1972. Preliminary ceotechnical Investigation Vail West ridge property, R. Thor,:pson, Inc. 1973. (This report referred to in Robinson report, but no copy has been obtained for review). ..... Engineering Geology, Highland Meadows, Charles S. Robinson and Associates, Inc. November 28, 1977. .... Preliminary Engineering Geology and Sub - -Soil Investigation, Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing #2, Chen and Associates, June 30, 1978. Several reports have also been prepared relative the landside of Lot 22 of Vail Village West Filing #1 as follows: .... Geotechnical Site Evaluation, Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing #1, Chen and Associates, July 3, 1978. .... Letter report, Bitetto property, Terra Task, March 5, 1982. .... Letter report, Doug Bitetto rroperty, T Clyde Consultants, Plarch 18th, 1932. Copies of daily report forms and the results of compaction tests performed by Woodward -Clyde Consultants during the construction phase through September, October and November of 1980 were also available for review. Although the individual reports vary in the specific recommendations, all reports dealing with the overall subdivision areas make similar statements relative the importance of surface and subsurface drainage. as noted in the following excerpts: MGM Chen, 1972, . Page 1 "Soils have the tendency to slump when saturated. This necessitates good surface and subsurface drainage throughout the property. Page 5 "The natural soils, unconsolidated slope wash. when saturated - tend to slump and move downslope. This slumping should stop when these saturated areas are drained." Page 0 "I is recc=e-rded that all cuts be kept to a rum depth, on the order of 10 - to 1.5 feet and no steeper than I. 1 : -, dor7uate Drovision should he made for surfacc drai na c e through road embank - nf Robinson, 19,77 slopes should he stable at 1 at 20 yen in L over of the area where 7 - ter conditions are Ii , of urlacC and suhs r1rai,nac-e m prove t c z I o c s t a'-- 1 1 4 -1-- 7 o 7. c h o f propo-sed Page -9 "WIiE�r_ ground water is encolintered in a cut culverts or ;�e blan" should be i: to control -inL il - Into fill and to nro sluffing ' o the cut. 3 u tt-ressing should ';De considered because of slope stability - )roblems." Page 10 "?-:3rvious blankets may be needed beneath other fills on the property ifo adverse groundwater conditions are ercounte-red during construction." 12 Chen, 1978 "If seepage is encountered in cuts, the risk Page 7 of slope instability is increased. We do not anticipate that seepage will be encountered, however, if it is, stability investigations should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut. Good surface drainage should be provided for all cuts." The various reports relative the Bitetto lot also clearly indicate the existence of a spring surfacing within the slide area. This serves as a graphic illustration of the accuracy of the statements concerning subsurface drainage or seepage included in the various subdivision reports. It may be well to note that all of the reports for the subdivision soils and geology that were reviewed by Claycomb Engineering Associates were conducted in the fall of the year. Therefore, the minimum subsurface water conditions were encountered during the drilling and field observation. The reports :Hake no specific projections of the probable conditions to be expected during the spring and early summer months when the soils are subject to extensive surface and subsurface water. IV. EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE CON DITIONS Considerable evidence of excessive subsurface flow or seepage exists in filing #2 in the form of surfacing springs or saturated soil areas in cut slopes. Little evidence of such is encountered in Highland Meadows. The location of the major wet areas are indicated on Figure #1. An extensive subdrainage system is indicated on the construction plans for Highland Meadows including both. subdrains below seders and separate subdrains through lot areas. This system appears to be functioning satisfactorily, 13 as there is little or no surface water or evidence of saturated areas in cut slopes. The actual extent of the subdrains is not indicated on the as -built drawings nor do there appear to be easements covering the locations of the subdrains through the lot areas. There is no evidence of subdrains being installed in Filinq #2, although the preliminary plan indicates that subdrains should be installed in the area of lots 7 & 8. The lack of a planned subdrain system may be due to the statement in the 1 978 Chen report that "we do not anticipate that seepage will be encountered ... °' The current conditions, however, evidence extensive areas of seepage or subsurface flow. The fact that the field work by Chen and Associates was done in the fall of the year may explain the conclusion that little subsurface flow exists. Observations of the current conditions clearly indicate that the spring of the year conditions are considerably different than those anticipated by the soils report. Each of the soils reports include descriptions of the types of soils encountered and the geology of the area. We have not endeavored to repeat those descriptions, as they do not have a direct bearing on the analysis and recommendations in this report. Suffice it to say that the general geology of the area consists of a relatively thick mantle of slope wash material some 20 to 30 ' in depth overlaying the sandstone bedrock. The soil consists of a very sandy, silty clay with intermixed gravels to boulder size rock fragments. Since there is no gravel alluvium between the soil and the bedrock, the infiltrated subsurface flows must gradually percolate through the overlying soil mantle. The north facing slopes 1 A accumulate very large snow packs during the winter months which are released gradually through spring snounnelt. A significant portion of this water soaks into the soil layer and migrates down the mountain side. As a result, the surficial soils are commonly saturated from the ground surface to the bedrock layer throughout the spring and early summer months. The phenomena is particularly accentuated this year due to the slow melting process due to relatively cool temperatures through the spring and early summer. Since the soils have a limited transmissibility, a considerable period of time is necessary for underground flow to move from the upper mountain areas to the location of Gore Creek. Therefore, the period of saturation extends well beyond the snowmelt season. The occurrence of springs simply indicates a location where a relatively pervious strata of soil surfaces. These may be considered springs only in a sense of the word, as they do not indicate a true alluvium surfacing, but rather a slightly more pervious area of soil as compared to underlying soils. The condition discussed in the previous paragraph is totally natural to the area and will continue to occur until steps are taken to counteract the natural phenomena. The installation of subdrains in the Highland Meadows Subdivision have accomplished this end. Similar measures must be taken in Highland Meadows Filing #2 if the continual slumping and sliding of cut slopes and fill slopes is to be arrested. As noted in the soils reports, so long as the soils are subject to saturation, slumping and sliding may be expected to continue to occur. 15 V. EXISTING SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The historic natural drainage pattern for the Highland Meadows and Highland Meadows #2 area consisted of diffuse overland floc with minimum concentration of drainage basins throughout the majority of the site. Only one larger drainage basin through Highland Meadows, traversing Tracts A and B, has a well defined valley section with concentrated flow. Dense vegetation consisting of spruce and aspen along with dense undergrowth serve to retard the surface flow, allowing a significant amount of infiltration and controlling erosion. Construction of the road system in t THi_rrhl.ant Me3dolas Subdivisions has served to intercept the diffuse overland flow and convey it to specific culvert locations as illustrated on Figure 3. Areas that historically had just a few acres of tributary drainage basin now have large tributary basins. Specific examples are the intersection of Alpine Drive and Tahoe Drive in Filing #2 where 24 acres are presently tributary to a point that historically had a drainage basin of three or four acres. The culvert beneath Vermont Road at Lot 1 in Highland Meadows Filing #2 has a current drainage basin of 80 acres while the historic basin was approximately 5 acres. No drainage facilities were constructed as a part of the Vail Village West Filing #3 plat. The rough cut roads allowed surface flow to cross over the road, therefore having little affect on the natural drainage pattern. The preliminary plat for Highland Meadows Filing #2 indicated road side ditches capturing flows along the road system and culverts discharging those flows into Vail Village West Filing #1 and TT.The final construction plans and actual constructed facilities eliminated two of the culverts showji on the preliminary plan, thereby concentrating Idl Cb // r ' / l i \ ,/ i lI l t ( \Ji I r `/ II l i I �i' % �� %r jl � � 1� 1 �i ',I'�� r /�j � I 'w � 1 � q �, Ld �� , �;�� III IF" O O V) 44 C . CD LI) c ; M` r ��'w �� l ; ,,\ �, Iii f L L c ' j KI �I (�o if v 1 1 � i fr �, W � 1 :t- �wl �. CO V �A' IN 9 c C�% � 1 C'o 14 cD N c3 cD CO a z Q �;� .� �; yV \� CO t 11 c3 co c14 -4 -v w �q m r4 \ \1 . w ca I. ,, r �)1�'t;l� r, l � � � i 2 J cc W z F_ m 0) z CO CO CO 0 CO Z W 0 co > z a am .j D 1: CO 0 m j;1 7 u r- APJ U. J 30 acres of basin to the culvert beneath Vermont Road at Lot 1. It appears that this may have been done since no easements or facilities existed through Vail Village West Filing #1 and 2 to accommodate flows from the upstream areas. The result of the drainage facilities constructed in Highland Meadows Filing #2 has been to concentrate the flows in areas not previously subject to such quantities. Surface drainage facilities such as culverts are nominally adequate to carry the 100 year flow. The affect of concentrating runoff into areas differing from the historic routes has a substantial affect on the subsurface flows. Areas which were previously subject to a relatively small drainage basin to replenish underground flows experience continual wetting. Springs may be expected to appear where they were not previously evident. Previously stable areas may become unstable due to additional moisture. The concentration of flow to the intersection of Alpine Drive and Tahoe Drive may very well be a contributing factor to the Bitetto lot landside. Road subgrades are continuously saturated when roadside drainage ditches traverse long sections of roadway without culverts to remove the surface flows. The result is that fill slopes often become unstable. Flows for the 10 year (loo probability) and the 100 year (lo probability) return period storm events have been calculated by Claycomb Engineering Associates Inc. and are shown on Figure 2. The flows were calculated utilizing the Soil Conservation Service method for rainfall derived events and snowmelt flows were calculated based on gauge record analysis in the high mountain area of Colorado and the procedures presented in the U.S. Geological Survey publication Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States, Part 9, Colorado River Basin. A table on Figure 1 shows the calculated capacity of the existing culverts and the calculated 10 year and 100 year flows. The service runoff control facilities recommended by Claycomb Engineering Associates are illustrated on Figure 1. Improvements to minimize the concentration of flows and return flows as nearly as possible to historic drainage routes are preferre by our staff. However, extensive acquisition of easements and construction of drainage facilities through Vail Village [Rest I and II would be required since none now exist. Due to these limitations, an alternate solution consisting of a combination storm sewer /underdrain from the vicinity of the Alpine Drive and Tahoe Drive intersection to the present culvert at Block 1 on Vermont Road is recommended. By laying the storm drain in a gravel medium it will serve the dual purpose of a storm sewer and an underdrain. The surface drainage facilities through Highland Meadows are generally satisfactory. Less extensive concentration of flows has occurred. The installation of an extensive underdrain system has intercepted the majority of subsurface flow prior to its encountering cut slopes. A well defined natural channel serves as an outlet for much of the area. This natural channel traverses the core of the Streamside development. The final details of grading around the Streamside project will be very important to prevent possible damage from this large drainage basin. The inlet to the culvert in Tract A beneath Vermont Road must be exposed as it is now covered with trash and fill material that appears to have been removed from the construction sites. This trash and spoils should be cleaned out of the road fill area or regraded and revegetated. A satisfactory drainage path and facilities, together with appropriate easements, is needed from the west end of Vermont Road to Gore Creek. VI. EXISTING SLOPE INSTABILITY Slope instability is currently evident in three forms: 1) Slumping or sliding on cut or fill slopes on a small scale, 2) Settlement of fill areas on roads, 3) The major slide on the Bitetto lot. The locations of the various instability areas are shown on Figure 1. Field surveyed cross sections at selected locations are plotted on Figure 2, illustrating the cut slope grades. Figure 4 is a cross section through the center of the Bitetto lot slide. Our field observations indicate that cut slopes are stable at slopes of 1 1/2:1 or steeper if subsurface flow is minimal. If subsurface flow is significant, such as where springs appear or where the soil is saturated, then slopes flatter than 1 1/2:1 are unstable. Tee loading utilizing large rocks has been installed at several locations in an attempt to control slumping. This appears to have arrested the movement within the actual area of the large rock, but slumping has occurred in the cut slopes above the rock. All of these facts again point to the conclusions that elimination excess subsurface flow is necessary if slopes are to remain stable. Even if retaining walls were installed, the primary 20 design consideration would still be drainaing of the fill area behind the walls. Some localized slumping and raveling of slopes should still be expected even after installation of the subdrain system recommended in this report. This will occur during the actual spring sno4mlelt period and during rainstorms. The only adverse effect expected from these occurrances would be accumulation of soil in the ditches. If such accumulations are objectionable (that is, of such quantity that a normal good ditch cleaning program does not suffice), then small retaining walls such as shown in Figure 5 may be installed. These walls would actually be to cath debris and sloughling from the slopes, rather than as true retaining walls. 21 CLAYCOMB ENGINEERING ASSC .TES, INC. Suite 207 Village Plaza GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945 -8676 OF ill-IL F/G UR F SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY 1/�% DATE CHECKED BY DATE ) r/_ zD NOR 1 Z, l /O VE/ZT. N N FORM 204 -1 Available from �NCiis Inc.. Groton, Mass. 01450 -EXISTING CUT SLOPE THAT IS EXPERIENCING A4/NOR SURFICIAL SLUMPING - RAILROAD TIE MINOR RETAINING SLOUGHING INTO MAX HEIGHT 2' T/E BAC KS FOR RAILROAD TIE WALL --� ROAD I %2" ROCK FILL WITH FILTER FABRIC ON TOP. TYPICAL DETAIL WALL TO RETARD DITCH RAILROAD TIE MINOR RETAINING WALL TO INTERCEPT SLOUGHING CAUTION - THIS IS NOT A RETAINING WALL TO HOLD THE SLOPE, IT IS A STRUCTURE TO INTERCEPT SURFICIAL SLOUGHING BEFORE IT ENTERS ROADSIDE DITCH. FIGURE 5 7 -14 -82 23 ': F. M. FOX & ASSOCIATES 4765 INDEPENDENCE STREET • WHEAT RIDGE (DENVER), COLORADO 80033 • PHONE (303) 424 -5578 / t L TO � r - •-f � � j -1 SUBJECT DATE , � L f r � � -� � �.• SJ�X.'f, { �y_ .. - -- DATE 10 �. .� r- , _ i .� i..;. �_ �r nu wurrt .:r,n rwK r:u,•�� iru - - ,i: r_ :3IDrJFD �l , � L f r � � -� � �.• SJ�X.'f, { �y_ .. - -- DATE 10 �. .� r- , _ i .� i..;. �_ �r nu wurrt .:r,n rwK r:u,•�� iru - - ,i: r_ :3IDrJFD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FOX FOX & ASSOCIA O CO LORADO, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS DENVER OFFICE 4765 INDEPENDENCE STREET WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 (303) 424 -5578 GEOTECHNICAL STUDY FOR HIGHLAND MEADOWS FILING NO. 1, AND HIGHLAND PARK VAIL, COLORADO Prepared For Highland Meadows Lot Owners A FOX COMPANY Job Number: 1- 1101 -5916 November 4, 1983 FOX FOX & ASSOCIATES OF COLORADO, INC. ' CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS DENVER OFFICE 4765 INDEPENDENCE STREET WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033 (303) 424 -5578 ' Highland Meadows Lot Owners November 4, 1983 c/o Michael Lauterbach P.O. Box 3451 ' Vail, Colorado 81658 Job No. 1- 1101 -5916 Subject: Geotechnical Study for Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing No. t 1, and Highland Park Subdivision, Vail, Colorado References: 1) Fox & Associates of Colorado, Inc. Work Order Confirmation and Letter Contract for Geotechnical Services dated June ' 2, 1983 2) Executed Acceptance Form of Reference No. 1 by Michael ' Lauterbach, President, Highland Meadows Trust dated July 15, 1983 ' Dear Mr. Lauterbach: Presented herewith is our report of the geotechnical study for Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing No. ' 1, and Highland Park Subdivision, Vail, Colorado. This study was performed in accordance with the scope of services outlined in Reference No. 1. This study was initiated at your request in response to Town of Vail Ordinance No. 29, requiring detailed geotechnical and slope stability analyses of lots in the referenced subdivisions. We appreciate the opportunity of being of service to you in this phase of this project and look forward to assisting you on subsequent phases. FOX & ASSOCIATES OF COLORADO, INC. Reviewed by: gaw ? /' t Ronald F. Holcombe, P.E. Donald R. Clark, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer RFH /cp Copies: 25 <: 1 4 �r ' A FOX COMPANY ' FOX 1 it TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SUMMARY GEOLOGY Introduction Site Conditions Geologic Setting Bedrock Geology Surficial Deposits and Geomorphology Hydrology Geologic Summary Geologic Hazards DATA ACQUISTION Field Investigation Laboratory Testing Slope Inclinometers GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS General Literature Review Method of Analysis ENGINEERING ANALYSIS General Regional Slope Stability Hazard Area Classifications Surface Water and Ground Water Earthwork Foundations Detailed Recommendations PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION RISK General Factor of Safety Probability of Failure Intensity of Study Cost - effectiveness of Solutions GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Regional Slopes Local Slopes Page 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 7 8 9 12 12 13 14 14 14 15 17 co 20 20 20 21 23 24 24 25 26 26 26 27 28 29 29 29 30 FOX ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) I Drainage Page 31 ' Lot No. 16, Highland Meadows 44 Lot No. 18, Highland Meadows 45 Lot No. 19, Highland Meadows 46 Overlot Grading 33 ' Footings 33 ' Basements /Foundation Walls 34 Floor Slabs 34 LOT- SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 35 Lot No. 1, Highland Meadows 36 Lot No. 2, Highland Meadows 37 Lot No. 3, Highland Meadows 38 Lot No. 4, Highland Meadows 39 ' Lot No. 7, Highland Meadows Lot No. 10, Highland Meadows 40 41 ' Lot No. 11, Highland Meadows 42 Lot No. 12, Highland Meadows 43 ' Lot No. 16, Highland Meadows 44 Lot No. 18, Highland Meadows 45 Lot No. 19, Highland Meadows 46 Lot No. 21, Highland Meadows 47 ' Lot No. 23, Highland Meadows 48 Lot No. 24, Highland Meadows 49 Lot No. 1, Highland Park 50 Lot No. 2, Highland Park 51 Lot No. 3, Highland Park 52 Lot No. 4, Highland Park 53 Lot No. 5, Highland Park 54 Lot No. 6, Highland Park 55 Lot No. 7, Highland Park 56 ' Lot No. 8, Highland Park Lot No. 9, Highland Park 57 58 Lot No. 10, Highland Park 59 Lot No. 11, Highland Park 60 LIMITATIONS 61 ' BIBLIOGRAPHY 62 ' ILLUSTRATIONS Geologic Map - Highland Meadows Figure IA Depth to Bedrock - Highland Meadows 1B ' Geologic Map - Highland Park 1C Depth to Bedrock - Highland Park 1D Rotational Slope Failure 2A Progressive Failure Sequence 2B Idealized Probabilistic Distribution 3 Slope Hazard Maps (Highland Meadows) 4A to 41N Slope Hazard Map (Highland Park) 40 Details of Drain System 5A to 5E FOX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Benching Detail Natural Slopes Regional Underdrains APPENDIX A TEST HOLE AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Highland Meadows: Logs of Test Holes Logs of Exploration Holes Summary of Laboratory Testing Particle Size Analysis Charts Unconfined Compression Test Results Swell- Consolidation Tests Slope Inclinometer Field Data Highland Park: Logs of Test Holes Logs of Exploration Holes Summary of Laboratory Testing Particle Size Analysis Chart Swell- Consolidation Tests APPENDIX B Preliminary Earthwork Specification - Overlot Grading Figure 6 7 Figure Al -1 Al to Table Al -10 Al -11 to Al -14 Al -15 Al -16 to Al -19 Al -20 to Al -23 A2 -1 A2 -2 to A2 -8 Table A2 -9 A2 -10 to A2 -11 A2 -12 to A2 -15 Page B -1 to B -7 11 FOX INTRODUCTION This study was initiated by a group of lot owners in the Highland Meadows Filing No. 1 and Highland Park Subdivisions in Vail, Colorado, to satisfy Town ' of Vail Ordinance No. 29. A geological /geotechnical reconnaisance study for the general area prepared for the Town of Vail by Claycomb Engineering Associates, ' Inc. identified the need for lot - specific and regional geotechnical and slope stability analyses to evaluate the potential hazards to development. This ' report contains the results of those analyses, together with engineering ' design and construction recommendations and, where applicable, identification of those specific areas where additional studies may be required. ' The project area is located in Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian. This location is on the south side of Gore ' Creek Canyon on a generally north facing slope. The extent of improvements in the two subdivisions presently consists of paved roadways and underground utilities. In the Highland Park Subdivision, some structures have been con- 1 structed on lots not included in this study. We understand that the proposed structures for this area will be single to four -plex residential buildings of one to three stories in height. Construction of the superstructure is expected ' to be primarily wood frame. Designs for some of the structures may include basements. At the time of this study, design of the structures had not pro- ' gressed to the point where proposed grading, retaining walls, or building footprints were available. The only topographic information available to us was ' regional topography using ten foot contours for Highland Meadows by KKBNA, and a topographical survey using two foot contour intervals for Highland Park by Johnson, Kunkel and Associates, Inc. While this topographic information is ' adequate for analysis of regional stability, more detailed as -built topography using a one foot contour interval should be used for final analysis and develop- ' ment of construction details. -1- FOX SUMMARY ' The results of this study indicate several significant conclusions. We believe that the concerns expressed in the Claycomb Report and Town of Vail ' Ordinance No. 29 are very well founded for this and similar subdivisions. The ' conclusion of this study is that the most critical factor affecting development is regional slope stability. A major slope failure could easily destroy one or t more structures as well as pose a threat to human life. Some areas of the site were found to have slope stability conditions which present, our opinion, an unacceptably high risk for development (Classification 'D' and 'E'). Therefore, ' we recommend that no development or construction of any kind take place in these areas. Some marginal areas (Classification 'C') were indentified which further ' study may show they will be reasonably safe for development. Because of the relatively high degree of variability in subsurface conditions encountered, ' these areas could not be conclusively analyzed on the limited scope of this ' investigation. It is recommended that no development take place in Class 'C' areas unless further study confirms a reasonable degree of safety. ' The second most important factor effecting development that was identified by the study is localized slope stability. In our opinion, local stability problems pose a minor threat to structures and human life, and for the most t part, can be mitigated. Recommendations were also developed for foundation design, underdrains, retaining walls, floor slabs and overlot grading. ' It cannot be overemphasized that the geologic processes of erosion, weath- ering and landsliding will, in eventual geologic time, remove all of the ' overburden from the mountainside. Although it may take many years to complete this process, these factors are active and pose a threat to both existing and ' proposed structures. As a result, no structure, no matter how well it is ' designed, will be absolutely safe and will be subjected to some degree of risk. -2- FOX ' We have attempted in this study to quantify the risks and make recommendations ' as to what degree of risk is reasonable and acceptable. ' GEOLOGY Introduction I The project site, consisting of Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing 1, and neighboring Highland Park Subdivision, is located in the western portion of the ' Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more specifically described as portions of ' the SE 1/4, SE 1/4 Sec. 11, and the NE 1/4, NE 1/4 Sec. 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The Highland Meadow Subdivision is I approximately 16 acres subdivided into 25 individual lots; of these 14 lots were included in the investigation. The Highland Park parcel covered in this inves- t tigation consists of 11 lots and is situated just southwest of the Highland Meadows parcel. Site access is gained from Interstate 70 at Exit 173 by way ' of Vermont Road and Meadowbrook Drive. ' Site Conditions The site is located on a sloping terrace on the south side of Gore Creek ' Canyon. The approximate range in elevation is 7900 to 8200 feet above mean sea level. Average slope grade on the Highland Park parcel is 28 percent. While ' the flatter portion of the Highland Meadows parcel averages only 15 percent ' grade. The terrace lies at the toe of a moderately steep ridge to the south that rises to more than 11,000 feet elevation. ' The northwestern border of the site generally parallels Gore Creek, a perennial drainage tributary to the Eagle River, which is approximately 2 miles ' downstream. A tributary to Gore Creek separates the Highland Meadows parcel to ' the northeast and the Highland Park parcel to the southwest. Both tracts have a northern exposure which allows for greater snowpack ' accumulation, a slower snowmelt, and a generally increased surface and ground -3- 7 FOX water supply than a typical south - facing slope. Several ephemeral drainages incise the site. The drainages in the proposed development portions of the tract are not deeply cut as no appreciable gullying was observed. Ephemeral and perennial springs were observed on and near the site, commonly in the area of Lots 1 through 8 in the Highland Meadows portion. The springs generally re- enter the ground surface naturally or by means of man -made conduits and drains. Vegetation on site includes coniferous and aspen trees, ground foliage and grasses typical of a subalpine climate. The area experiences four to six months of snow pack per year. Temperatures range from -20 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 40 to 90 degrees in the summer. Present development on site includes surveyed undeveloped lots, paved streets, underground utilities and an underdrain system. The extent and outfall location of the underdrain system are shown on Figure 7. Proposed construction includes single to four -plex family housing structures and associated overlot grading and landscaping. Additional infrastructure development may include: an upgraded underdrain system, a carefully planned positive surface drainage system, permanent earth retaining structures, and other structures necessary for proper site development. Geologic Setting The geologic setting of the subject area is complex with many different geologic processes controlling the present site conditions. These processes include: marine and non - marine deposition, uplift, faulting, folding, glacia- tion, glacial deposition, mass wasting, and erosion processes. The geologic investigation included research of published literature, field reconnaisance of the area surrounding the subject parcel, our previous experience in this and similar areas, and on -site geologic field mapping and drilling program with four exploration holes into the bedrock in each subdivi- -4- FOX sion and 17 test holes to a depth of approximately 25 feet. For the majority of the geologic investigation, it was necessary to correlate site specific data with the more generalized regional information to form a site model. I to light brown or gray. The dolomitic sandstone is medium to coarse grained, angular to subangular, micaceous, arkosic and oxidized in part. The clastic rocks are generally devoid of small scale bedding structure and are jointed by moderate to high angle fractures. The sandstone is light gray and weathers to a light orange- , brown due to iron oxidation. The micaceous shale is slightly fossilferous and carbonaceous, with thin beds and crossbeds of fine grained sand and silt. The fine grained rocks are moderately indurated, but fracture easily along micaceous bedding planes. ' -5- Bedrock Geology Out crops of bedrock were not observed within the boundaries of the subject ' parcel. The bedrock unit immediately underlying the study area is the Minturn ' Formation, composed of grit, sandstone, conglomerate and shale with minor dolomite /limestone beds. ' The estimated thickness of the Minturn Formation beneath the site is approximately 3000 feet. Underlying the Minturn in the study area is the Pennsylvanian Belden Formation of similar composition, and a sequence of early ' Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlying Precambrian crystalline rocks composed of granites, gneisses, and schists. ' The subject parcel overlies Clastic Units D and E of the Minturn, approx- imately in the middle of the formation. These bedrock units are composed ' arkosic of interbedded and interlensed coarse, poorly sorted micaceous quartzose ' sandstones and conglomerates with micaceous siltstones and shales. The sand- stones and conglomerates are friable to firml cemented ( carbonate) and 9 Y � weather I to light brown or gray. The dolomitic sandstone is medium to coarse grained, angular to subangular, micaceous, arkosic and oxidized in part. The clastic rocks are generally devoid of small scale bedding structure and are jointed by moderate to high angle fractures. The sandstone is light gray and weathers to a light orange- , brown due to iron oxidation. The micaceous shale is slightly fossilferous and carbonaceous, with thin beds and crossbeds of fine grained sand and silt. The fine grained rocks are moderately indurated, but fracture easily along micaceous bedding planes. ' -5- FOX Many fractures occurring at high angles to the bedding planes have been filled ' with a carbonate cement. Some mineralization has occurred resulting in deposits ' of iron sulfides and oxides. The Minturn Formation dips at approximately 15 degrees to the north north- ' east in the vicinity of Highland Meadows. The site is located on the western flank of the Vail Syncline. The Vail Syncline is a relatively shallow north trending syncline, which plunges toward the center from its northern and south- ern axial extent. The structure is exposed along the sides of the Gore Creek Valley as it transects the valley at Vail. The western flank of the syncline is ' the homoclinal eastern flank of the Sawatch Anticline of the Sawatch mountain range. ' At least two east -west trending normal faults have been mapped by Tweto in the bedrock units under and adjacent to the subject site. Tweto suggests ' that these faults orginated in Precambrian time and were last active in Laramide ' time; the last mountain building tectonic period that formed the present Rocky Mountains. ' A small, probably inactive normal fault was field identified, exposed outside of the southwestern boundary of the site. This fault appears to strike east and dips steeply to the north. Sample recovery from exploratory hole ' HM -4 at a depth of 44.5 feet to 69.4 feet (total depth) suggests the possibility of another fault. Samples appear to be disturbed, displaced, weathered greenish ' gray micaceous shale. The convoluted appearance of the shale is similar to a fault gouge material although possible displacement by gravity mass wasting Tweto that of bedrock materials (landslide) cannot be ruled out. suggests fault zones in the area can be tens to hundreds of feet wide. The bedrock faulting on -site has been covered by Quaternary overburden deposits which ' presently evidence no displacement from bedrock faulting. -6- t FOX The Gore Fault, which bounds the west side of the Gore Range is likely ' the only potentially active fault near the site. The Gore Fault is a northwest ' trending, southwest dipping, nearly vertical normal fault zone and is located more than four miles northeast of the subject site. Miocene age displacement ' has been noted along the northern extent of the fault zone. Quaternary (recent) movement has not been documented. The site is within the Northern Rio Grande ' Rift seismotectonic subprovince, (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981). Within this subprovince, a maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 6 to 7 on the Modifed Mercalli Scale can be expected. Fracturing within the bedrock mass appears to be both parallel to and at high angles to the bedding. The bedding plane fractures are probably caused by overburden pressure release from glacial and erosional processes and possibly structural extension associated with local faulting. High angle fractures ' within the sandstone are rough and open, and within the shale are smooth and often filled with carbonate cement. The high angle fractures are probably caused by structural release associated with local faulting. ' Surficial Deposits and Geomorphology Surficial deposition on -site can be linked to a series of geomorphic processes including glaciation, slope failure, alluvial and colluvial processes ' and the ongoing weathering and erosional processes. At least two glacial stades affected the area during the Pleistocene Epoch; the first, known as the ' Pre -Bull Lake age and the second, the Bull Lake glacial age. The blankets of glacial debris high on the Gore Creek valley walls, above Bull Lake deposits, ' than suggest the Pre -Bull Lake glaciation was more extensive any other glacial period. This glacial stade probably eroded a large "U" shaped valley at Vail. The first stade of the Bull Lake glacial age deposited a lateral moraine at the present site. Samples recovered from exploration holes suggest that morainal -7- FOX deposition was as high as 200 feet above the present valley floor. Bull Lake glacial till is a conglomerate of large igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary ' boulders within a matrix of clayey sands and gravels. Deposits are poorly sorted, medium dense to dense and moist to wet. Ongoing erosion from subsequent less significant glacial stades has eroded much of this lateral morain within the valley. ' After the Bull Lake glacial erosion and deposition, evidence suggests ' that a landslide occurred within the overburden above the site due to glacial oversteepening of previous deposits. This slide deposited material on the ' present site and probably northward into the Gore Creek valley. The subject site is entirely underlain by this landslide complex as mapped by Tweto (1977). ' This slide deposit includes very sandy, silty clays and clayey sands with scattered gravels and a few cobbles and boulders. Deposits of clean to slightly ' silty and clayey sands and gravels with cobbles suggest that Gore Creek may have ' crossed the subject parcel. As Gore Creek meandered across the valley, it downcut through the slide mass to its present location. This downcutting ongoing erosional processes and a potential for future instability. Hydrology ' In the subject area, surface water and ground water are in great abundance and very interactive as evidenced by the number of spring and seeps. Ground water is located in two zones. The first zone is located within the glacial -8- preserved a portion of the glacial deposit and the overlying slide mass which is the Highland Meadows terrace observed today. Recent colluvial and alluvial ' terrace. deposition appears to have added little to the present ' Evidence of old minor slope failures can be observed on the steeper slopes along the terrace notably in the extreme northern parts of Lots 19 through 24, ' Highland Meadows. This suggests a lack of resistance of these slopes to the ongoing erosional processes and a potential for future instability. Hydrology ' In the subject area, surface water and ground water are in great abundance and very interactive as evidenced by the number of spring and seeps. Ground water is located in two zones. The first zone is located within the glacial -8- I III 1 n I FOX till. This zone carries the permanent ground water table and is confined below by bedrock and above by the less permeable slide mass. This ground water zone appears to have a piezometric head ranging up to 30 feet. At exploration hole HM -4 this zone was tapped at a depth of 21.0 to 44.0 feet and produced a surface artersian flow in excess of 10 gallons per minute at a surface stand of 18 inches as measured in June, 1983. Other exploration holes penetrating this ground water table do not produce a piezometric head sufficient to cause a surface flow. The area of recharge for this zone is upslope of the site. The zone of discharge is probably below the site in the Gore Creek valley. From observation of the flow at HM -4, seasonal fluctuation of this ground water table appears to be slight to moderate. A second, near - surface, perched ground water zone is found within the slide mass. The flow in this zone appears to fluctuate with the seasons. This zone is caused by infiltration of snow melt and precipitation into the surface soils during the spring of the year. Infiltration causes seasonal saturation OT zne vadose zone and contact and depression springs and seeps. Recharge of this zone is on and directly upslope from the site, discharge is on the downslope of the site. Surface water hydraulics and runoff are complicated by the number of springs and seeps. Many springs and seeps reinfiltrate the surface a short distance after they emerge. The upslope drainage area is small and drainages are poorly defined, indicating a minimal risk of flash flooding on the site. Upslope infiltration and downslope seepage accounts for the majority of the surface water found on site. Geologic Summary The site is underlain by the Pennsylvanian age Minturn Formation. This ' bedrock unit includes dolomitic to arkosic sandstones and carbonaceous, mica - -9- I I 0 J u FOX ceous dark gray shales. Bedrock dips at a low angle to the northeast. A steeply dipping normal fault borders the site to the southwest. Another fault is suspected to transect the site near its southern boundary. Both are present- ly inactive. The closest active fault is the Gore Fault lying approximately four miles to the northeast. Maximum credible earthquake magnitudes which may effect the site are on the order of 6 to 7 on the Modified Mercalli scale. Two glacial episodes appear to have affected the present topography. The first was an erosional sequence creating a terraced concave slope under the present site. The second was a depositional sequence leaving a bench of till made up of large boulders within a gravel, sand and clay matrix. After an erosional period, a slide occurred above the site depositing slide debris across the site. This debris is a sand -clay mixture with some gravels. Gore Creek may have crossed the site for a period before it moved toward the center of the valley and down -cut to its present level, leaving the terrace that is now Highland Meadows. The Highland Meadows terrace is poorly drained of precipitation and snow melt; many springs and seeps can be observed. These seeps suggest seasonally saturated soils and high or perched ground water conditions. They are probably associated with the small slope failures that can be seen along the steeper areas near the southern boundaries of the site. Geologic Hazards Bedrock dips gently to the northeast and the ground slope is to the northeast. There are relatively weak shale beds within the rock and many fractures, parallel and perpendicular to the bedding planes. These conditions tend to weaken the overall rock mass although the reduction in strength is not considered significant to allow for massive slope failure within the bedrock units. Solution cavities, karst topography and related surface subsidence -10- FOX are often associated with carbonate rocks similar to those within the Minturn ' Formation. No evidence of these features were found during our investigation, although the potential for their existence is possible from our experiences in the area. ' Subsoils on site consist of three basic groups: Glacial till, comprised of boulders and cobbles in a matrix of gravel, sand and clay (Unified Soil Classification GP /GW /GC) ; Slide mass, comprised of sand -clay with gravels (CL /SC); and Alluvium, comprised of sand and gravel with cobbles and some clay (SM /ML) . The glacial till generally occurs at a depth below the surface of greater than 20 feet. Present hydrologic conditions across much of the site present impor- t tant constraints to development. These conditions include seasonally high ground water, and seeps and springs resulting in saturated surface and subsur- face conditions. u 0 There were no active faults identified on or in close proximity to the site. The site lies within the northern Rio Grande Rift subprovince which suggests a maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 6 to 7 on the Modified Mercalli Scale; this correlates to a seismic acceleration of approximately 0.07 times the acceleration of gravity (0.079). The most obvious geologic hazard associated with the Highland Meadows Terrace is the stability of the steeper slopes. The strength of the surficial deposits available for resisting failure is relatively small, particularly when saturated. The shear strength of the underlying glacial till is significantly more than the surficial deposits although the possibility of failure still exists. The strength and orientation of the bedrock units appear to present only a very minor hazard. Solifluction is the slow downward movement of fine grained surficial soils -11- (ZED due to the loss of shear strength resulting from excess pore water pressure ' during seasonal freeze and thaw. No evidence of solifluction was observed during our field investigation although it has been proposed by others in ' previous investigations that the potential for solifluction exists on site. Solifluction is not considered a significant hazard once proper surface and t subsurface drainage is implemented. It could potentially be a hazard for ' developed properties adjacent to undeveloped properties which are not properly ' drained. Although an economic mineral evaluation was outside the scope of this ' investigation, no economic mineral deposits were observed on site nor are any anticipated at depth. No evidence of previous mining was observed on ' site and consequently, no subsidence hazard due to underground mine workings is thought to exist. DATA ACQUISITION ' A program of field and laboratory investigation was implemented to recover samples for geologic interpretation, classification and laboratory testing in order to evaluate the physical properties of the pertinent subsurface materials. In addition, slope inclinometer casings were installed and baseline readings were obtained to provide a means and reference for long -term monitoring of slope ' movements. Details of the data acquisition phase of this study are discussed in ' the following paragraphs. Field Investigation ' The field investigation consisted of drilling one test hole on each lot included in the study. Approximate locations are shown on Figures 1A and 1C for ' Highland Meadows and Highland Park, respectively. Of the 25 test holes drilled, 11 were drilled to a depth of 25 feet. The rest were drilled various depths -12- 1' FOX into bedrock. Both disturbed (California and Standard split-barrel) and undis- turbed (thin -wall tube) samples were taken in overburden soils; rock cores were taken in bedrock. Logs of the borings depicting subsurface stratigraphy, types ' and depths of samples, ground water data and penetration test results are presented on the Logs of Test Holes, Figures Al -1 and A2 -1. Individual logs for the deeper test holes are presented on the Logs of Exploration Holes, Figures ' A1-2 to A1-9 and A2 -2 to A2 -8. The test holes were approximately located in the field by tape and compass. ' to For several lots, the services of a bulldozer were required to gain access ' the test hole locations. Ground water measurements were made on the dates indicated on the test hole ' logs. These measurements pertain to the dates taken and may not reflect fluctu- ations in the ground water due to changes in season or weather conditions. Laboratory Testing A series of laboratory tests were peformed on representative samples recovered from the various strata to determine their classification, shear ' strength and settlement /heave potential. The results of these tests are summar- ized on Tables Al -10 and A2 -9 and specific test results are presented as Figures ' Al -11 to Al -19 and Figures A2 -10 to A2 -15. The applicable shear strength parameters for the stability analysis were based on field penetration test results and laboratory unconfined and triaxial ' compression testing. The presence of large gravels, cobbles and in some cases boulders in the upper clay stratum made sampling very difficult and resulted in ' a limited number of testable samples. Further, the presence of the gravels and cobbles tended to distort the field penetration test results, making the soils ' appear stronger than they were. Therefore, final selection of the parameters ' used to model the subsurface strata was based to a large extent on experience, -13- t ( F ED engineering judgement and on -site case histories as well as the actual test data. The slope stability analysis was based on the following parametric model: Colluvium Glacial Till Bedrock Cohesion, psf 750 500 0 Internal Friction, degrees 0 34 48 Total Unit Weight, psf 130 130 155 Slope Inclinometers Slope inclinometer casings were installed in the four deep test holes in Highland Meadows and in test hole HP -2 in Highland Park. The test holes on these lots were located so as to avoid construction areas in order to protect the relatively easily damaged PVC casings. The purpose of these casings is to permit long -term monitoring of slope movements. Long -term monitoring of the slopes is beyond the scope of this study, however, baseline (initial) readings of the casings were made for the those located in Highland Meadows. The casing installed in test hole HP -2 in Highland Park is longer than our present equip- ment could measure (120 feet versus 100 feet), so no baseline reading is inclu- ded. The baseline reading for this casing can be taken at any time, but prefer- ably before any construction. The field data for the baseline readings were taken on July 14, 1983 and are presented as Figures Al -20 to A1-23. We are available to discuss a long- term program for monitoring slope movements. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS General The design of all structures should include several geotechnical- related considerations. Any loadings applied to the subsoils should not create a stress state which exceeds the allowable shear strength with an appropriate -14- u FAX factor of safety. This applies to stresses imposed by construction of embank- , ments as well as those due to foundations. The short and long -term stability of excavations, walls and slopes should have a reasonable factor of safety with ' respect to both local and regional failure. Provisions should be made in the design for the possible detrimental effects of surface and ground water on the structure, its foundations, retaining structures or overall stability. Finally, any movements of imposed on the structure by settlement or heaving of the subsoils should be within tolerable limits. ' In addition to the geotechnical considerations, the viability of the ' project should be analyzed with respect to the geologic conditions present and the geologic processes affecting the site. This is of particular importance ' when dealing with mountainside property. As discussed in the preceeding geology section, the processes of weathering, erosion and landsliding are gradually ' moving the overburden soils and bedrock downward to the valley below. These ' factors were considered on both a local (site- specific) and regional basis in order to develop the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. 1 Literature Review A review was made of available literature concerning primarily the land - sliding phenomenon associated with this study. Conclusions drawn from this ' review were used to develop the methodology for analyzing slope stability of the areas investigated. A bibliography of those works which were considered of the most significant to this study are listed in the appendix. Several key points were noted in this review which helped govern the analytical approach. These ' points are discussed in the following paragraphs. ' Natural slopes, as opposed to man -made embankment slopes, typically exhibit a far more varied set of subsurface conditions. The result of this ' is that no amount of subsurface investigation is detailed enough to develop -15- FOX ' soil parameters for which there is a high degree of certainty. Consequently, ' some sort of averaging technique or a range of values must be used. When this is done, it becomes more difficult to identify those areas which are ' more likely to have problems. The lack of homogeneity in the subsurface conditions leads to another ' problem in analyzing natural slopes. That is, the analytical method used to ' analyze slopes require that the subsurface conditions be idealized. In the case of man -made slopes, this can be done with a high degree of accuracy. In the ' case of natural slopes, however, such idealizations tend to considerably oversimplify the subsurface conditions. The analytical method is then limited ' by the accuracy of the data which it is processing. Numerous problems are also encountered in evaluating the soil parame- ters themselves. Studies have shown that failures of natural slopes can best be ' modeled using the residual shear strength for the subsoils. Therefore, the normal laboratory shear strength determinations, which are based on peak shear strength, will tend to overestimate the stability of a natural slope. In addi- ' tion, most natural slopes on mountainsides contain colluvial or landslide deposits which contain a significant secondary structure. The failure planes ' comprising this secondary structure, are generally not encountered durinq the sampling process, and are not present in the samples that are normally tested in the laboratory. Again the soils shear strength at failure tends to be overes- timated. Another factor that separates natural slopes from man -made slopes, is the ' control over geometry. Man -made slopes can be designed to have a minimum factor of safety present for any zone within the cross - section. Natural slopes, t however, generally have an irregular cross - section and certain areas may have a much lower stability than others. This could create the potential for a pro- ' -16- FOX gressive failure as the less stable areas fail first resulting in a change in ! the geometry of the slopes and thereby decreasing the stability of other areas. This progressive failure sequence could be of particular significance in ter- raced areas where steep slopes are separated by flatter slopes. Several authors agree that the design of structures on natural slopes should be governed by higher minimum factors of safety than for man -made slopes. This is primarily to allow for a greater variability in subsurface conditions including the presence of secondary structure, limits of the analyt- ical methods used and difficulty in obtaining representative samples for labor- ' atory testing. Method of Analysis ' Based on the objectives of this study, the literature reviewed, the results of the field and laboratory investigations, and the results of other ! studies performed in this area, a method of analysis was developed to evaluate ' the complex slope and subsurface conditions that are present. The analytical tool used in this method of analysis is the method of slices, slope stability ' computation method utilizing a circular failure surface and the Modified Bishop method for resolution of forces. Observation of several slope failures in the ' vicinity of the project area indicate that a circular failure surface is valid. ' A significant slope failure of this nature was observed on Lot 22, Highland Meadows Filing 1. As discussed below, this failure was used to help model the ' subsurface strength parameters for the analysis in other areas. The results of a slope stability analysis using a circular failure surface ! are presented in terms of factors of safety. The factor of safety is the ratio between those forces tending to prevent failure and those forces tending to ' cause failure. A simplified depiction of this method is shown in Figure 2A - ! Rotational Slope Failure. The forces tending to resist failure are essentially -17- slope. This redefined ground surface must also be checked for stability. A ' failure occurring in this redefined slope is termed a 'progressive failure'. Depending upon the soil parameters and geometry of the slope, a series of progressive failures could be initiated by the first event, even if the up or I down slope geometry initially had a much higher factor of safety. A graphical depiction of a typical progressive failure sequence is shown in Figure 2B. Our field investigation revealed that two types of slope failures are ' occurring in and surrounding the project area. The most common is exhibited in slumping road cuts. These cuts have typically been constructed to 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical slopes (1.5 H:1.0 V) . All the slumps which were observed exhibited two significant conditions. First, the subsoils were gener- ally more granular than the surficial clays which typify most of the area. These granular soils consisted of silts and fine sands. Second, ground water ' flow was noted in all of these granular zones. Based on our observations, these granular zones tend to occur in pockets and /or lenses and are generally limited to the upper five feet of the subsurface materials. The other type of failure which is less evident but far more serious, is the deep- seated failure. This type of failure is a function primarily of the shear strength of the clay layer and is not influenced significantly by the water bearing granular lenses. These deep- seated failures may have failure -18- FOX the soil shear stresses along the failure surface. The weight of soil within the failure surface comprises those forces tending to cause failure. All points along the ground surface above the failure surface are representated by the factor of safety pertaining to that arc. The type of failure described above (i.e., affecting the original ground surface), is called a 'first event failure'. After the appearance of a first event failure, the ground surface is redefined as the soil slides down the slope. This redefined ground surface must also be checked for stability. A ' failure occurring in this redefined slope is termed a 'progressive failure'. Depending upon the soil parameters and geometry of the slope, a series of progressive failures could be initiated by the first event, even if the up or I down slope geometry initially had a much higher factor of safety. A graphical depiction of a typical progressive failure sequence is shown in Figure 2B. Our field investigation revealed that two types of slope failures are ' occurring in and surrounding the project area. The most common is exhibited in slumping road cuts. These cuts have typically been constructed to 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical slopes (1.5 H:1.0 V) . All the slumps which were observed exhibited two significant conditions. First, the subsoils were gener- ally more granular than the surficial clays which typify most of the area. These granular soils consisted of silts and fine sands. Second, ground water ' flow was noted in all of these granular zones. Based on our observations, these granular zones tend to occur in pockets and /or lenses and are generally limited to the upper five feet of the subsurface materials. The other type of failure which is less evident but far more serious, is the deep- seated failure. This type of failure is a function primarily of the shear strength of the clay layer and is not influenced significantly by the water bearing granular lenses. These deep- seated failures may have failure -18- FOX arcs as long as several hundred feet and as such were analyzed on a regional ' basis. That is, they do not necessarily begin or end at the established lot lines. To develop parameters that could be used in the slope stability analyses, ' the results of the laboratory tests were used for some preliminary slope stability calculations. The soil parameters were then adjusted to force a factor or safety of 1.0 to represent areas of known failures. Two areas in particular were used to develop a parametric model; the recent rotational ' failure on Lot 22 Highlands Meadows Filing 1, and the previously mapped land- slide area in the central portion of Highland Park. The parameters developed in this manner were then used for regional stability calculations for both areas. This procedure resulted in very little modification of the laboratory results. One limitation of this study, or any study, that is performed over a ' finite length of time, is the sensitivity of the shear strength of the clay soil to its degree of saturation. Since a clay soil exhibits a higher strength when it is dry than when it is wet, the relative stability of a clay slope ' can vary greatly between wet periods and dry periods. At the time this study was performed, relatively wet conditions prevailed. In fact, recent field reconnaissance trips indicated that very little drying out of the subsurface clays occurred during the summer of 1983. Therefore, further softening of the ' clays could result from this continued period of saturation, and continued reduction of the shear strength of the clays could result in less stable slopes in the future. Based on discussions with persons familiar with the project area, the spring and summer of 1983 exhibited unusually wet conditions. As a result, we believe that the results of this study represent conditions judged to be the worst in recent years. However, another wet spring and summer could ' result in even less stable slopes just as a dry winter and spring could result -19- FOX in improved conditions. ' E ANALYSIS General Since design details such as site specific topography, proposed building ' footprints, proposed grading plans, and retaining wall designs were not avail- able at the time of this study, our conclusions and recommendations have ne- cessarily been generalized. More specific recommendations can be developed once the design details are known. Regional Slope Stability It is the conclusion of this study that regional slope stability is the most important factor affecting development. Other geotechnical- related aspects ' of design such as foundation design, basements, minor road cuts, and drainage can be mitigated by conventional, cost - effective construction methods. The potential exists for the occurrence of regional slope failures that may affect more than one lot or may be so large that practical mitigative measures do not exist. Such occurrences present the only hazard we have found that would ' preclude development of some lots. The other hazards we have identified can, in our opinion, be mitigated at reasonable cost. Factors of safety were computed for the characteristic slope and subsurface conditions as described in the method of analysis. For the earthquake analysis, an acceleration of 0.07g was used. Hazard areas were then plotted for the lots involved with this study in accordance with the classification scheme described below (See Figure 4). Hazard Area Classifications Regional slope stability - related hazard areas were classified using five categories of risk. These are denoted by the letters 'A' through 'E'. The ' -20- t II J t FOX degree of risk in subjective terms associated with each class together with the classification criteria are shown on Table 1, Hazard Area Classification System. Since the Class 'C' areas are on the borderline between moderate risk and very high risk slopes, they are further described by a subscript indicating the critical failure mode. In the case of Class 'CB', insufficient subsurface data was available to determine if these areas would better be classed as 'B' or 'D'. Additional field investigation would be required to determine its final classification. The hazard areas are shown on Figure 4. Table 1 - Hazard Area Classification System Note: Hazard Area(s) Class 'C' are conditional (i.e. could be re- classified a either 'B' and 'D' pending additional study) and are depicted with a subscript to indicate which mode of failure governs it. Critical Modes for Class 'C' Areas CB - Dependent on depth to bedrock Computed Factor of Safety Cp - Critical mode is progressive First Progressive Failure Earth - Class Degree of Risk Event quake Surface Water and A Low >2.5 and >2.0 and >2.0 water has a considerable impact on the stability of B Moderate >2.0 and >1.5 and >1.5 C High (Conditional) >1.5 and >1.2 and >1.2 D Very High >1.1 and >1.1 and >1.0 ' E Unstable <1.1 or <1.1 or <1.0 Note: Hazard Area(s) Class 'C' are conditional (i.e. could be re- classified a either 'B' and 'D' pending additional study) and are depicted with a subscript to indicate which mode of failure governs it. Critical Modes for Class 'C' Areas CB - Dependent on depth to bedrock CF - Critical mode is first event Cp - Critical mode is progressive failure CE - Critical mode is earthquake event 1 Ground Water Surface Water and ' As discussed in other reports prepared for the Highland Meadows area, water has a considerable impact on the stability of slopes. In the case of ' cohesive soils (clays), increased moisture results in a loss of shear strength. For granular soils (sands and silts), the presence of a ground water table and -21- layers is relatively rapid, they are maintained only as long as there is a recharge. Once rainfall and snowmelt are no longer supplying recharge, the layers begin to dewater and drain the adjacent clays. This causes a reduction ' in soil moisture and increase in strength of the clays. The strength of the clays can be further improved during the summer by dry, sunny weather. ' During a normal weather year, spring snowmelt and rains contribute to softening of the subsoils and the development of springs. By the end of the summer the springs typically dry up and the subsoils harden somewhat. This recent year, a thick snowpack together with high spring and summer rainfall has prevented drying of the springs and subsoils. This suggests that even ' a normal weather pattern for the next year could result in both softer subsoils and greater flow in the springs. To reverse this trend, an unusually dry year 1 would probably be required. Mitigative measures are available to control the damaging effects of water. Unfortunately, the only way to stop percolation would be to seal the ' ground surface with an impermeable liner. This is not practical from a number -22- butes to an increase in moisture content of the subsoils. In clay soils which FAX percolate very slowly, the moisture may be retained for a very long time. Granular corresponding hydrostatic pressure causes a reduction in shear strength. It ' should be noted that a hydrostatic pressure by itself does not cause a strength ' reduction in purely cohesive soils, rather, this reduction is a result of the physiochemical action of the moisture on the clay. ' The two sources of water to the site are rainfall and snowmelt. All water initially begins as surface water with some percolating into the subsur- face to form various ground water conditions. The percolation of water contri- layers is relatively rapid, they are maintained only as long as there is a recharge. Once rainfall and snowmelt are no longer supplying recharge, the layers begin to dewater and drain the adjacent clays. This causes a reduction ' in soil moisture and increase in strength of the clays. The strength of the clays can be further improved during the summer by dry, sunny weather. ' During a normal weather year, spring snowmelt and rains contribute to softening of the subsoils and the development of springs. By the end of the summer the springs typically dry up and the subsoils harden somewhat. This recent year, a thick snowpack together with high spring and summer rainfall has prevented drying of the springs and subsoils. This suggests that even ' a normal weather pattern for the next year could result in both softer subsoils and greater flow in the springs. To reverse this trend, an unusually dry year 1 would probably be required. Mitigative measures are available to control the damaging effects of water. Unfortunately, the only way to stop percolation would be to seal the ' ground surface with an impermeable liner. This is not practical from a number -22- butes to an increase in moisture content of the subsoils. In clay soils which percolate very slowly, the moisture may be retained for a very long time. Granular soils percolate much more rapidly, and if they are significant in thickness and extent, a ground water table may develop. Since the flow in these layers is relatively rapid, they are maintained only as long as there is a recharge. Once rainfall and snowmelt are no longer supplying recharge, the layers begin to dewater and drain the adjacent clays. This causes a reduction ' in soil moisture and increase in strength of the clays. The strength of the clays can be further improved during the summer by dry, sunny weather. ' During a normal weather year, spring snowmelt and rains contribute to softening of the subsoils and the development of springs. By the end of the summer the springs typically dry up and the subsoils harden somewhat. This recent year, a thick snowpack together with high spring and summer rainfall has prevented drying of the springs and subsoils. This suggests that even ' a normal weather pattern for the next year could result in both softer subsoils and greater flow in the springs. To reverse this trend, an unusually dry year 1 would probably be required. Mitigative measures are available to control the damaging effects of water. Unfortunately, the only way to stop percolation would be to seal the ' ground surface with an impermeable liner. This is not practical from a number -22- FOX of standpoints including aesthetics, cost, and the fact that areas well beyond established property lines would have to be sealed. As a result, there is little chance of being able to significantly affect the moisture content and, ' therefore, the strength of clay subsoils. The shallow granular layers, however, ' can be dewatered by a system of underdrains. While these underdrains would not appreciably improve regional stability, they would have a positive effect on failures of shallow cuts resulting from hydrostatic pressures in granular layers. Peripheral foundation underdrains would help minimize infiltration of water into foundation subsoils and help control foundation settlement and ' maintain bearing capacity. It cannot be over - emphasized that the installation of underdrains cannot ' be counted on to cause a significant improvement in the shear strength of the clay subsoils. Therefore, they would be expected to have little impact on ' the regional stability. Earthwork The amount of earthwork that can be accomplished at the site is limited ' to a large degree by the presence of the roads. Therefore, only on -lot grading will be considered. Both cutting and filling will tend to decrease the stabil- ity of slopes in the high risk areas (Classes 'C', 'D', and 'E'). In the lower risk areas ('A' and 'B'), minor cutting and filling will be allowed with careful ' increase the design. Use of basements and retaining walls will similarly ' hazard in high risk areas. The following mitigative measures should be considered in developing grading plans for individual lots: 1. Re- grading should be limited to lower risk areas (Classes A and B). 2. Step first floors to conform to existing grades. ' 3. Protect the ground surface from erosion, particularly on steeper slopes, -23- i, FOX minimizing removal of existing trees and vegetation. ' 4. Minimize the depths of cuts and fills and use the flattest possible slopes. 5. Expect some local sloughing of slopes and be prepared to immediately repair ' slopes that slough. 6. Minimize the use and height of retaining walls. Be advised that a retaining ' wall, while increasing local stability, may at the same time decrease ' regional stability. All retaining walls should be analyzed individually for their impacts on regional stability and development of design criteria. t F oundations Foundations for the proposed structures may be designed as shallow spread ' footings. The depth below ground surface of the foundation should be determined ' during examination of the excavation by a geotechnical engineer. As a minimum, foundations should be placed below the zone of frost penetration for the Vail i area (48 inches). Allowable footing bearing pressure recommendations are contained in the lot - specific recommendations in a following section. In some ' cases, it may be necessary to revise the recommended bearing pressure based on ' field conditions at the time of construction. Footings should be placed on a relatively dry, compacted subgrade to t minimize foundation settlement. In wet areas, this may require construction dewatering or installation of the foundation drains before pouring the footings. ' Subgrade soils which become loosened during excavation should be recompacted. ' Footings constructed in accordance with these recommed ations should experience settlement within the tolerable range of the structures. 1 Detailed Recommendations Detailed engineering recommendations are contained in subsequent sections of this report. The first of these sections "General Recommendations ", dis- cusses those items that pertain to all lots and the study area as a whole. The -24- I � I � I FOX next section, "Lot- Specific Recommendations" deals with those recommendations that are peculiar to each lot. PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION This report is the first step in a comprehensive effort to properly engi- neer the proposed structures from a soil and foundation standpoint. The recom- mendations contained herein are considered 'preliminary design criteria' and they become 'final' only when incorporated in the design plans and specifica- tions and are properly implemented during construction. In the case of the marginal areas identified herein (Stability Classification 'C'), additional ' studies will be required to develop preliminary design criteria. The design plans and specifications should be reviewed by Fox & Associates ' to accomplish the following purposes: 1. Determine if the preliminary design criteria have been properly incorporated ' into the design concept and construction documents. ' 2. Determine if the preliminary design criteria address all of the proposed design features. If not, additional studies may be recommended. ' 3. Develop design criteria on an individual basis for earth retaining structures. 4. Develop a plan for construction observation of soil and found ation -rel ated items. ' 5. Determine if the proposed construction has any detrimental effects on other properties and recommend alternative solutions, if warranted. ' Ideally, this review should take place well in advance of the start of construction to permit sufficient time for a thorough review and implementation ' of any changes that may be necessary. During the construction phase, Fox & Associates should be called to observe construction of the soil and foundation - related work to determine ' -25- ' FOX 1 if our recommendations have been properly executed. Specific items of construc- t tion that should be observed include, as a minimum: 1. Earthwork 2. Foundation subgrade ' 3. Slab -on- grade, sidewalk and driveway subgrades 4. Backfill of trenches and walls ' 5. Underdrain installation ' RISK General ' The notion of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical investiga- tion. The primary reason for this is that the investigative and analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which are used are generally emperical and must be tempered by engineering judgement and experience. Therefore, the solutions ' or recommendations presented in any geotechnical study should not be considered ' risk -free and more importantly, are not a guarantee that the proposed structure will perform satisfactorily. What the engineering recommendations do constitute, is the geotechnical engineers' best estimate of those measures that are nec- essary to make the structure perform satisfactorily based on usually limited ' subsurface information. The purpose of the following paragraphs is to discuss the concept of risk so the owner, who must ultimately decide what is an accep- t table risk, can better apply the findings of this study. ' Factor of Safety As discussed above, the most critical geotechnical consequence of this ' study is considered to be regional slope stability. The stability of a portion of this slope is expressed as a factory of safety. It is important to note that ' -26- FOX the concept of factor of safety is a derived value and not an intrinsic property ' of the slope. The accuracy with which the factor of safety for a given slope can be determined, is based on a number of factors the most significant of which ' are listed below: ' 1. Variability in surface conditions. 2. Variability and type of subsurface conditions. t 3. Validity of the analytical method. 4. Validity of simplifying assumptions. 5. Intensity of study. ' 6. Certainty of the design loading condition occurring. Depending on how well the above factors can be assessed determines what ' minimum factor of safety would be required to have a reasonable degree of confidence that a failure will not occur. It is the geotechnical engineers' to responsibility to assess these conditions and advise the owner as a minimum ' acceptable factor of safety. Probability of Failure ' Theoretically, a factor of safety of 1.0 indicates that a slope is on the verge of instability. Therefore, any lower factor of safety should result in failure and any higher factor of safety should theoretically represent a safe slope. However, due to the uncertainty and the Tactors aiscussea iri the preceeding paragraph, all slopes, even those with factors of safety greater ' than 1.0, have some potential for failure. The higher the computed factor of safety is for a given slope, the lower its probability of failure will be. In ' recent years, approaches have been developed to relate computed factory of safety to probability of failure. This approach is called a 'probabilistic ' analysis' and can be performed at a relatively great expense. Although such an ' analysis was beyond the scope of this project, it is believed that the concept -27- ' FOX ' of a probabilistic analysis of failure is very important. An example of the relationship between computed factor of safety and probability of failure is ' presented on Figure 3, Idealized Probabilistic Distribution. This figure indicates two curves representing the results of probabilistic analyses for ' two different slopes. On this example, a factor of safety of 2.5 was used to ' show the difference between Curve A and Curve B. For the site represented by Curve A, a factor of safety of 2.5 would result in a probability of failure of ' about 1 in 8. However, for the site represented by Curve B, a factor of safety of 2.5 would result in a probability failure of about 1 in 2000. This illus- trates graphically that the value of factor of safety cannot be considered t in absolute terms. For the slope represented by Curve A, a much higher minimum factor of safety would be required to provide a reasonable degree of safety than t for the site represented by Curve B. It should be emphasized that the data in Figure 3 is for illustration purposes only and was not based on data from this ' project. Intensity of Study The relatively large areal extent of the project site was investigated ' by 25 widely- spaced borings. Because of the limited data that was available to perform this study, the subsurface conditions between boring locations had to be ' based primarily on geologic interpretation. As noted above, considerable variation in the subsurface conditions was encountered. It is our opinion that ' the intensity of the study, despite the widely spaced nature of the borings, for ' the most part was sufficient. However, the recommendations for some areas could be refined significantly if more subsurface information were available. Those ' areas where additional study could possibly be beneficial are discussed in the recommendations section of this report. -28- FOX Cost - effectiveness of Solutions ' The safety, and therefore the potential risk, of a particular slope is inversely proportional to the cost of development. The probability of failure ' can be reduced by spending s endin more money on mitigative measures. However, exper- I ience has shown that there is a practical limit to the amount of money that can be spent on mitigating potential slope problems, usually resulting in a tradeoff ' between development costs and degree of safety. The recommendations contained in this report deal primarily with those solutions which are considered to have a reasonable cost associated with them. It is possible that other more exotic ' and much more costly solutions may be available to solve some of the slope problems, however, these are beyond the scope of this particular study. Such ' solutions could be evaluated in more detail in subsequent studies. I GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations contained in this section are applicable to all lots ' within the study area; both for Highland Meadows Filing No. 1, and Highland Park. In addition, lot- specific recommendations are presented individually ' in the following sections that supplement the general recommendations to reflect t individual lot conditions. The engineering and construction for a given lot should be governed by both the general and lot - specific recommendations. t Regional Slopes As discussed above, regional slope stability is the one factor which can preclude development of a specific area. The recommendations below are ' based on the conclusions of this study and our opinion regarding what should be a reasonable degree of risk for the type of development proposed, the location ' of the site and the potential dangers if a major slope failure were to occur. Ultimately, the decision of what degree of risk is acceptable must be made by -29- ' Local Slopes additional study will result in a reclassification. A3. Areas classified as 'CB' have a potential for being reclassified as 'B' ' FOX if additional test borings or probes confirm that the bedrock is relatively regrading of lots and the slope of the existing road embank- shallow over a wide area. Again, there is no guarantee this will be the ' the following: ' the owner in accordance with the policies and regulations of applicable govern- ' ing entities. Our recommendations are as follows: layers are present. springs in granular layers; (b) minimize the saturation of clay subsoils to ' Al. Construction, including grading should be limited to only those areas ' classified as 'A' or 'B'. A5. A2. Areas classified as 'Cp' or 'CF' have the potential for being reclass- A6. If any regional slope failures do occur, either on improved or unimproved i properties, they should be investigated immediately to assess the potential ified as 'B' if additional studies are made. There is no guarantee that ' Local Slopes additional study will result in a reclassification. A3. Areas classified as 'CB' have a potential for being reclassified as 'B' ' if additional test borings or probes confirm that the bedrock is relatively regrading of lots and the slope of the existing road embank- shallow over a wide area. Again, there is no guarantee this will be the ' the following: ' B1. Existing road case. ' A4. The regional underdrain system should be expanded to: (a) intercept stable where no springs or granular layers are present. springs in granular layers; (b) minimize the saturation of clay subsoils to ' curtail their loss of shear strength; and (c) reduce the potential for slope failures in minor cuts. A5. Retaining walls are not considered a feasible means for mitigating regional ' stability problems. A6. If any regional slope failures do occur, either on improved or unimproved i properties, they should be investigated immediately to assess the potential impacts on other properties, particularly regarding progressive failures, and to develop remedies. ' Local Slopes The recommendations in this section deal with the stability of minor cuts for driveways, regrading of lots and the slope of the existing road embank- ments. We recommend the following: ' B1. Existing road cuts on a 1.5H (horizontal) to 1.OV (vertical) slope will generally be stable where no springs or granular layers are present. -30- I FOX B2. Where granular layers or springs are present, some 1.5H:1.OV cut slopes ' could be expected to fail. Although this presents some degree of danger, we believe this risk is acceptable since many of the problem areas have ' already been identified and repaired. Any additional areas that fail should be repaired immediately. B3. Analysis of roadway fills was beyond the scope of this study. Any develop- ' ment should be designed to maintain the integrity and geometry of the existing fill slopes to insure they will perform as designed. ' B4. Cuts and fills should be limited to four feet in height and slopes of 1.5 H ' : 1.0 V or flatter may be used providing they do encounter springs or granular soils. Cuts should be inspected by a soils engineer during ' construction to identify the soils to determine if remedial measures are warranted. Even with these precautions, some sloughing of minor slopes ' may occur. These slopes should be immediately repaired. B5. Retaining walls may be used to construct vertical, local slopes of limited height. Acceptable retaining wall placement and height cannot be general - ized in this report and should be analyzed on an individual basis. Drainage ' As discussed above, two types of underdrains are recommended for the project area: (a) a regional drain system to de -water the granular subsurface layers; and (b) perimeter foundation drains to expedite construction and mini- ' mize softening of foundation bearing soils. In addition to subsurface drainage, recommendations are also provided for surface drainage of storm runoff and snow ' melt. C1. The existing regional underdrain system should be expanded on lots located ' to the south of Meadowbrook Drive in Highland Meadows Filing No. 1. ' Additional drains should be located as shown on Figure 7 for maximum -31- 91 I E 7 W _.. g � C2. effectiveness and should be located as far upslope as possible. Additions to the regional underdrain system for Highland Park are not proposed at this time pending further investigation of the Class 'C' areas. The maximum depth of the underdrains will be controlled by the elevation of existing drains to allow for sufficient slope to the outlet. The underdrain should have a clean gravel backfill with filter cloth and perforated pipe at least four inches in diameter. Perimeter foundation drains should be installed around all structures and should discharge to the existing underdrain system. Typical details of perimeter drains for five anticipated subsurface conditions are presented as Figures 5A through 5E. The detail(s) expected to be applicable to the specific lots are discussed on the Lot - Specific Recommendations. It should be noted, however, that these details are preliminary and different details may be dictated by actual conditions at the time of construction. the conditions for which the underdrain details pertain are summarized below: Figure 5A - Basement with low ground water Figure 5B - Basement with high ground water Figure 5C - Basement with high ground water ' and soft subgrade ' Figure 5D - Crawl space with low ground water Figure 5E - Crawl space with high ground water C3. Drainage of foundation excavations in most cases can be accomplished by ditching to a sump. If extremely wet conditions are encountered, install- ation of the perimeter underdrain may be required prior to foundation ' construction. C4. Surface drainage should be designed to direct water away from the struc- ' -32- FOX tures to positively drain each lot. Roadside ditches should have adequate ' capacity and preferably be lined to minimize infiltration. It is also recommended that the ground surface in areas disturbed by construction be seeded or landscaped with decorative rock to reduce erosion potential. ' Overlot Grading Recommendations for overlot grading consist of the preliminary specifica- tions contained in Appendix B and the following: D1. In general, cuts and fills should be limited to a maximum of four feet. ' Cuts and fills of 9 reater thickness may be approved for a specific location ' if subsurface conditions warrant. This should be determined during final walls may be granular. D4. All fills on slopes steeper than 5 horizontal to 1 vertical should be keyed ' into the existing slope in accordance with the Benching Detail presented as Figure 6. ' Footings El. We recommend using continuous or isolated spread footings, designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1500 psf, for foundation support. ' E2. Footings should be founded at least 48 inches below final outside grade for frost protection and should have a minimum width of 18 inches. Interior ' footings may be placed at shallow depths. -33- design. ' D2. First floors and foundations should be stepped to conform to existing grade and minimize the amount of cutting and filling. In design of stepped ' foundations, the transfer of shear to framed walls should be avoided (see ' Recommendations for Basements /Foundation Walls). D3. Cohesive soils, similar to those found on site should be used for all non - contained fills. Fills contained by basement, foundation or retaining walls may be granular. D4. All fills on slopes steeper than 5 horizontal to 1 vertical should be keyed ' into the existing slope in accordance with the Benching Detail presented as Figure 6. ' Footings El. We recommend using continuous or isolated spread footings, designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1500 psf, for foundation support. ' E2. Footings should be founded at least 48 inches below final outside grade for frost protection and should have a minimum width of 18 inches. Interior ' footings may be placed at shallow depths. -33- FOX E3. All footings should be poured on a compact, dry subgrade. Any soil loosen- ' ed during excavation should be removed or recompacted. If necessary, drainage measures or the use of gravel or stone to replace, soft areas may ' be required. No footings should be poured until the subgrade has been ' inspected and approved by a representative of this firm. E4. All interior load bearing walls should be founded on footings or structural ' beams. Basements /Foundation Walls F1. We recommend that basements be constructed only in areas classified as 'A' ' for regional slope stability. Construction of basements in areas of higher risk could affect the stability of adjacent areas. Crawl spaces are ' recommended for areas classified as 'B'. F2. Found ation /Basement walls should be designed in a modular fashion to ' maximize lateral rigidity. Concrete slabs and structural floors should be ' structurally tied to the walls. Downslope walls should be designed high enough to resist horizontal shear transmitted by the floor from the top of ' the upslope wall. This shear should not be permitted to transfer to a framed wall. ' F3. Foundation and basement walls should be designed as retaining walls with ' both vertical and horizontal reinforcing. For preliminary design, an equivalent fluid earth pressure of 80 pcf is recommended. ' F4. Foundation or basement walls excavations encountering springs or water bearing granular layers may require use of a granular backfill to reduce lateral hydrostatic pressures. These conditions should be evaluated on a case by basis to ensure the walls will perform satisfactorily. ' G1. Slab -on -grade floors may be used for basements provided they are placed on -34- FOX t a dry, compact subgrade. Any soils loosened during excavation should be ' removed or recompacted. G2. Where the subgrade for slabs -on -grade is soft, it may be undercut or ' stabilized with gravel or crushed stone to attain a stable working surface. ' G3. Floor slabs should be structurally tied to foundation walls to maximize lateral rigidity of the structure. ' G4. In high ground water situations, a drainage layer of clean gravel should be placed beneath the slab as shown on Figure 5C. t LOT- SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS t The general recommendations discussed above have been summarized for the individual lots, together with any additional recommendations that are perti- nent. These recommendations are presented as a quick reference only and should ' not be considered complete unless combined with the general recommendations given above. Specific recommendations are not given for those lots that do not ' have at least a 'C' regional slope stability classification for at least a portion of the lot. I -35- ' FOX Lot No. 1 , Highland Meadows it I I I I al n 0 I Regional Slope Classification(s): B, Cp & D See Figure 4A Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Along south property line, tieing to manhole in Vermont Road (see Figure 7). Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Figure 5B or 5C Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: No Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf The regional stability of this lot is affected by a progressive failure mode from downslope (across Vermont Road). Additional studies are recommended to evaluate the possibility of re- classifying the class 'Cp' portion of the lot or developing a scheme for protecting against a progressive failure. Without these studies, development is considered high risk. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -36- ' FOX i n i i Lot No. 2 , Highland Me adows Regional Slope Classification(s): A, B & Cp See Figure 4B Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Along north and east property lines, see Figure 7. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Figure 5B or 5C Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: YES Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Structure should be located in class 'A' area. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -37- FOX Lot No. 3 , Highland Me adows Regional Slope Classification(s): A, B & CF See Figure 4C Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Along east property line. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Figure 5B Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: YES Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Structure should be located class 'A' area. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. 1 1 1 ma ( F ED Lot No. 4 . Highland Meadows 1 1 1 Regional Slope Classification(s): A, B & C See Figure 4D Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Along east property line. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Figure 5B Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: YES Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Structure should be located in class 'A' or 'B' areas. Additional study is required to locate structure in class 'C' area. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. Revised January 3, 1984. -39- FOX Lot No. 7 , Highland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): CF & D See Figure 4E Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Parallel to Meadowbrook Drive on rear half of property. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Not applicable Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: NO Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Insufficient low risk area is available for safe development. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -40- 1 11 (S) Lot No. 10, Highland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): A, B & CF See Figure 4F Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Along south property line. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Figure 5A or 5D Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: YES Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Structure should be located in class 'A' or 'B' areas. Basement should only be located in class 'A' area. Grading should be limited to class 'A' and 'B' ' areas. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations ' for complete details. -41- i Pi 1 it FOX Lot No. 11, Hiqhland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): A, B & CF See Figure 4G Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Along south property line. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Figure 5A Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: YES Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Restrict basement location to class 'A' areas. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -42- I i i i u i FOX Lot No. 12, Hiqhland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): A, B & CF See Figure 4H Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Not appl icable. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Figure 5A Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: YES Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -43- 1 1 1 ( F ED Lot No. 16, Highland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): A See Figure 4I Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Not applicable. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Figure 5A Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for casement: YES Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -44- i L FOX Lot No. 18, Hiqhland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s):. A, B & CF See Figure 4J Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Not applicable. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: YES Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Locate structure in class 'A' areas. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -45- 1 1 1 1 1 FOX Lot No. 19, Hiqhland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): Cp, D & E See Figure 4K Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Not appl icable. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Not applicable. Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: NO Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf Insufficient low -risk area is available for safe development. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -46- ' FOX Lot No. 21, Highland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): Cp, D & E See Figure 4L ' Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V t Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Not applicable. ' Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Not applicable. Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B ' Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: NO Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf The regional stability of this lot is affected by a progressive failure mode from downslope. Additional studies are recommended to evaluate the possibility of reclassifying the class 'Cp' portion of the lot or developing a scheme for protecting against a progressive failure. Without these studies, development is considered high risk. Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. -47- ' FOX Lot No. 23, Highland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): Cp, D & E See Figure 4M ' Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet ' Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V ' Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Not applicable. ' Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Not applicable. ' Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B ' Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf 1 Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: NO 1 Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf ' The regional stability of this lot is affected by a progressive failure mode from downslope. Additional studies are recommended to evaluate the possibility ' of reclassifying the class 'Cpl portion of the lot or developing a scheme for protecting against a progressive failure. Without these studies, development is considered high risk. ' Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommendations" for complete details. 1. I t I' FOX Lot No. 24, Highland Meadows Regional Slope Classification(s): Cp, D & E See Figure 4N Maximum Cut Depth: 4 feet Maximum Fill Thickness: 4 feet Recommended Cut /Fill Slopes: 2.5 H : 1 V Maximum Cut /Fill Slopes: 1.5 H : 1 V Regional Underdrain: Not applicable. Anticipated Perimeter Foundation Drain Detail(s): Not applicable. Compaction Requirement - Non Structural Fill: See Appendix B Compaction Requirement - Structural Fill: See Appendix B Benching Detail: See Figure 6 Maximum Footing Bearing Pressure: 1500 psf Minimum Footing Depth: 48 inches Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches Applicable for Basement: NO Equivalent Fluid Lateral Pressure: 80 pcf ' The regional stability of this lot is affected by a progressive failure mode from downslope. Additional studies are recommended to evaluate the possibility ' of reclassifying the class 'Cp' portion of the lot or developing a scheme for protecting against a progressive failure. Without these studies, development is considered high risk. ' Note: These recommendations are a summary only for this specific lot. Refer to "General Recommend at ions" for complete details. it -49- L Because of the high degree of variability encountered in the subsurface conditions, conclusive recommendations could not be developed for certain ' areas. These areas are identified herein and supplemental studies are recommen- ded. Similarly, the analyses and recommendations contained herein may not apply to lots that were not specifically investigated. Separate studies should be made for those lots to develop applicable geotechnical design criteria. ' It cannot be over emphasized that safety, as it relates to natural slopes in particular, is a relative concept and that no slope is 'safe' in absolute terms. The concept of 'Factor of Safety' is used to express the relative safety under normal loading in the absence of active geologic processes (weath- ering, erosion or landsliding). However, in time, these geologic processes will result in the failure of any natural slope, regardless of the factor of safety. In general, the time required for this to occur may be very great for the entire ' region, but a specific event may occur at any time. Since the conclusions and recommendations contained herein constitute 'preliminary geotechnical design criteria', Fox & Associates should be afforded ' the opportunity of reviewing the project plans and specifications and observe the construction to determine if our recommendations have been properly imple- mented. Once we confirm that they have, the recommendations may be considered ' final. If we are not afforded this opportunity, these recommendations shall be -61- FoX LIMITATIONS ' This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of providing prelimin- ary geotechnical design criteria for the specific lots included in this study. ' It has been based on widely spaced test borings, geologic interpretation and ' experience with other projects in the Vail area. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied is made. Because of the high degree of variability encountered in the subsurface conditions, conclusive recommendations could not be developed for certain ' areas. These areas are identified herein and supplemental studies are recommen- ded. Similarly, the analyses and recommendations contained herein may not apply to lots that were not specifically investigated. Separate studies should be made for those lots to develop applicable geotechnical design criteria. ' It cannot be over emphasized that safety, as it relates to natural slopes in particular, is a relative concept and that no slope is 'safe' in absolute terms. The concept of 'Factor of Safety' is used to express the relative safety under normal loading in the absence of active geologic processes (weath- ering, erosion or landsliding). However, in time, these geologic processes will result in the failure of any natural slope, regardless of the factor of safety. In general, the time required for this to occur may be very great for the entire ' region, but a specific event may occur at any time. Since the conclusions and recommendations contained herein constitute 'preliminary geotechnical design criteria', Fox & Associates should be afforded ' the opportunity of reviewing the project plans and specifications and observe the construction to determine if our recommendations have been properly imple- mented. Once we confirm that they have, the recommendations may be considered ' final. If we are not afforded this opportunity, these recommendations shall be -61- FOX i considered only as 'preliminary' and no assurances as to their suitability are given. FOX & ASSOCIATES OF COLORADO, INC. Ronald F. Holcombe, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer RFH /cp �\\\ %p0 REq j�;.,,, HOe, e V, O,• -o•� 21078 0. all a�rnrnmmua�• Reviewed by: Donald R. Clark, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer -62- FOX BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Peck, Ralph B., "Stability of Natural Slopes ", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASEC, Volume ' 93 No. SM4, July 1967 2. D'Appolonia, E., Alperstein, R., and D'Appolonia, D.J., "Behavior of ' a Colluvial Slope ", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASEC, Volume 93 No. SM4, July 1967 ' 3. Zaruba, Q., and Mencl, V., Landslides and Their Control, Czechoslovak Academy of ciences, ' 4. Palladirro, D.J., and Peck, R.B., "Slope Failures in an Overconsolidated Clay, Seattle, Washington ", Geotechnique 22 , No. 4 5. Tan, W.H., Yuceman, M.S., and Ang, A.H -S, "Probability -based Short Term Design of Soil Slopes ", Canadian Geotechnical Journal 13 201 (1976) ' 6. Tweto, Ogden and Lovering, Thomas S., Geology of the Minturn 15 - Minute Quadrangle, Eagle and Summit Counties, Colorado, Pr s- ional Paper 956, United States Geological Survey, 1977. 7. Kirkham, Robert M. and Rogers, William P., Earthquake Potential in Colorado - a preliminary evaluation, Bulletin 43, Colorado Geo og cal ' Survey, 1981. In addition, Bill Andrews of the Town of Vail, Bob Lloyd of KKBNA, Inc. and David Peel, Architect were of great assistance in providing topographic ' information, as -built plans and background data. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals 1 in our firm who made major contributions to this study: ' Michael Brown, Engineering Geology Alice Campbell, Support Services Cindy Carlson, Illustrations Ray Costin, Laboratory Manager Lori Finn, Laboratory Testing David Glater, Engineering Geology Steve Gray, Field Exploration ' Jim Grippa, Field Exploration Carrie Pospisil, Typing Walter Schultz, Coordination Robert Sennett, Technical Review 1 -63- a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g r W W li Z 8 W ~ .J < U O G�IA • • Y m m d a E < to ~ <p 1i 11 + = Y C a � y d O y O � W ... " Y 0 O a F R .�.� �, �•u« a O z o� pp O i�d A �p Y•+ W J = '"� M .d < �� N v N � O • y w„y„L 6F.. • y Y w A 7• w x O . F �. V \I N 2 • � � °eon no e � d� d o y A 4 « V cc d_ c 0 a 0 O C-4 0 3 o a p Q p., V • V W '7 y x. L C w c C7 Y= ° v S NM w �+ W O w O« F ao Y W N U i Y• D a ° o G {IJ 'O C a • � � � y V Z 11 A F O 0 O M \ �� i ` e s � N O Ln O . ` O CO) CI t 0 $ d ►n N LO 4 ; A v \� �i I r I L I x CL \ \�d n Y. c i \ I V T r N V T a a O _T Y« q • w • LL (,� z G Va. C 1. a ... a a 00 Y«• Y C �' O _ (� Y Y C O , Y w p y « ., a a Y y r M U � a E '�1 a B G 'D �• 7 Y 7 r r Y • D r T . Y q Y O Y « � U Y C c ,�• o. m e u r y o o= a i c'va u aC7 e9 E E v E� u E - cr a x CL \ \�d n Y. c i \ I i i O O N F w w w z °o w ^" ..I Q U O 'r `o O C O u x u W o ` z y z y w U w � r o ao O i a « w W W C y 0 o o E e `v c b W C K .11 w u c c o. u W a W Y O y W W p y a D d o o y c s c a o u vi u u W o 0 F L y Y 7 y u z a 3 A a F a O O O rr O� O 00 \ O 4 / i i C ' O , c \ 00 O n � O ` � d or L, o� M N , M N O i 1 i i w a w w O a w F z w U %0 CO) O� 00 N � M Q p �-+ N r-+ 0 z y Ili s iv o0 I N � N � w o' a of w � a N• O a a = Q c O c' t- �-- O a � X�0 a w E " Q \ G za \ o c a a W o a ? O O a a. a O v w �w z w a `O O V-4 O Z M C-4 W O at N �a a a w a w U Q a w U °A a � w rl � Q C i > W Q a v a A a z I . O X O i I Ey W Q 3.0 Do 0 w 0 U 2.0 w G w F D 1.0 O RVE B IDEALIZED PROBABLISTIC DISTRIBUTION Job No: 1-1101 -5916 Date: 10/13/83 FOX Consulting Engineers and Geologists Figure 3 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 PROBABILITY OF FAILURE (LOG SCALE) O tt , �O O� v a G 1 N LEGEND A- Low risk area SCALE: 1 "= 50' B- Moderate risk area HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION Cp -High risk area- Progressive Failure FILING NO. 1 CF -High risk area-First Event LOT NO. I D- Very high risk area VAIL. COLORADO � E- Unstable -- Hazard Area Boundary J SLOPE HAZARD MAP ob No: 1-1101 -5916 Date: 9/27/83 e FOX Consulting Engineers and Geologists Figure 4A i i L n 11 I I I �I i i J kl 4 O ac' ' O O 4 w Q T A B LEGEND A - Low risk area B - Moderate risk area Cp- High risk area- Progressive Failure CF High risk area- First Event D - Very high risk area E - Unstable - -- Hazard Area Boundary SLOPE HAZARD MAP SCALE: 1 "= 50' N HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 LOT NO. 4 VAIL, COLORADO Consulting Engineers and Geologists Revised: 1/3/84 Job No: 1-1101-5916 Date: 9/27/83 Figure 4D 1� 1 o 0 3�� w C F i' , p ` J 0 LOT LEGENp A- Low risk area B- Moderate risk area C High risk area- Progressive Failure CF - High risk area-First Event D- Very high risk area E- Unstable - -- Hazard Area Boundary SLOPE HAZARD MAP SCALE: 1 "= 50' N HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 LOT NO.7 VAIL. COLORADO ' Consulting Engineers and Geologists Job No: 1-1101-591 Date: 9/27/83 Figure 4 E L it LOT 10 �O d LLGEND A- Low risk area B- Moderate risk area Cp- High risk area - Progressive Failure CF -High risk area- First Event D- Very high risk area E- Unstable - -- Hazard Area Boundary SLOPE HAZARD MAP SCALE: 1 "= 50' N HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 LOT NO. 10 VAIL. COLORADO ' COX Consulting Engineers and Geologists Job No: 1 -1101 -5916 Date: 9/27/83 Figure 4F N �1 IFGE A- Low rick area SCALE: 1 "= 50' B- Moderate risk area Cp -High risk area- Progressive Failure HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 CF -High risk area -First Event LOT NO. 11 D- Very high risk area VAIL, COLORADO E- Unstable — Hazard Area Boundary SLOPE HAZARD MAP Job No: 1- 1101 -591 Date: 9 /27/83 FO X Consulting Engineers and Geologists — Figure 4G i 1 1 1 LEGEND A -Low risk area SCALE: 1"= 50' B - Moderate risk area Cp- High risk area- Progressive Failure HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 C High risk area- First Event LOT NO. 12 D -Very high risk area VAIL, COLORADO E -Unstable - -- Hazard area Boundary SLOPE HAZARD MAP Job No: 1- 1101 -59 16 Date: 9 /27/83 FOX Consulting Engineers and Geologists Figure 4H I � t I t B F \% 1 EGEND A - Low risk area B - Moderate risk area Cp _ }risk area- Progressive Failure C High risk area - First Event D - Very high risk area E - Unstable ___ n Rn..ndaru SLOPE HAZARD MAP 4 pP O�� -K LOT 18 SCALE: 1 "= 50' HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 LOT NO. 18 VAIL, COLORADO Job No: Date: 1-1101 4/27,'83 4J 1 it t 1 I I N LEGtNJJ A- Low risk area SCALE: 1 "= 50' B- Moderate risk area Cp- High risk area- Progressive Failure HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION C High risk area- First Event FILING LOT NO. . 1 21 21 D- Very high risk area VAIL, COLORADO E- Unstable - -- Hazard Area Boundary SLOPE HAZARD MAP lob No: 1.1101 -5916 - _— Date: 9/27/83 FOX Consulting Engineers and Geologists Figure 4L E ol ' D Cp N LEGtNJJ A- Low risk area SCALE: 1 "= 50' B- Moderate risk area Cp- High risk area- Progressive Failure HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION C High risk area- First Event FILING LOT NO. . 1 21 21 D- Very high risk area VAIL, COLORADO E- Unstable - -- Hazard Area Boundary SLOPE HAZARD MAP lob No: 1.1101 -5916 - _— Date: 9/27/83 FOX Consulting Engineers and Geologists Figure 4L t 7 t I I 1 Q Q O a i I I I I I i I I � I I i I I I I i I i I I � I I LEGEND A- Low rick area B- Moderate risk area Cp -High risk area- Progressive Failure CF -High risk area- First Event D- Very high risk area E- Unstable - -- Hazard Area Boundary SLOPE HAZARD MAP If SCALE: 1 "= 50' HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 LOT NO. 24 VAIL, COLORADO F 0 X Consulting Engineers and Geologists Job No: 1.1101-5916 Date: 9/27/83 Figure 4 N �O 4, Minimum 8 inches of clean gravel (minimum 0.75 inch \ size) Polyethylene 3 inch diameter drain tiles, spaced 1/4 inch apart OR perforated pipe. Discharge by gravity or mechanical means to a suitable outfall. Vinyl plastic pipe is acceptable. i Consultinp Engineers and Geoloeists Building paper over open Joints and on top of gravel NOT TO SCALE Figure 5A nFTAII s OF DRAIN SYSTEM Foundation wall Waterproofing Slab •s, 0 BacWill Minimum 4 inches of clean gravel (minimum 0.75 inch size) Connect gravel under slab to peripheral drain at one or more points. 4 DETAILS OF DRAIN SYSTEM O X Consulting Engineers and Geologists Building paper over open joints and on top of gravel. Minimum 8 inches of clean gravel (minimum 0.75 inch size). Polyethylene 3 inch diameter drain tiles, spaced 1/4 inch apart or perforated pipe. Discharge by gravity or mechanical means to a suitable positive outfall. Vinyl plastic pipe is acceptable. NOT TO SCALE Figure 5B L Foundation wall Minimum 6 inches of clean gravel (minimum 0.75 inch size) under slab, slope to tile, minimum 1/8 inch per foot. Compacted clean I . pit run gravel 4 inch concrete slab p,0 a 3 inch diameter perforated pipe OR A, ( nncidbno FnomPPrs and heO1001SIS drain tiles (spaced 1/4 inch apart, cover )pints) Slope pipe minimum 1/8 inch per foot to suitable outlet. NOT TO SCALE re 5C r.r c ni; nPAIN CVCTFM Spread footings P g v• v.e - �.. —. O ' •� do. �'p. • o : e.' o .e . oO'o .o• • o•e: •:C'p• :'.o'Q �< . .•n o.. .i i.i •'•'�••.''jt ••p.�•�•o.•• •�� o�•e. Min. 24" _ Min. 12" p,0 a 3 inch diameter perforated pipe OR A, ( nncidbno FnomPPrs and heO1001SIS drain tiles (spaced 1/4 inch apart, cover )pints) Slope pipe minimum 1/8 inch per foot to suitable outlet. NOT TO SCALE re 5C r.r c ni; nPAIN CVCTFM L Floor joists • Grade beam *15 Felt Crawl space Polyethylene glued to wall and extended along bottom of excavation. Minimum 10 inches of washed gravel (minimum 0.75 inch size.) 3 inch diameter perforated pipe OR open-jointed drain tiles (spaced 1/4 inch apart, cover )oints). Slope minimum 1/8 Inch per foot to positive gravity outfall. Vinyl plastic pipe is acceptable. DETAILS OF DRAIN SYSTEM F O X Consulting Engineers and Ge ol og ists NOT TO SCALE Figure 5D 1 1 1 1 o' ao a d i CF 0 L DETAILS OF DRAIN SYSTEM ain tiles (spaced 1/4 inch apart, in clean gravel (minimum 0.75 inch size). Perforated PVC pipe OR Slope minimum 1/8 Inch per foot to a sump located in crawl space. Consulting Engineers and Geologists NOT TO SCALE Figure 5E i M C� 00 G / E / W / G LZ d� 0 1 ° N V w cn I o r / h r'' W O a I LO a c 6W l0 � I fo N G , 'L7 r+ V-4 I I ocOiQ1 N s O i 8. °4 i O t d go C w d ,r q C O Z d q E E> 9 q u 10, 9 k D UJ I' d c q y N> O w o Z p Z I o C 3 O .. 17 s y � • � �:IWi i .w 0 •p M W I. .+ 'D c ¢ O ¢ III j M S v 3„ c o q c o+ V v> Z 7 k 00 « S a ° � v d b E S 5 W W G = Z Z c7 ui v a N x W Y A a :° m a. a-0 p W f L q J{ G LL ° Z .r N N s O i 8. °4 i T ' '? FOX APPENDIX A TEST HOLE AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 07--01-1993 06.40PM FROM - RR VAIL TO IQU malluopoa Wxy T"" YR 2 1 Sim Diego, CA 92129 jWy 1, 1993 Ms. 10 EUM x1PP BRA Red Blift 141 EL M=dDwPflyc Suft C-137 Vail. co 816$7 Dcar W MW mm ic#tt Sam 0 *ffkW mom of mWculou of my oft tqW dmn as Lot 22 Vag Vi Wet R 1 1 Wm► WW-h BRA " BON iS ft Odkes S*M lbo pwmbm Section 1 g ce tim cmM dun To ft UMdBf1aQry 0013didon of ON I SPWAficauy, after tapdag W a seas OCOMW (Dave yamog of & 9 cm Co.), 22 va as ft c j v U en om who was dkccdy iivpi�ad ts atku The Imsdaft ma occurred ariffal ymm W mum Lewis Of EagftWfb%0, It wu felt Um the PrOPOM b s o Wo wa&Mo to ba W jnanr c omWaaW expwa. To at MUM tW Pf0PW7 I slido, a SignMCNA MUM Of mbvmfts d W " fimmUed Wh urioal fommkdo of ft Sauctwe that WW to be an ffic Propmv. was ua bak ea i , Mr. Lewis bWjcmed do this 19 a BOMOWW va" o pi n i on Z* my Wmapt to bmV on the PtQPMtY W*M ftrJY 11 M r&pft WMdauW sMbffindM WMWM vL;cb waWd be MYIo09 I 12055'R Ot too 1740 Siva 5663133 P.02 Tkaa iaei 61RIA to i It a if I a dd l b m , M LAft expremd womn dug the To*% of VAU i the 7 ml minced drat ft 00nlbMCdM pier MWC4$ �r savel4ot fie tisb =CW Ms. 71go a tm o tim mh Me risk do the ov is umbbk Mor hMft by Ito Town Of Y9 am Aft WWC[mr s aampft to ckumay" the ucataWe Sealo& cOnMOm. All ftw faa= ft srbj=.--d Itmoosbowq ard in to dd=tiw CMM*m CM be MrCOW ft AU (end Omg Is 0 = 0 even Poutbie) ft costs wmW mab tbo prqxM PrChUdy* 93 showd you wish W dWm this ma fiuftr of have NV of nodficadov, p1mm ltd free tO c u rqpalbg tbis town of voi !ogle County Colo. box 100 department of community development vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 January 12, 1978 Eagle County Planning Commission Eagle County Courthouse P.O. Box 179 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Commissioners: Re: Highland Meadows The Town of Vail Planning Commission has reviewed the Highland Meadows proposal and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1.) That great care be taken in the construction and revegetation of the roads on the site. We suggest that sufficient money be escrowed or that performance bonds be required to guarantee that the landscaping and drainage is adequately completed. We also encourage the County to carefully supervise construction of site improvements. The cut fill situation caused by Vermont Road crossing the large drainage in the center of the property combined with the severe cut situation immediately west of this drainage, at the intersection of this road with Vermont Court, creates a high visual impact. Extreme care and supervision of road construction and revegetation in this area should be exercised. Easing the 1 to 1 banks along Vermont Court to 2 to 1 may help ensure a more rapid revegetation. 2.) That building envelopes be placed on all steep lots and that these envelopes appear on the Final Plat and in the Protective Covenants. k Page 2 3.) That adequate fire protection be provided. The Vail Village West Water System cannot provide fire protection to the Upper 14 lots because of their blueline at elevation 8080'. The applicant has indicated that the blueline for the Intermountain Water District is approximately 8,170'which would be adequate, but should be verified. 4.) That the 42 inch fence recommended by the Technical Review Committee be dropped. We feel that this fence will do little to protect the deer or elk. Instead of this fence, we would recommend that no dogs be allowed in the apartments and that dogs be allowed on the upper lots only with the provision of kennels. There should also be strict dog control measures provided in the Protective Covenants. 5.) That the size of required parking spaces and road surfaces be reduced to allow for less pavement and greater landscaping. We suggest that the parking space sizes be reduced to 9 feet by 19 feet and that some allowances be given for the provision of mini - spaces. We also recommend that the roads servicing the duplex lots be reduced to 22 feet pavement width with 2 foot shoulders on each side and no provision of parking, curbs, gutters or sidewalks along the sides of the road. The recommendation assists in minimizing cuts and fills. This reduction makes it extremely important that accessible and adequate off - street parking be provided for all of the duplex lots. 6.) That the radius of curve leading into the main parking area on the lower part of the site be increased to allow for better accessibility into this parking area. 7.) That a cross - country ski trail across the site be provided by the developers. An easement for this grail should be provided and shown on the Preliminary Plat. 8.) That all utility easements be shown on the Preliminary Plat. Page 3 The Vail Planning Commission feels that the densities have been reduced substantially and are acceptable. We are confident that this development can work, but urge that extreme caution be taken in all phases of construction. We urge that the developer and the County take all measures necessary to insure that as little destruction as possible is done to the natural environment. Sincerely, VAIL PLANNING, COMMISSION Ed Dr ger Chairman ED /di � January 16, 1978 Mr. Terrill Knight, Eagle County Dept. and Development P. O. Box 179 Planner of Planning Eagle, Colorado 81631 Dear Mr. Knight: We are submitting the attached additional information on File No. Sp -97 -78 Highland Meadows planned development submittal. Refer- ence is made to your letter dated January 9, 1978 on the T.R.C. meeting. l.a Attached is the detailed filtration gallery. l.b The design information on particle size removal and capacit- ies is on the above design detail. Maintenance will be by the apartment manager and owners of the apartments. 2. The drainage study submitted is for 100 -year design frequency. The storm drain across the parking lot on Tract A will carry the 10 -year storm with overflow carried in parking lot swales. All other storm drains and culverts will pass the 100 -year storm flow. All design is consistent with county standards. 3. The non -build areas will be designated common open space on the final plat. 4. The Colorado State Geological Survey, Charles S. Robinson and Associates, and CTL /Thompson, Inc., have indicated the duplex lots on the southwestern side can be constructed on as pre- sented in the preliminary plan. 7. Please refer to the attached proposed Planned Development Regulations to be recorded with the project for statements satisfactory to Mr. Lew Ladwig of the Colorado State Geologi- cal Survey. 8. Road side ditch erosion control will be handled by each driveway culvert installation. This construction is not sim- ilar to I -70. Landscaping will be required on each lot with money being placed with Architectural Control Committee for all landscaping costs on each site prior to approval of each Dept. of Planning k -2- January 16, 1978 duplex site application. This will also aid in erosion con- trol. The Town of Vail Planning Commission's letter refers to the one curve in the parking area of the apartments being assured of a 60 grade on the inside curve. The attached drawing shows this im- proved design. The area of the lots not designated open space are the only build- ing areas where permanent buildings can be placed. We agree with the Town of Vail that landscaping would be improved by adopting the 9 ft. x 19 ft. parking spaces. The 22 ft. wide road surface and 2 ft. shoulders with no parking allowed would certainly reduce the impact of the one major fill and cut area. The cross country ski easement, which is part of the common open space will be designated on the final plat. Utility easements will be provided for those designated utilities when they have completed their final design. These easements will be placed on the final plat. Additional information to meet staff recommendations to the Eagle County Planning Commission: 2. The proposed maximum height of buildings to be 48 feet. Re- fer to attached proposed Planned Development Regulations, Item 8. The Supplemental Planned Development Regulations maximum height is 48 feet. This reduces Item 14 previously submitted which was 65 feet for the apartment buildings. The duplex sites are still recommended for 35 foot maximum height. 3. The planned development as submitted is designed with two parking spaces per living unit. This was in Item 14.b of submitted Proposed Planned Development restrictions and dec- laration of protective covenants, Exhibit K. 4. See Item 9 of Supplemental Regulations which states signs must be approved by the Eagle County Commissioners. 5. No dogs are recommended in the apartments and dogs in kennels only in the duplex areas. This will be included in the sup- plemental area. FENG� 7 6. Those variances required to the Planned Development Regula- tions can only be granted by the Eagle County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval from the Highland Meadows Architectural Review Committee. Dept. of Planning , _)evelopment -3- January 16, 1978 1� 7. All duplex sites 26- *f shall have detailed soils investiga- tions prior to issuance of building permit. Please refer to Item 10 of the Supplemental Planned Development Regulations. 8. Wildfire areas are minimal and fire breaks are being provided similar to development in all Gore Valley. 9. Prior to final plat a final agreement with one of the water districts will be presented to the county. Both water dis- trict's board of directors have indicated the ability to serve. The developer is desirous of meeting the needs of the Gore Valley Utility Authority which would be in the best interest to continued development of a water system in the valley. 10. The Highland Meadows Planned Development provides 48% useable open space. The open space indicates the extension of the Vail Skier Trail, meadow areas, additional stream area, and access to the Forest Service lands to the south. There is no definition of useable open space. It is the developer's opinion the additional open space meets the needs of the re- quest of the Colorado State Department of Fish and Game and does provide useable open space in excess of the minimum re- quirement. There is no slope restriction on this required open space. Mr. Knight indicated to us on field trips the proposed open space as shown on the preliminary plan submittal should be acceptable. Especially if the Vail Skier Trail was extended across the property and a small park or open space area just above the apartments area. No indication was made at the TRC meeting regarding this matter. 11. Build areas 2, 3, 4, and 5 all request approval to build on slopes greater than 300. Subject to the detailed geotechni- cal investigations as suggested in the Supplemental Planned Development Regulations. The buildings will have foundations on flatter slopes or on fills that buttress the steeper slopes. 12. All roads as submitted meet the county's design requirments. The road system design is consistent with the Town of Vail and all development to the east. The county has not enforced this regulation since its adoption. 13. Reassurance of vegetation is the Architectural Control Com- mittee which will require escrow of money as outlined in Item 4 of the Supplemental Planned Development Regulations. 14. Revegetation plans are to seed all road and utility construc- tion with the Alpine mix as suggested in Item 2, Supplemental Planned Development Regulations. Dept.of Planning & � :velopment -4- 15. Build area on Lot 25 is 18,000 square feet. slope on the lot is 18 percent. A bi -level situated easily on this site. 16. The attached drawing shows the location of foot easement along the western slope's gas January 16, 1978 The average structure can be the recorded 20 line easement. 17. On the field trip to the site Mr. Knight was asked specifi- cally if parking could be included in the Gore Creek stream set back easement. He indicated this would be acceptable. The stream set back easement allows foot paths, bridges, ir- rigation structures, flood control and erosion protection de- vices. The plan proposes approximately 12 parking spaces or portions thereof 50 feet of driveway and driveway bridge ac- cess which is felt to be consistent with the intended use of the open space. 18. Apartment build area Number 1 is directly west, across Gore Creek, of the existing Exxon Station. The property directly to the east is on the south bank of Gore Creek designated open space. 19. A small detention pond ten feet wide and ten feet long will be constructed at the inlet structure to the culvert under the parking lot. If you desire additional information, please contact me. Cordially yours, Leroy E Tobler LET: et Att.:Filter Design Curve Design Supplementary Planned Development Regulations i ' CHARLES S. ROBINSON, AND ASSOC., INC. 622 Gardenia Court Golden, Colorado 80401 S C . . I - / J- -fib: -- Mr. Tim Garton Vail Intermountain Associates Box 705 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Garton: November 28, 1977 Enclosed are five copies of the engineering geologic report of the Highland Meadows property, Eag Colorado. Five copies are being forwarded to KKBNA for their needs. This report should be used in conjuction with the preliminary plan of this date. If any further information or discussion is required concerning this report, please do not hesitate to call us . Consulting Geolcgists and Engineers Phone: (303 ) 2.79 0024 Sincerely yours, CHARLES S. ROBINSON & ASSOC., INC. William A. Gallant Engineering Geologist WAG /1k Encl s Z-1 ,� ENGINEERING GEOLOGY OF HIGHLAND MEADOWS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO for TIM GARTON �'�;{L I..TE��.,_�U �T,�,iN „SSOCIATES, {.,C. CONTENTS Page CON CL 2 INTROD 2 GENERAL GE OLOGY SURF DEPOSITS 6 ENG GEOL 6 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION 8 and 6�ildin9 Co Foun — ;;oad Construction Considerations - -- -- r 5 I r,3 I r n r _ -- P , 9 - i n d r m th e r � 1i,i�ary p an LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure I. Index map showing location of Highland t',eadows property 3 Figure 2 Geologic map of Highland t•leadows, Eagle County, Colorado in pocket Figure 3 Engineering geologic classifi cation map of Highland Meadows, Eagle County, Colorado in pocket CONCLUSIONS This report is suitable for use in general design and planning in relation to the preliminary plan of this date. S P ecific building sites Will require individual soils investigations for foundation design and drainage. Adequate building sites can be located on each lot for single family dwellings or duplex units. Several slopes within the development are metastable or unstable. These areas are not recommended for building bility prohl rs Fills can he placed at the base of these slopes as long as proper sub - e surface drainage is maintained. b ✓ci _mod in ara_s Of u Stable sl r,_s as defined by this report in areas of . 5 or gr eater. If cuts are required in excess of specifica" Ons indicated below, further investinations are recomma rdedto determine the need r and drainage l i'�.' p r o v e Iii e n t s . of buttressing O slo Cut slopes should be stable at 1:1 at 20 feet in height - here ter , _ over ...os t o � � ,. �, _ r di tiors a •� improve i 1 f ;� of th p on _d de"1 p- INTRODUCTION The geologic investigation of the Highland Meadows ^ property concentrates primarily on the engineering geology 1 and ground eater as it relates to slope and foundation stability of the proposed development. The study was requested by Mr. Tim Garton, `fail Inter - I mountain Associates, Inc. The property was examined by William A. Gallant, Engineering Geologist, of Charles S. Robinson and Associates, Inc., Golden, Colorado, on October 7 ,, The location of the property is south of the Yost Vail I nterchange on Inters 70, in the NEy of Secti T. j S., R. 81 4. (C 1g. 1). GENERAL GEOLOGY The development occurs on slopes developed on the Minturn Formation. No bedrock was identified in the area investigated but was 50rikgs nilhin thn _ .; t Erza s d�scr i5ed In ti'e soils report by P.tJ. Thompson Inc. T1 e r n c 1 an The Minturn Formation consists of thin - bedded gray to brown shales and sandstones that outcrop in the vicinity of the property. SURFICIAL DEPOSITS eposits of Highland Meadows consist of The surficial �- fan deposits, alluvium and colluvial terrace deposits, alluvial 1 deposits (Fig. 2 ) � Alluvium consisting � of clay, silt, sand and g ravel was 1 identified in the tributary upstream from the alluvial fan deposits border t he north _part of the property Terrace is co,posed of well sorted �, Creak. a long C _ The terrace ' b an qnc Gore Creek during the past glacial period. or inmediately Alluvial fan deposits cover the terrace deposits in the s northern part of the property. 1 Cider terrace deposits occur and cap the Gentle to south of Gore Creek. Th d eposi t s moderate slope to the t o f poor .;- consis _, o r t e d S i , clay, :. _. ol.,_r alluvr 4 .. _ _._� al care Creak dur an �, 1 T he a I 1 L ! ... �� " its a c�� -,sist c. _ ' tributary than intersects the property. The colluvial deposits that occur on the Highland Meadows i property consists of landslide deposits ,_slope wash deposits and mixed colluvial deposits. The landslide deposits occurred primarily in pre- historic time. Minor adjustment and settle ment is probably occurring at present. The primary cause for these failures appears to be a higher ground ,rater condition that occurs at the present time. A residual ground .•rater t condition is evident in the head scarps of these slides and 3 causes c °oist conditions and slope stability problems in some in �� ; i � P s_ , _ 5Y the active scanps on the Slope in the nO corner of - Th ese a csiis way be reac tivated by c,,.e t or other ro practices not cc,,;patibie with the slope. i Slope , ,.rash deposits are primarily clays and silts that oi%e ,-rash on top of the terrace deposits, :are d by sl These deposits are generally thin. _ , ,h cos i is occur on s tc -pe slopes .and cans.is.t,_of co;;biration, of,.s1 °?e `_ash, colluviur i i ENGINEERING" GEOLOGY The engineering geologic map of Highland Meadows and vicinity illustrates the relative slope stability and ground water conditions of the area. The classification developed was the result of the field investigation and delineates areas by rating geologic features identified on the property (Fig. 3)• Mitigation procedures are discussed in later paragraphs. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION-' 2G Tc,r jePcsits on _table flat slopes gons rally am 7051e. -asis on 3 Uplani tsr r., K OSi is d o',c:r alluvial ran depos 1 i s above the p h y s i o g apn i s f l oodpl a i n on sl op e s . flat to �znlle u - variable w ater table E on, but not limited to - cundiKons and variable le foun „tiun Nazar conditions. i 3A Area of stable slopes but may be subject to i flooding and a generally high but variable t<ble. Emphasis on, but not limited to A water fl, and water table co, -di tio, s. 3 3G Col l uv i al and Slope Sash yopos i is on gentle _ i n roun water zone i , i n a � _ra 1 ly �� -, S but r a te i I 1 ._ v _ t slope s tab i l i tY _. 4G Colluvial and slope wash deposits on Getwater moderate slopes in a generally.active ground zone originating as springs upslope. Emphasis on, but not limited to slope stability and eater table conditions. 5 Metastable colluvial and slope wash deposits on moderate to steep slopes. Emphasis on, but not limited to slope stability and water table condi tions. 5G Area of alluvial fan where near surface mater table occurs. Emphasis on, but not limited to surface flooding -and water table conditions. 6 Unstable or retastable deposits on coder ate to steep slopes. Emphasis on, but not limited to slope stability and water table conditions. unstcble -olluvial and slope .:ash _ '- ;t = d �o c �� o 1 i m , e s l o p e s t a b i l i t y and w ater table cond i t ions . -.ic floocpl in of the tributary that s .o r � s s c * I ncr eas i ng numbers I nd i cate i nc reas i ng degree of difficulty in d from an eng i neer ing- <,eclogic standpoint. Areas may chance in classification due to construction or improvenent of present conditions. J. Foundation and Building Cosiderations Buildings in areas having a higher rating than 4 will detailed foundation investigation because of the slope . require and stability conditions and nay not be economically feasible. Buildin g foundations may be required on bedrock for some lots within the proposed development. A soils engineering report foundations and additional subsurface drainage design is on ' recommended for each lot prior to issuance of building permits. Buildings without basements are recommended for most areas due to he natu.e of the watcr table on this property. Foundation drains ns _Fe -n for Ost _ _i ldi. _, s i l_s. a rc as wa be iwprovad by a s u5sur` =t e d a 9 t I c 1 ._ h e s wit e" o t_ d c u l . ,. i s The routing of s u r f a ce drainage should be designed such that of 4 or greater the infiltration of surface ,:hcn crossing areas d ditches or gabion blankets be minimized by l ine d water should slope stability and erosion problems. The becaus e of potential a over r � as of 5 =, s!t _'C% w ater -' - i - shou-1 d be �� w of slope stabilization are recommended. Road Construc_ti_on Consider Cuts and fills should be kept to a minimum and should be revegetated• Whenever ground later is encountered in a ` cut culverts or pervious blankets should be used to control infiltration into fill and to prevent Bluffing of the cut. 9 #` Buttressing should be considered because of slope stability x problems. Cuts should be stable at 1:1 at 20 feet high, not he ,ceed3d except under certain when dry a should c i rcu. s c._s . C U i� S I i; ,_ ( a L I" 1 should :J e 1 .' n to slope retaining and dra structures . dally in areas of 5 or greater. - ,._�d . r the P rel rminary P1 a n i + '� do�,as development M The prel ...i ^.ary plan of the H mitigates _ = O 1 O 5 I c ri z n r d s a n d g ro u i t d w a t e r c o n d i t i o n s 4 h - lo�s - \; - `wilding sites that exist on s e. ` r c T h e o ! o d.. .,,- ; a��e ccnd i t ron ciian��_'in' V -, - ... The large fill needed for access to the southwestern portion of the property south of tract B will act as a buttress to any slope movements in the area below the springline. A pervious blanket will be required beneath the fill to allow for subsurface drainage of the slope. Pervious blankets may be needed beneath other fills on the property if adverse groundwater conditions are encountered during construction- Rock-filled ditches along the edges of the fill will prevent erosion of the fill by surface drainage. Revegetation of all cut and fill slopes are r co"nanded to prevent erosion of the 1 V _ - .gin t o- 1 1 1 - , - 1 1 1 V .' r emo ved. Excavation " h • o u I d b e0 S y w i t h � --n; I G S o i l S�lOU1 d b rE•, hackhoes _rd b occasional boulders may ba encountered. �3 REFERENCES CITED I Thompson, R.W., Inc., 1973 Preliminary geotechnical investi- gation, Vail West Ridge Property, Eagle County, Colorado: Job. No. 1232. Tweto, 0., 1917 Ceology of the Minturn 15 minute quadrangle, Eagle and Summit Counties, Colorado: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 956. 17 7 i 0 1 d- U S I J: i C)n of sc,cti . ) , I Co Fee Paid $ " z9 [)ate Recd-4 of itypv, vie ( ePI Signatulu - ,'j by :'z_:j 441 Mail Address Phone: --VJUWXA--M4--- -4p C i State —A CO-0--Z i P-64 1. Special Use Lough` (present zono--9- 2. Zo Disirict Map attached' — (SE -`c® 6.01 .01 (b) 3. Coneral 1-ccation of property 4. Legal description of property Lot r-w Ct a. Subdivision NamevAl N NO.) b. metes and bounds (may be attachad): 5. Brief Purpose and Reason for proposed usa lb� attached) : 0\/&I& S(0101pe- 6. Attach expicnall- Of evidence that proposed w- is•ccrnpatiblc with surrounding uses: . (include possible negative impacts of proposer change) tA )0� Ptju 0 kAA 0 1 )L, I-r WJPJL )e color ;p o w ner s 7. A complete list of PH owne no o I F spncial and of I nrl. r S all t, sign; t-per! to IS Poo pa 46 1 A ILAO; A4 5 1 �q Ct "a Y w tp*#u epoke- Arp-koe-luot Sionaturc of authorized applillani-; owner?, ssc-s, of t he po proposed for pro-perdes is Eittacned hereto; this icati as stated -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Use Application accoptod ris ccr for Public Hearing on_--,4ee1L- Application aS incomplete f<)r Flublic Hoarin bccauSe: by -79 -�- '. .. .... Pliinninui Matrb 6411 r p-) sir l 7 ' �.�n �.� ran Yr� � �; 5 �� &i&mi I-An iza Boa N EAGLE COUNTY Eagle, Colorado OFFICIAL RECEIPT RECEIVED Date 19 % �^ O F CASH �% CHECK,/ ITEM ACCT. CODE AMOUNT Building Permit Fee Application For Subdivision Ap Zone Change Condition Use Special Use I Variance Appeal F ee Co (B uilding) (Zoning) (Subdivision), I Total R All items are received for collection only and this receipt shall be cancelleo for no- payment of any item. N 4 716 By 5 March 1979 Mr. Terrill Knight Department of Planning and Development Box 179 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Terrill: Our office is representing Mr. Doug Bitetto pursuant to the development of his proposed residence on Lot 22, Filing 1, Vail Village West, County of Eagle Colorado. This lot is zoned RSM and has a twenty -five percent (25 %) slope from front to rear. It is my understanding that the present supplementary regulations concerning slope are subject to immediate revision. I would like a clear interpretation, in writing, from your office pertaining to the amount of floor area allowable and the possibility of a small, one bedroom rental unit. I will appreciate your clarification of this matter and if you have any questions, please call my office. VMD/ co Victor Mark Donaldson, AIA 1000 Lions Ridge Loop, Suite 7 Vail Run Resort Community Drawer M, (303) 476 -1128 Vail, Colorado 81657 TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311 Board of County Commissioners Ext 241 Assessor Ext 202 Clerk and Recorder Ext 217 Sheriff Eagle: Ext 211 Basalt: 927 -3244 Gilman: 827 -5751 Treasurer Ext 201 Administration Ext 241 Animal Shelter 949 -4292 Building Inspection Ext 226 or 229 Community Development Ext 226 or 229 County Attorney Ext 263 EAGLE COUNTY Eagle, Colorado 81631 October 18, 1982 John W. Dunn, Esq. Cosgriff, Dunn & French, P.C. P.O. Box 340 Vail, Colorado 81658 Re: Robert G. Howlett, et. al. v Board of County Commissione of the County of Eagle, et a l. - Civil Action No. 82 -M -1415 Dear Mr. Dunn: Pursuant to the request of David Brougham on October 15, 1982, relative to the Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents in the above - entitled action, enclosed herewith please find copies of the following documents regarding the County's consideration of "Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2," subdivision: - Record of proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners: October 14, 1980; October 23, 1979; February 20, 1979; January 8, 1979; December 27, 1978; November 29, 2978; October 2, 1978; August 23, 1978; July 5, 1978; and June 28, 1978; Engineer - Record of Proceedings before the Eagle County Ext 236 Planning Commission: November 15, 1978; August 16, 1978; and June 21 -22, 1978; Environmental Health - Letter dated November 30, 1981, from the Ext 238 undersigned to Fred W. Handel, Century Bank; Extension Agent Ext 247 - Letter dated November 25, 1981, from Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney, to the undersigned; Library Ext 255 - Letter dated November 19, 1981, from Bill Andrews, Town Engineer, to Kent Kriehn, KKBNA; Public Health Eagle: Ext 252 - Letter of Credit dated October 20, 1980, from Vail: 476 -5844 Century Bank; Personnel Ext 241 - Letter dated November 16, 1981, from the undersigned to High Country Corporation; Purchasing Ext 245 - Letter dated February 19, 1981, from Leroy Tobler, KKBNA, to Jack Cook, Schmidt -Tiago Construction Road and Bridge Company; Ext 257 Social Services 328 -6328 John W. Dunn, Esq. October 18, 1982 Page Two - Letter dated December 16, 1980, from Melton E. Atwell, County Engineer, to Leroy Tobler, KKBNA; - Letter dated October 23, 1980, from Gina Kauer, Kelton /Garton & Associates, to the undersigned; - Letter dated October 15, 1980, from the undersigned to High Country Corporation; - Letter undated from Gina Kauer to the undersigned; - Memorandum dated October 7, 1980, from the undersigned to Kathy Peterson; - Letter dated September 9, 1980, from the undersigned to High Country Corporation; and - Subdivision Improvements Agreement dated November 22, 1978. The remainder of the County's files relative to the County's review and approval of the Highland Meadows, Filing No. 2, Subdivision are presently in the possession of the Town of Vail due to the fact that said subdivision was annexed into the Town in 1980. Note should further be made that recording tapes were made of the aforesaid meetings of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, and are readily available during reasonable times for you to copy or listen to if you so desire. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact David Brougham at 293 -3500 or Suite 2900, 717 17th Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202, or myself at 328 -7311 (Ext. 263) or P.O. Box 850, Eagle, Colorado, 81631. Sincerely, Beth A. Whittier County Attorney BAW /lb cc: David R. Brougham, Esq. Larry Eskwith, Esq. Chairman, Board of County Commissioners �a irr =`J pu 2 4`. to of voill% . 75 er: -tage road :.., -A 3 81657 `303) :•7000 department of transportation /public works June 2, 1982 Gentlemen: The Town of Vail is requesting proposals for professional engineering services. The services required entail general civil engineering (hydrology and drainage) and soils and geological engineering (site - planning, slope stability, sub- surface drainage). The project in question is a study and analysis of the Highland Meadows Subdivision in Vail, Colorado. The final report should address the following items: A. Evaluate existing subdivision layout as it pertains to original geological studies and hazardous areas defined therein. (Original report prepared by Charles S. Robin- son & Associates 11/28/77). B. Identify critical problem and potentially hazardous areas due to construction. C. Verify construction of subsurface drainage appurtenances shown on construction drawings, (prepared by KKBNA). D. Identify areas requiring subsurface drainage structures. E. Identify possible areas for high density housing; i.e. rezoning of subdivision from single family /duplex to cluster housing. F. Conduct additional geological investigations as needed to analyze subdivision and possible cluster areas. RE: Request for Engineering Proposals Pag' Request for Engineering Proposals G. Prepare drainage analysis and report on subdivision. Report to include flows, culvert sizes, ditches, etc. as needed to carry surface and subsurface runoff to r ore Creek. Identify areas where additional =Tents liay be required. (Please identify in ID ' ci ,, method to be utilized). H. Prepare cost estimate for all drainage st_",;: -ures to be installed and additional public improve•.nents may ,e ,:- , -aired by cluster housing. Proposals should be submitted to Bill Andrews, Town of Vail, 75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado, no later tha:- June 11, 1982 and should include an estimate of the fee for professional �exv A firm will be selected no later Tune 14, 1982, and the final report must be complete by July 14, 1982. If you have any questions regarding the scope of services, please contact me at 476 -7000 ext. 250. Yours truly, Bill Andrews ' V f "DI", J SENT COPIES TO: Roger Hosier M & I Consulting Engineers 4710 South College Ave. Fort Collins, Colo. 80521 Roy E. Wooten Roy E. Wooten and Associates 1360 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Denver, Colo. 80226 Curtis Sealy Chen 8: Associates Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 96 South Zuni Street Denver, Colo. 80223 Jerry L. Baker Wilson & Company Engineers & Architects P.O. Box 15288 Colorado Springs, Colo. 80935 Jim Irish Harleguin Plaza-North C? 7600 East Orchard Road Englewood, Colo. 80111 Elmer Claycomb Claycomb Engineering Suite 207 Village Plaza Glenwoou Springs, Colorado 81601 Brian Duff Eldorado Engineering Co. . 0. Box 669 E P 'ake Avenue Gle_ - ,uu .:ings , Colorado 81601 Roger Harrington Merrick & Company P. 0. Box 22026 Denver, Colorado 80222 11 III T I 1JTGj'T_AT -T, ') Eagle CoLjn` Col_o:.(?o of Core C C 1_i _1 1 OA I- I U C) s o C a i u wo C1 I', j. C aul C, -*L, t I IJ. :1It q) r te) i um i in a lo v. er a rea L 11 a. () L - C) 0 , k_- C C 1 , _ 1 1 1 L I I at`on" by Kv Ltd. tic C_ re r t c Crccl: c - 1 -in Ii 1 o=L L� r alcn wi-th the ' f oc , } ease- Inenl _iS S"10 01l I ! a. n . c n ti e s - n g !11: i c q e to 'Cho n2:0 1 is -crlac._a (]t:-_ vo C"_ t.1hC- T_)-O!D017t1 b la'C. T 'I h r j- i i c iD D n a d : c en i t )CI L_ - to 'L.he eaS Of All i_lCinqs a,re located ol 0]` plaii and cuts`(3e tl- 30 - st'ream set S U R-7.7" C F. p _ Runof__ - from a 0. 5 sqja mile thru the site and is a [•,'ell - si-1,13-1 dr: areas, ap- proxi: 2S ac_-es sur-f r i I f to the hi_-`-, rtoacao-', 'Excop't '"he reaCicr.-m F.ndl t h c a --- o a i. adja- Cent to Gore C - _* - ! - .e II-mters'-od is co,-, s c o_` 7 �sD_cn and Pine forcst. Runo for 10-year and 100-year flrec-u-ency stor.-. was esti- ma t L- d I S i n g US S C-) =1 Conser� atlic)n Service "Procc-�duros for Deter- mining Pecl Flo;•:s in C o -I o :7 do "j-'ilese a-lounts care shown on the gr SIG jilc Lild d --- a i n -2 7 '_ C; 1 E i q h t c- en in Ca Crains and clilvorts Fr? li IDo to 1 al 2:1 an(I tho I U arc_ An stc) dra v:ill he re-- quire(l to c"_2= t.'i(:-- east t the 61 crof, s i1c T tliu prop( to - ,�,rcvent surface =!C)I.r across ti bluffs _ 1]01lq J-1, no _j_ j: Ztf e C I T 0 of - 1- -Ile -lie road 'ill cross- ing IL-110 dr, will rccuiro a 24" CL I 1%7 r t to p a s t 1 e 100 yc,7r stori the 03 tile 1z"rc w' cros:;cs the lo:_ rOr t"IC hol- area, an IS` storm dra-in will be requirco, to carry frort 'Lht1 10-yei:. storm mi(ler the p; 4 i - ii Ci 1. o I V- iii. 1 V. I LI f aC170 t 11 parl -ill(T lot (iirec - Ty to Cnro Crc!(. All. rumoff directly from 3 - 1 - 1 2 - u (;-1 �lv , C) - Tilt' OF the 1(10--Year C) C A oLavol With 1 p1 Pil-)C` 1 'JI-11 !)e ed two I'liqll a'reas. Anise a 0 The I-oca- sno i L- 1 - 1 c I d i I c ; a d r c i i n a c T o estil using a coc�Zcicicnt: of per- C:1 . Sul' '--, j D-017 su 1 3 u r a c 0 -7 lo o f 0 2 3) c E; J- _ -o u- incli C } =eter El Pine t. of systeni , J Tonal sub- C - 3- 0 Will 1� Z" C', I dr c.- i n I a L?)_' i s c IDII)e 271-y 3 rc-uired if large amounts 0 (--rlc:luntc�rod clur- j construction. 4 'S in t'1e hi.gh arcas cz t C c ol c c c c: c t he s u i - F 4 -1 E -� I-, - La a J -1 c , v. 7 11 li"aild.ing uncl.cr the san Servic.2 connect )D--- sorvec: L�v -rl _LC)V; lY s-'-,,- I-' -,- C r , ')',111C1 wz t 0 ith tv I ' 7 c c - id A oLavol With 1 p1 Pil-)C` 1 'JI-11 !)e ed two I'liqll a'reas. Anise a 0 The I-oca- sno i L- 1 - 1 c I d i I c ; a d r c i i n a c T o estil using a coc�Zcicicnt: of per- C:1 . Sul' '--, j D-017 su 1 3 u r a c 0 -7 lo o f 0 2 3) c E; J- _ -o u- incli C } =eter El Pine t. of systeni , J Tonal sub- C - 3- 0 Will 1� Z" C', I dr c.- i n I a L?)_' i s c IDII)e 271-y 3 rc-uired if large amounts 0 (--rlc:luntc�rod clur- j construction. 4 'S in t'1e hi.gh arcas cz t C c ol c c c c: c t he s u i - F 4 -1 E -� I-, - La a J -1 c , v. 7 11 li"aild.ing uncl.cr the san Servic.2 connect )D--- sorvec: L�v -rl _LC)V; lY s-'-,,- SUPP13141250 MaNNED MAMOMMIT INGULATIONS) Sul"'UIV J: S, JID0 (The following wording to he adopted) - 1. The Eagle County Engineer will make all nccossary construc- tion raview ho feels is necursary to assure all roads are constructed in Lccord=2 with thn final dcuiqn and specifi cations- approvad by the Faqlc County Coi a�� the- approval of U2 final plat. 2. Construction scars created by road and utility construction will bn resunaW with an Alpine seed mixture within =2 year of completion of conEtruction. 3. Road construction coroaction and undordraininq will he d6- signed in accordance with a licensed soil cnqinc= rec mants as reviewed by the Colorado State Goologi cal Survey. 4, Each huild site will he required to escrow funds with the Highland Ecaaows ArchitectGral control Connitten for all an- proved lanAscaping p prior to approval of the site plans. The escrow funds will only be returned upon satishactory cc pletion of all approved landscaping. 5. Building Areas 2, 3, Q and 5, shall have cuts no greater than recoi-.-oCnCcd by a very detailed gnoMrhnical investigation for the final building design. The design for Build Areas 2 and 4 __ 1 -, be an contrcl fill sections which Luttr=5 the toe of those steep slope sections. The soils engincering investi- gations for these build sites shall define ground water con- ditions, depth to bedrock, slope stability conditions, and provide design parameters for foundations and subsurface drainage Yoquiremants. Foundations should be keyed into bed- rock if possible and the design must withstand lateral loads as determined by the soils investigation. In the event that buil6ina design for Build Areas 2, 4 and 5 cannot meet the al- rcquircments by minor relocaticns of the build areas, a major revision to the Planned Daveiopment plan shall he made through the Eagle County rogulations in force at that time. G. The intorcepLer Grains sNnin on the preliminary plan shall be consLructnd with the sanitary scmer. Wo upper (Irain across lots j, 5, 6 and 8 shall he inn_allCd under the oireu- tion of a liccn". '-oil..; Tlic-'s'o Cr' 11111: be cC':-.1- pleto in place prior to the col'.1 of any units. 7. Tn th' ( ApIL L-Ilient lluil-('I Sito I is construcLed prior to tlic undevirain mystom in duplcm area, this spring will he pipad to Core Crook. M is allWAInItc(I UKIL Ale duple..., site's undurdrain sysLon will dry up this spring. 8. 12 building hoighL - 48 fuaL, 9. Sicals must to approved by tho TncT . ,Ic County Co 10. All Cuplm sites 20-41 shail the soils investigations prior to issnanca of K11ROK7 ppnnits. T4c soils investiga- tions for those Wild sites shall 6wfino ground water conai- Qcns, SOPQ tO hwarock, slopa stabAlily conditions, and pro- vide 6esign pa=oters for foundations and subsurfacc drain- ago rouuirements. lowl 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 department of transportation /public works TO: FILE FROM: LESTRA ROYBAL RE: SIERRA TRAIL- BITE! TO RESIDENCE DATE: MARCH 16, 1982 The following is the series of events leading up to the major problem that we had on Sierra Trail on March 8, 1982. At approximately 10:15 on March 8, 1982 Hank called Lestra on the radio to notify Holy Cross Electric that their vault at the intersection of Alpine Drive in Highland Meadows had water coming from it. Lestra contacted Holy Cross immediately and the gal that answers the phones said she would let her people know about it. At 3:00 that afternoon Pete was still concerned and contacted Lonnie Holt from Upper Eagle Valley. Around 6:30 that evening Bill Andrews was in his office and heard Vail dispatch trying to get a hold of any water and sand person on the radio. He heard what the problem was and responded to Sierra Trail immediately. At 6:45 that evening when Bill arrived at the scene he asked Vail to call Pete Burnett. When Pete arrived he called everyone on his crew in to see what they could do. His crew worked until around midnig'nt to secure the area. At 8:35 on Tuesday thecvault. LPamratcHolydCross saidssheain about the water would rely the information. Nothing further was done until the 15th of ' when Pete met with Lonnie at the tank that is located above Sierra Trail. Harlequin Plaza- North 7600 East Orchard Road Englewood. Colorado 80111 303169412770 Woodward -Clyde Consultants CONFIRMATION March 16, 1982 City of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attention: Mr. Steve Patterson Re: Geotechnical Consultations, Bitetto Property Landslide, West Vail, Colorado. Job No. 20790 Gentlemen: This will confirm our proposal, as accepted by your Mr. Patterson on March 11, 1982, to provide geotechical consultations relating to a landslide crossing the Bitetto Property between Sierra Trail Road and Alpine Drive. Our objectives would be (a) to provide recommendations on means to restabilize the slope below Alpine Drive and to reduce the risk of failure of the roads so that they can be reopened to traffic, and (b) to briefly outline a scope of additional services associated with design recommendations for restabilization efforts. We envision that our services would include an initial site reconnaissance by our senior engineering geologist, Mr. James Irish, and our senior soils engineer, Mr. Phil Gerhart, to observe post- landslide conditions and to gather information on soil and rock conditions both prior to and after the landslide. Based on the results of that reconnaissance, we would formulate our recommendations and present them to you in a letter report. As we are not able to estimate the cost for our services accurately in advance, we propose to provide them at the unit rates and within the cost range shown on the attached schedule. We would not exceed the higher figure of the range without justification and your prior approval. We have Consulting Engineers, Geologists and Environmental Scientists Offices in Other Principal Cities qW Woodward-Clyde Consultants city of Vail March 16, 1982 Page 2 not included, however, any costs for post- report consultations, if any, that you may request, because we have no way of estimating the amount of time those might require. We would charge you for those consultations at the same hourly rates, so long as they remain in force. If this proposal is satisfactory, please sign a copy and return it for our files. We have initiated our work and plan to have our report to you by March 17, 1982. Our invoices would be submitted monthly, as well as on completion of the job, and are immediately payable. Thank you for selecting us to provide these consultations. If you desire additional information, please call. Yours truly, Robt. James 'Irish Vice President REV:FJH RJI: lfc (2 copies sent) Enclosure AGREED TO THIS DAY OF , 1982 (Organi i ) By 1 cc: File CONFIRMATION SCI EDULE OF COSTS W�,odward•Clyde Consultants TO: City of Vail Re: Geotechnical Consultations, West Vail, Colorado Job No. 20790 Estimated total cost of this investigation will range between unit rates Bitetto Property Landslide, CONSULTATION SERVICES Technical Typing and Printing .................. $25.00 /hour Draftsperson ............................... $25.00 /hour Technician ...... ............................... $35.00 /hour Senior Technician .............................. $ 50 . 00 /h $45.00 /hour Staff Engineer, Geologist ...................... $50.00 /hour Senior Staff Engineer, Geologist ............... Geologist $55.00 /hour Assistant Project Engineer, .......... $60.00 /hour Project Engineer, Geologist .................... $70.00 /hour Senior Project Engineer, Geologist ............. $95.00 /hour Associate ....... ............................... principal or Consultant .......... I ............. $100.00 /hour Court Testimony .......................... Minimum $1500 /day FIELD SERVICES Site Reconnaissance /Geologic Mapping $35.00 /hour Technician ..... ............................... $50.00 /hour Senior Technician ............................. $45.00 /hour Staff Engineer, Geologist ..................... $50.00 /hour Senior Staff Engineer, Geologist .............. Assistant Project Engineer, Geologist ......... $55.00 /hour project Engineer, Geologist ................... $60.00 /hour $70.00 /hour Senior Project Engineer, Geologist ............ $95.00 /hour Associate ...... ............................... Principal or Consultant .... ...................$ /hour Observer ........ ............................... Geologic- Seismic Work .......................... $45.00 /hour $50.00 /hour Drilling Supervision (location and logging test holes, travel and other work done in $45.00 /hour connection with field investigations) ......... Drilling and Sampling with continuous $6.00 /foot Flight Auger rig ............................... Exploration with a rental Rotary rig or other equipment, if needed (including furnishing sampling equipment) ......................... At Cost + 258 S170.00 /day Seismic Equipment Rental ....................... Resistivity Equipment Rental ................... $140.00 /day portable Drilling Rig ........................... $320.00 /day $125.00 /day Static Cone ...... ............................... 1 -82 -1 2,0 and $ 3 , 000 at the following LABORATORY TESTING visual Classification .......................... $8.00 /test Grain -size Analysis + #200 Sieve ............... $36.00 /test Grain -size Analysis - Hydrometer ............... $36.00 /test Plastic and Liquid Limits ...................... $ 36 . 00 /test Shrinkage Limit ...... $36.00 /test Compaction -ASTM D1557, D698, or USBR E -12 ...... $90.00 /test Specific Gravity -USER E -10 ............... $58.00 /test Permeability Test -USBR E -13 .....$60.00 + $70.00 /load increment Natural Water Content .......................... $ /test Dry Unit Weight . ............................... $15.00 /test Swell - Consolidation Test ... $90.00 + $40.00 /load increment One point Swell Test ........................... $70.00 /test Unconfined Compression Test ..................... $34.00 /test Triaxial Compression Tests - (per specimen) UU CIU * CID * ** 2" p 0 to 20 ksf conf. press. $115.00 $155.00 $210.00 2.8" 0 to 20 ksf conf. press. $175.00 $220.00 $300.00 4.0" A 0 to 20 ksf conf. press. $220.00 $270.00 $335.00 2.8" W 20 to 100 ksf conf. press. $330.00 $440.00 $500.00 4.0" pJ 20 to 100 ksf conf. press. $440.00 $575.00 $630.00 Special tests, including 6" 0 and 9" 6 samples and sample handling ........................... $45.00 /hour UJ - Unconso i ate - Undrained ** CIU - Consolidated - Undrained ** *CID - Consolidated - Drained MISCELLANEOUS Auto or Pickup ...................... $0.33 /mile + $33.00 /day Labor, out -of -town living expenses, transportation costs, equipment rental, time -share computer costs, and other miscellaneous expenses incurred for this job ............... At Cost + 158 Microcomputer.... ............................... $40.00 /hour PAYMENT Invoices will be submitted monthly and will include the charges incurred during the preceding month. Payment of these invoices is due by the tenth (loth) day of the month following the date of the invoice. A charge of one and one -half percent (1 1/2$) per month is made for invoices paid more than thirty (30) days after the invoice date. Any attorneys' fees or other costs incurred in collecting delinquent amounts shall be paid by the Client. CONDITIONS Woodward -Clyde Consultants warrants that our services are performed within the limits prescribed by our Clients with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or representation either expressed or implied, is included or intended in our proposals, contracts, or reports. For any damage on account of any error, omission, other professional negligence, our liability will be limited to a sum not to exceed $50,000, or our fee, whichever is less. In the event that the Client does not wish to limit our professional liability to this sum, we will waive this limitation upon the Client's written request provided that the Client agrees to pay for this waiver an additional consideration of 10 percent of our total fee or $1,000, whichever is greater. The Client further agrees to notify any contractor and subcontractor who may perform work in connection with any design, report or study prepared by Woodward -Clyde Consultants of such limitation of professional liability for design defect, errors, omissions, or professional negligence, and to require as a condition precedence to their performing their work, a like indemnity and limitation of liability on their part as against Woodward -Clyde Consultants. Iii the event that the Client makes a claim against Woodward -Clyde Consultants, at law or otherwise, for any alleged error, omission or other act arising out of the performance of our professional services, and the Client fails to prove such claim uuon final adjudication, then the Client shall pay all costs incurred by Woodward -Clyde Consultants in defending itself against the claim, including but not limited to, personnel- related costs, attorneys' fees, court costs and other claim- related expenses. We will not be liable for damage or injury arising from damage to subterranean structures (pipes, tanks, telephone cables, etc.) which are not called to our attention and correctly shown on the plans furnished us, in connection with work performed by us. The above rates are firm through December 31, 1982. We reserve the right to raise the rates annually, thereafter. Squaw re Consultancy Site Analysis Project Development Construction Management ' Ile 'A'/' Project Marketing March 10, 1982 Mr. Steve Patterson ..r: Chief Building Inspector Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Ref: Bitetto Residence Dear Steve; I am enclosing a copy of a letter written by our tech - nical consultants to Doug Bitetto, also a hand written notefrom.them a few days prior. As you are aware Mr. Bitetto is involved in litigation with his previous consultants and this work is being released to you in strict confidence. I have a complete file of daily logs, drilling logs, geological core samples, photographic recordings inclinometer probe analysis data, and other evidence which Mr. Bitetto has ammassed to present to the courts. In the interest of public safety due to the extreme movement of the slide area and the imminent danger to surrounding properties I am releasing to the Town of Vail for technical purposes only this information. Under no circumstances are you or any Town of Vail employee authorized to release this information to the news media or any other source outside of the scope of this public safety act. Sincerely, David Green Consultant 113 1000 Lo dge Loop, Suite 5C Vail, Colorado 81857 RE F n TOR' Office: 303 -476 -4336 Mobile: 303.476 -4400, ext. 387 A Kendashar Ltd. Subsidiary e On�� vre j'�Gr' ✓t ��C .S I C Gist/ �'� S Irac 1G dA4 Ile � f off �, �OC�L 'Pd k4 SI�IJ! `1 1 r r" �,�� AaGrm .1 >i 1� D �0 1V ra P. I? I �y� VIA I Si A <_ • IP x P ° j0 tlizD� wy1 Z lz 2 E D �Qi 1 r• s4� � 1 D O p fi • 5 a f • !� t Ui O:n n l •w A aD �Lo PS O ^g Or i2D 0 2 °)CA x O tE zg M Y• J YY)D >3 r N^ Y 1 w P; C • 0 A z D ) � I 0 w° �w0 1p pw YC. , x i "< Y S 0£ x11 Z O w poi O w x i r O 0 w!D'mr �, Z r" > =Dxpo A f D w r y O Y Y Y ^ o3arn� > > w 1 < < (n i i r i y s n i a r " 0 a `^ AO � y ^�Tf1 w P x w 1" y F f o" Z x p = C Z z N = i p w F O < w D O � A ) � r y O f_ P i > 4 r ) r P j A w � (IV � P i x O Q 2 P 0 � A a w p w 1 O z ° k w s i it r � F w D 11 o I ^ i �,�� AaGrm .1 >i 1� D �0 1V ra P. I? A <_ • x A � r f ) 1 " P ° j0 tlizD� wy1 � / i s4� fi • 5 a ti x y - Y •1 r N^ Y O r< w O 1 Z \ M04 ? Om r >> 0� 1 ^z •n 11 az !p bb � A� A r � C 1: t+ �� iiF1 o< �/ I Z.1A wD = D> } A PA I N irz / 1 P -1 ) O / 1 oz 0 31 > =Dxpo A f D w r y O Y Y Y ^ o3arn� > > w 1 < < (n i i r i y s n i a r " 0 a `^ AO � y ^�Tf1 w P x w 1" y F f o" Z x p = C Z z N = i p w F O < w D O � A ) � r y O f_ P i > 4 r ) r P j A w � (IV � P i x O Q 2 P 0 � A a w p w 1 O z ° k w s i it r � F w D 11 o I ^ i P � � A £� 1 ^ wr / 1 a` 1 i 1 pP � f• y l LI L� I I I I I II l I I �I ii I 1 I O L i tai a� i• M fi k� 41 , ��.so s w Y r , dk• i w �Y • N -6 A ,oi.as 1I � DI , ass' n Y 2 �I o 1 a F 0 4 ' 0 6 1 73.2j' �,�� •0 r 1V qi�l s4� fi • 5 a ti P � � A £� 1 ^ wr / 1 a` 1 i 1 pP � f• y l LI L� I I I I I II l I I �I ii I 1 I O L i tai a� i• M fi k� 41 , ��.so s w Y r , dk• i w �Y • N -6 A ,oi.as 1I � DI , ass' n Y 2 �I o 1 a F 0 4 ' 0 6 1 73.2j' On 'A NC;E #P9 (Seri.t.j of 1782) AN I MIS1 ENCY ORDINANCE" A1v UNDING UnDINANCL NUMB En 18, SERILS OF 1982, APPLYING THE pt;OVISICNS OI" SAID 011DINANCE TO 't'llr 111011LAND pA1% SUj3DIy'5I0N, AND 1 CURTAIN CONDi- TlOtlt,L 11EQUITIE TENTS V111('11 "S'r Al£ ML:'l► a INDIVIDUALS WISI1ItIG '1'0 C ONSTRUCT A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 1N SAM RUBDIV1SX0NS. j't1L!1LA3, the 'town OX Vall retuned C:laycomb Eneinaering 115ao0j"t Inc. to do a, draiaago and slope stability ana.lyais oz ttie lligfiland rleadows and Vail village West subdivision, !►nd YV►li, M3, Claycomb ringineering Associates, Inc. llas completed f;ti,d report and ree.omu nds therein Ce t Rill a,melld to Ordinance #15, Series QX 1982, a"d 11i(L1iE the Town Council l, co ncluded that said amen4mentS 511C:C1I.D be iiiode for the benefit 01 the lleal.t.h, safety at ,d welfare ai t)le ilsh'abItWit9 of the 7"11 u-1 Vail; CiJ'rq, 711EREF011B, 13E IT 0110A1Ni D BY TILL. TOWN COUNCIL (F bUu TOWN 0 VAI!,, Cc , L0 11AD 0 , 'J,'i!A'1` Sectiol 1. Ordinance 1G, Series o£ 1D>32 Section 1 is hereby amondoci to react as follows: 1. Al.l. applicatioas for buil.di.c permi,to fox any bulidi.ngs In or stru .tunes or for i ,ny cuts ar c" t' ' , s far any lots located l tile 11 S.ghland Meadows Vililig 1 111 ; ..:: Meadows Fi.].ing 2' Vail � lLANll Village Wes 1. t filing , and Vail Village west Filing 2, and llzG! PARK subd ivisions; elial:l. be Accompaalied by an extremely detailed Will C11 SHALL 0B PfRF011rlED pUttING gdofiscl;n�.aa�l .�oi1s i.nvesLigatiojs�SSUrS%D ` THE SFitiNu ':H vsnn rZ� TJN'11,,lt!IU1.LY SA'Y'U1tATLD SOILS CONDITION, ., „� „w �nn�li t.{ ni18 . i18p }1'_ ^{ •- w hic h C hal.l set fArrrj r•xisi.ius: F;i:.L::.•. - - bed rack, slope stability conditions, and design parama%ex ��s::. uirarneut$. All foundation foundations and subsuxtace drainage r�� e> min ®d by $al,d dasigizs must w1.thStand ls►taral. l.oady s ae ttat ADS. invvsti.gatioi�, oil i1AVE T11L ABILITY 70 FLOAT WXTit SUCH LATERAL LO M.gUIRED roll ALT, BUILDINGS OR STRUC 0111 5 IN SAII S UppRATNB SllALL 13L S UDAXYXSI.0N5 AND NO CLBTI�'ICA'I'>r OF' OCCUPANCY 5i1?tt�L BE YS SUI:,b FOB SUCK ByXLDIN4 on S;CUCTUitr UNLESS SU13DRAY ANY NI3 itAYl BEEN I�tSTAZ+LEU. . .1 • 1 • I b All such geotecbnicai inVeQtigatiotts raft „, he done by a i p��vteesionaZ 9tlginet3r licensed qualified in geolr al, and soils evaluation and all 50,1 SarnplOg .tor ' such' Beotechni,_ �nvoatigatjOnV ed building must be QbLalned from an area which in the footprint of the proposed ro os ' ox structure, All building Permit appli.catlone shall be submitted with la Of Lbe propos structure building p ne g containing a written c6rtifi- o &L1�vn by the individual wir4 pcx.fcj'med the required footechnical survey that said plans are in accordance wit:b his recomtrondations. svct io�2, The Town Coutacil specifically finlds and states that it is tl�e c�k vi the Town Council that an emel,gellcY exists and tltat thin u.rdinance 'is immediately neCessary for the protection of tbQ public health, safety and welfare and the provfsious of this ordinance slia.11 tak© full force and effect upon adoption in accordance with t1le Charter of the Town of Vail as an emergency measure, If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause ax pl�ras� of this ordinance is for a.ny reason held to be invalid, such declsion shall not atiect the Validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares the�t it would have passed this ordinance and eacil part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that a.iay one or snore parts, Dection, subsection, sentences, clausaa or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town council finds, determimas and declares that this ordinance is necessary nd P Y prope for, the hvaXtll, safaty aDd *el,tare ' Of the Town of Vail and its inhabitan •� i' jl • . , I • I tl I I•