HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-12 Support Documentation Town Council Work SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1988
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Discussion of Amendments to the Sign Code regarding Hot Air Balloons
2. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Special Development District
Section of the Zoning Code
3. Joint Meeting with the Colorado Ski Museum Board
4. Discussion of Booth Creek Rockfall Mitigation
5. Discussion of Marketing Committee Proposal
6. Discussion of Recreation Consolidation Issue
7. Insurance Update
8. Discussion of Expanded Weekend Bus Service for Outlying Routes
9. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
10. Information Update
11. Other
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1988
2:00 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
2:00 1. Discussion of Amendments to the Sign Code .regarding Hot Air
Peter Patten Balloons
Action Requested of Council: Offer comments and direction
concerning this topic.
Background Rationale: The Council has requested amendments
to the sign code to permit, under certain circumstances, hot
air balloons that display advertising. The staff would like
specific input from the Council with regard to the nature of
amendments that are desired before work is initiated on
these amendments.
2:20 2. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Special Development
Tom Braun District Section of the Zoning Code
Action Requested of Council: Offer comments and ask
questions on the amendments proposed.
Background Rationale: The SDD ordinance, as currently
written, contains a number of inconsistencies and poorly
defined sections. These amendments are intended to clarify
these elements of the ordinance. The memo and proposed
amendments are included for your consideration.
2:45 3. Joint Meeting with the Colorado Ski Museum Board
Action Requested of Council: Discuss timing of move to VVI
space and decide schedules.
Background Rationale: Since the Vail Valley Foundation has
decided not to use the VUI space, it may be possible to move
the Ski Museum and clear the old site before winter.
3:30 4. Discussion of Booth Creek Rockfall Mitigation
Bill Cheney
Stan Berryman Action Requested of Council: Direction to staff on
Larry Eskwith proceeding with the project and formation of a special
improvement district.
Background Rationale: Banner Associates (Engineers) has
completed preliminary engineering designs and cost estimates
for construction of a trench-berm complex to mitigate
rockfall hazards in the Booth Creek neighborhood. Banner
retained the services of the Colorado Geologic Survey and
CTL/Thompson, Inc., Soils Engineers (reports enclosed) in
developing their designs.
Bill Cheney of Banner will make a presentation describing
the status of the project at the Work Session.
A preliminary budget for a special district is enclosed as
well as a letter from Banner describing the design
parameters for the project.
3:55 5. Discussion of Marketing Committee Proposal
Action Requested of Council: Discuss marketing funding with
the Marketing Committee.
Background Rationale: The Marketing Committee has some
preliminary ideas for marketing funding to discuss with the
Council.
4:25 6. Discussion of Recreation Consolidation Issue
Ron Phillips
Action Requested of Council: Review staff information and
discuss timetable for meeting with VMRD Board.
4:55 7. Insurance Update
Steve Barwick
Action Requested of Council: Review the material presented
and make a decision on the offer of $4 or $5 million in
additional "umbrella liability" coverage.
Background Rationale: The Town has received quotes for
renewal of its various insurance policies. Management has
reviewed and accepted quotes for most types of coverage.
5:10. 8. Discussion of Expanded Weekend Bus Service for Outlying
Stan Berryman Routes
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify proposal
for expanded weekend bus service for outlying routes.
Background Rationale: We have had numerous requests for
more bus service on outlying routes during the summer and
off-season. As an experiment to see what kind of ridership
we get, we are proposing to have outlying route bus service
from 7:00 a.m. - midnight every Saturday and Sunday from
August 6 through Labor Day. This will cost $7,150.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposal.
5:25 9. Planning and Environmental Commission Report
Peter Patten
5:35 10. Information Update
5:40 11. Other
-2-
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 7, 1988
RE: Proposed Amendments to the SDD Section of the Zoning
Code
I. INTRODUCTION
There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the need
to amend the SDD Section of the Zoning Code for quite some
time. The need to amend this ordinance has become more
critical in light of a number of pending applications for new
and amended special development districts. The intent of these
revisions is not to change the SDD process in concept, but
rather to clean up and clarify irregularities in the present
ordinance.
As proposed, the entire Section 18.40 (SDDs) of the Zoning Code
would be repealed, and reenacted with a completely rewritten
section. For your information, we have included both the
proposed amendments, as well as a copy of the existing
ordinance. The following memo will briefly summarize the
changes made to each of the sections of this chapter of the
Zoning Code.
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
18.40.010 PURPOSE
The proposed purpose section simply paraphrases what is
presently existing. Additional statements have been added
clarifying what the intent of a special development district
should be, however, the overall intent of the district has
remained unchanged.
18.40.020 DEFINITIONS
Five different definitions are proposed in order to clarify
various sections of this ordinance. Agent or authorized
representative is defined in order to specify who may submit an
application to initiate the review of a special development
district. Minor and major amendments are established in
dealing with requested changes to previously adopted SDDs.
Underlying zone district is defined to minimize confusion
concerning the role of an existing zone designation when an SDD
is applied as an overlay zone district. Finally, affected
property is defined with respect to determining notification
procedures as they relate to amending SDDs.
18.40.030 APPLICATION
This section has remained quite similar to the existing
wording, however, specific requirements have been added
relating to who may sign or consent to an application for a
special development district. This amendment has been designed
to address problems created with request for SDDs on properties
with multiple ownership.
18.40.040 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
This section outlines the review process to be used in
evaluating SDD proposals. While the process we presently use
is not proposed to be changed, the language proposed is an
attempt to more clearly express the process an applicant would
go through.
18.40.050 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
While the existing ordinance does outline some submittal
requirements, experience over the past four or five years has
shown that material in addition to the present list is often
required. This revised section is our attempt at listing all
applicable material that might be relevant to the review of an
SDD.
18.40.060 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
As the Council is probably aware, the final approval of an SDD
results in the adoption of a development plan. This plan
includes all written and graphic material that establish the
parameters with which the SDD is to be developed. While much
of the material that makes up the development plan will be a
part of the submittal requirements, not all material submitted
is incorporated into the development plan. This section
recognizes this distinction and attempts to list the material
most commonly used to establish an approved development plan.
18.40.070 USES
This section is generally the same as presently written. Uses
within an SDD, unless further restricted by the Planning
Commission and Council, shall be limited to those uses
permitted in a property underlying zone district.
18.40.080 DESIGN CRITERIA
These criteria, referred to as design standards in the existing
ordinance, establish the formal review criteria to be used in
evaluating the merits of an SDD. The staff has often found the
existing standards to be irrelevant to the nature of SDDs
commonly proposed in Vail. For this reason, and in an attempt
2
to expand this list of criteria, these criteria have been
changed substantially. Because of the importance of these
criteria, staff would encourage the commission to give this
section of the amendments a great deal of thought when
considering these amendments.
18.40.090 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This section is quite similar to the existing language in that
it still references the fact that all development standards for
the SDD are established by the approved development plan. One
significant addition to this section is a statement that
requires the Council. and Planning Commission to consider any
deviations from underlying zoning with respect to whether these
deviations provide benefits to the community that outweigh the
potential effects of such deviations. Simply stated, if the
proposed SDD deviates from underlying zoning standards, is the
project better, and is the end result for the community better
than upholding the development standards of the underlying
zoning? This issue would also be a part of the review criteria
when evaluating an SDD.
18.40.100 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
Of all the amendments to the existing ordinance, this section
is probably the most significant. Two degrees of amendments,
minor and major, are proposed for this ordinance. Minor
amendments could be approved by the planning staff if
consistent with the intent and objectives of the established
SDD. An attempt has been made to quantify what is a minor
amendment. In addition, notification procedures and appeal
processes are included concerning these staff actions.
Major amendments would involve those changes beyond the scope
of what is defined as a minor amendment. Major amendments
would require review by the Planning Commission and Town
Council before being formally approved. A significant issue
relative to the review of major amendments involves
notification and consent of owners requesting the amendments.
18.40.110 RECREATION AMENITIES TAX
This section has remained unchanged from the existing
ordinance.
18.40.120 TIME REQUIREMENTS
Time requirements for initiating the development of an SDD has
been changed from 18 months to three years. This change is in
response to the vested rights legislation .adopted by the
Colorado Legislature this past year.
3
18.40.130 FEES
The council has discussed raising the fee that is now required
to submit an application for an SDD ($100). A fee four to five
times this amount would bring it more in line with other
communities. In addition, the staff is suggesting that we
incorporate language to allow the Town to require compensation
from applicants for expenses incurred by the staff in using
outside consultants in reviewing special development districts.
This is similar to the language that was incorporated into the
WI special development district back in 1976. The opportunity
to assess applicants for these expenses is considered very
important in light of the sensitive nature of many of the SDDs
proposed in Vail.
18.40.140 EXISTING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
This section simply recognizes existing special development
districts and states that their approvals are not affected by
these amendments.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels that these amendments will facilitate a smoother
review process for future SDD proposals. We have attempted to
address the issues that have arisen during the review of SDDs
over the past few years. Specifically, review criteria have
been rewritten to more accurately reflect consideration
relevant to the types of SDD's proposed in Vail.
The PEC recommended approval of these revisions at their June
20 meeting by a 3-1 vote. A number of minor changes have been
made in response to this hearing. In addition, a number of
issues were raised by the PEC that warrant specific discussion
by the Council during its review of this proposal. Among these
were:
1. Changes to underlying zoning Immediate concern
centered around whether a property should be
permitted to change its underlying zoning in
conjunction with a request for an SDD (i.e. Gateway
and Golden Peak House). More importantly, concern
was expressed by all members of the Commission with
the possible scenerio of approving an SDD with an
underlying zone change, then the SDD is not
developed. In this case, the underlying zoning would
not automatically change back to its previous zoning.
Concern centers around whether the zone change is
appropriate without the development plan as approved
as a part of the SDD.
2. Minor amendments Concern over staff discretion
proposed with this new ordinance in reviewing minor
4
modifications to approved SDD's was expressed by one
member of the Commission.
These issues, and the specific changes proposed in these
amendments will be discussed in greater detail during the
review of this ordinance. Do not hesitate to call Tom Braun
with any questions you may have prior to the formal review of
this proposal.
5
As amended following PEC review on June 20, 1988
18.40
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
(draft)
Sections:
18.40.010 Purpose
18.40.020 Definitions
18.40.030 Application
18.40.040 Development Review Procedures
18.40.050 Submittal Requirements
18.40.060 Development Plan
18.40.070 Uses
18.40.080 Design Criteria
18.40.090 Development Standards
18.40.100 Amendment Procedures
18.40.110 Recreation Amenities Tax
18.40.120 Time Requirements
18.40.130 Fees
18.40.140 Existing Special Development Districts
18.40.010 PURPOSE
The purpose of the special development district is to
encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of
land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to
improve the design, character and quality of new
development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate
and economical provision of streets and utilities; to
preserve the natural and scenic features of open space
areas; and to further the overall goals of the community
as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved
development plan for a special development district, in
conjunction with a property's underlying zone district,
shall establish the requirements for guiding development
and uses of property included in the special development
district. The elements of the development plan shall be
as outlined in 18.40.060.
18.40.020 DEFINITIONS
A. Agent or Authorized Representative
Any individual or association authorized or empowered
in writing by the property owner to act on his(her)
stead. If any of the property to be included in the
special development district is a condominiumized
development, the pertinent condominium association
may be considered the agent or authorized
representative for any individual unit owners if
authorized by the individual unit owners in
conformity with all pertinent requirements
of the condominium association's declarations.
B. Minor Amendment (Staff review)
Modifications to building plans,. site or landscape
plans that do not alter the basic intent and
character of the approved special development
district, and are consistent with the design criteria
of this chapter. Minor amendments may include, but
not be limited to, variations of not more than 5 feet
to approved setbacks and/or building footprints;
changes to landscape or site plans that do not
adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation
throughout the special development district; or
changes to gross floor area (excluding residential
uses), of not more than 5 percent of the approved
square footage of retail, office, common areas and
other non-residential floor area.
C. Major Amendment (PEC and/or Council review)
Any proposal to change uses; increase gross
residential floor area; change the number of dwelling
or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any
approved special development district (other than
minor amendments as defined in Section 18.40.020.B.)
D. Underlying Zone District
The zone district existing on the property, or
imposed on the property at the time the special
development district is approved.
E. Affected Property
Property within a special development district that,
by virtue of its proximity or relationship to
property involved in amendment requests to an
approved development plan, may be affected by a
proposed re-design, density increase, changes in
uses, or other modifications changing the impacts,
intent or character of the approved special
development district.
18.40.030 APPLICATION
An application for approval of a special development
district may be filed by any owner of property to be
included in the special development district or his(her)
agent or authorized representative. The application shall
be made on a form provided by the Community Development
Department and shall include:
a. A Iegal description of the property, a list of names
and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners
and written consent of owners of all property to be
included in the special development district , or
their agents or authorized representatives. The
application shall be accompanied by submittal
requirements outlined in Section 18.40.050 and a
development plan as outlined in Section 18.40.060.
18.40.040 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
A. Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other
improvements to land within a special development
district, there shall be an approved development plan for
said district. The approved development plan shall
establish requirements regulating development,. uses and
activity within a special development district.
B. Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special
development district, the applicant shall hold a pre-
application conference with the Community Development
Department. The purpose of shall be to discuss the goals
and direction of the proposed special development
district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable
elements of the Town's master plan, and the review
procedure that will be followed for the application.
C. The initial review of a proposed special development
district shall be held by the Planning and Environmental
Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to
this meeting, and at the discretion of the director of the
Department of Community Development, a work session may be
held with the applicant, staff and the Planning and
Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed special
development district. A report of the Community
Development Department staff's findings and
recommendations shall be made at the initial formal
hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission.
A report of the Planning and Environmental Commission
stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff
report shall then be transmitted to the Town Council in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Section
18.66.060 of the Municipal Code. The Town Council shall
consider the special development district in accordance
with the provision of Sections 18.66.130 through
18.66.160.
18.40.050 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
The following information and materials shall be submitted
with the initial application for a special development
district. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or
modified by the Department of Community Development if it
is demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified
is not applicable to the Design Criteria (Section
18.40.080), or other practical solutions have been
reached.
1. Application form and filing fee
2. A written statement describing the nature of the
project to include information on proposed uses,
densities, nature of the development proposed,
contemplated ownership patterns and phasing plans,
and a statement outlining how and where the proposed
development deviates from the development standards
prescribed in the property's underlying zone
district.
3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating
existing conditions of the property to be included in
the special development district, to include the
location of improvements, existing contour lines,
natural features, existing vegetation, water courses,
and perimeter property lines of the parcel.
4. A complete set of plans depicting existing conditions
of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevations),
if applicable.
5. A complete zoning analysis of existing and proposed
development to include a square footage breakdown of
all proposed uses, parking provided, and proposed
densities.
6. Proposed site plan at a scale not smaller than 1" _
20', showing the approximate locations and dimensions
of all buildings and structures and all principal
site development features.
7. Preliminary building elevations, sections and floor
plans at a scale not smaller than 1/8" = 1' in
sufficient detail to determine floor area,
circulation, location of uses, and general scale and
appearance of the proposed development.
8. A vicinity plan showing the proposed improvements in
relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not
smaller than 1" = 50'.
9. Photo overlays of the proposed development in
relationship to existing conditions and/or other
acceptable techniques for demonstrating a view
analysis.
10. Amassing model depicting the proposed development in
relationship to development on adjacent parcels.
11. A preliminary landscape plan at a scale not smaller
than 1" = 20', showing existing landscape features to
be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and
landscaped site development features such as
recreation facilities, bike paths and trails,
pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features and
other elements.
12. Environmental impact report in accordance with
Chapter 18.56, hereof unless waived by Section
18.56.030.
13. Any additional information or material as deemed
necessary by the director of Community Development
Department.
With the exception of the massing model, 4 complete copies
of the above information shall be submitted with an
application for a special development district. At the
discretion of the director of the Community Development
Department, reduced copies in 8-1/2'x 11" format of all of
the above information may be required.
18.40.060 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
An approved development plan is the principal document in
guiding the development, uses and activities of a special
development district. A development plan shall be
approved by ordinance by the Town Council in conjunction
with the review and approval of any special development
district. The development shall be comprised of materials
submitted in accordance with Section 18.40.050. The
development plan shall approve all relevant material and
information necessary to establish the parameters with
which the special development district shall develop. In
no cases shall the development plan consist of less than
the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and
elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open
space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional
and accessory uses, densities and parking.
18.40.070 USES
Determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses
shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission
and Town Council as a part of the formal review of the
proposed development plan. Unless further restricted
through the review of the proposed special development
district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall
be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory
uses in a property's underlying zone district. Under
certain conditions, commercial uses may be permitted in
residential special development districts if, in the
opinion of the Town Council, such uses are primarily for
the service and convenience of the residents of the
development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if
any, shall not change or destroy the predominantly
residential character of the special development district.
The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, to be
allowed in a residential special development district
shall be established by the Town Council as a part of the
approved development plan.
18.40.080 DESIGN CRITERIA
The following design criteria shall be used as the
principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the
proposed special development district. It shall be the
burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal
material and the proposed development plan comply with
each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one
or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical
solution consistent with the public interest has been
achieved.
1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk,
building height, buffer zones, identity, character,
visual integrity and orientation.
2. Uses, activity and density which provide a
compatible, efficient and workable relationship with
surrounding uses and activity.
3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in Section 18.52.
4. Conformity with'the Vail Masten Plan, town policies
and urban design plans.
5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or
geologic hazards that affect the development.
6. Site plan, building design and location, and open
space provisions designed to produce a functional
development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of
the community.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
circulation.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space
in order to optimize and preserve.. natural features,
recreation, views and function.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable, functional and efficient relationship
throughout the development of the project.
18.40.090 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development standards including lot area, site dimensions,
setbacks, height, density control, site coverages,
landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town
Council as part of the approved development plan with
consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and
Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council
approves development standards that deviate from the
underlying zone district, it should be determined that
such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh
the adverse effects of such deviation.
18.40.100 AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
A. Minor Amendments:
Minor modifications consistent with the design
criteria outlined in section 18.40..020 B. may be
approved by the Department of Community Development.
All minor modifications shall be indicated on a
completely revised development plan. Approved
changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by
thd~^bepartment of Community Development.
Notification of proposed minor amendment, and a
report of staff action of said request, shall be
provided to all property owners within or adjacent to
the special development district that may be affected
by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as
determined by the Department of Community
Development. Notifications shall be postmarked no
later than five days following .staff action on the
amendment request and shall include a brief statement
describing the amendment and the time and date of
when the Planning and Environmental Commission will
be informed of the staff decision. In all cases the
report to the Planning and Environmental Commission
shall be made within twenty days from the date of the
staff's decision on the requested amendment.
Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent
property owners, owners of property within the
special development district, the applicant, Planning
and Environmental Commission members or members of
the Town Council as outlined in section 18.66.030 A.
of the Municipal Code.
B. Major Amendments
Requests for major amendments to an approved special
development district shall be reviewed in accordance
with the procedures described in section 18.40.040.
Owners of all property requesting the amendment,
or their agents or authorized representatives, shall
sign the application. Notification of the proposed
amendment shall be made to owners of all property
adjacent to the proposed amendment, owners of all
property adjacent to the special development
district, and owners of all property within the
special development district that may be affected by
the proposed amendment (as determined by the
Department of Community Development). Notification
procedures shall be as outlined in .section 18.66.080
of the Municipal Code.
~~"'~~ ,
18.40.110 RECREATION AMENITIES TAX
A recreation amenities tax shall be assessed on all
special development districts in accordance .with Chapter
3 36 of the Vail Municipal Code at a rate to be determined
by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This rate
shall be based on the rate of the previous zone district
and/or the rate which most closely resemble the density
plan for the district.
18.40.120 TIME REQUIREMENTS
A. The applicant must begin construction of the special
development district within three years from the time
of its final approval, and continue diligently toward
the completion of the project. If the special
development district is to be developed in stages,
the applicant must begin construction of each stage.
within three years of the completion of the previous
stage.
B. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work
toward the completion of the special development
district or any stage of the special development
district within the time limits imposed by the
preceding subsection, the approval of said special
development district shall be void. The Planning and
Environmental Commission and Town Council shall
review the special development district upon
submittal of an application to re-establish the
special development district following the procedures
outlined in section 18.40.040 of this chapter.
18.40.130 FEES
The Town Council shall establish a fee schedule for
special development district applications to cover the
cost of filing the application. Projects deemed by the
Department of Community Development (and affirmed by the
Town Council) to have significant design or land use
implications on the community may require review by
professionals outside of Town staff. In this event, the
applicant shall reimburse the Town for expenses incurred
by this review. Any outside consultant selected to review
an application for a special development district shall be
selected and utilized by the Town staff. The Department
of Community Development shall determine the amount of
money estimated to cover the cost of outside consulting
services, and this amount shall be provided to the Town by
the applicant at the time of application. Any unused
portioff~~'of these funds shall be returned: to the applicant
following the review of the proposed special development
district. Expenses incurred by the Town in excess of
estimated amount shall be reimbursed to the Town by the
applicant.
18.40.140 EXISTING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit,
replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities,
and specifications of special development districts 2
through 21. The Town Council specifically finds that said
special development districts 2 through 21 shall remain in
full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and
agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding
upon the applicants thereof and the Town of Vail. These
districts, if not commenced at the present time, shall
comply with Section 18.40.120, time requirements.
~;~-~,,
I,
r'
-
~ ~
~• ;
C
EXISTING SDD ORDINANCE
i
ZONING
_\
• coverage area) may be higher than thirty-five feet, but not rgher
than forty feet. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimne~~s, flan es, and
similar architectural features not useable as gross resi ntial boor
area may extend above the height limit a dis[anc of not more
than twenty-five percent of the height limit nor urethan fifteen
feet. (Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.)
13.39.1i3U Density control
T~rtal density shall not exceed one veiling unit per ei`_ht cures
of site area. (Ord. 38 (1983) ~ 1.)
18.39.190 Site coverage.
Site coy eraee shall be as own un the appro~ ed deg eiopment
plan. (Ord. 38 (1983) ~ 1. )
13.39.210 Landscap'ng and site development.
Landscaping re irements shall be as sho« n un the appru~ ed
det•elupment plan :111 areas within the area(s) oC disturbance in
the landsc :pe pl not occupied by buildin~~, ~~rour.:i le~•el ducks
or patios, ur p~ king shall be landscaped. (Ord. 35 (Iy53) ` I.)
l
18.39.230 ~arl:ing.
Off-s •eet p,u-kine sh;-II he pro~•idud in acrur~iancc with
Chapte I5.5? and'or as specified ~n the appro~ud development
plan. rd. 38 (1953) § I .I
}~~k,,.,
Cltapler I S.-(()
S('rCI:1L i)I~:VLLOi'111:ti I' I>1STR1('"(•5
Sections:
1 ~i.~U.U I O I'urliose.
?{.~>40.U~t) Sropc.
ti.-IO.0 it) :1lrlrlication.
1 `i.-(O.U-tt) I)r~~~lulrrnrnt pl:ut-:\t~lrrm•:-I Irroredurrs.
,,
..
~~h~.,
/.
SPECIAL IIc~'ELOP'~~tENT DISTF.ICTS
18.40.050 Development plan-Contents.
18.40.OEi0 Pern~itied uses, conditional uses and accessory
uses.
1$.40.070 Development standards.
i8.-10.080 !)esitn standards.
18.40.090 Recreation amenities tax.
18.40.1 UU Time reuuirements.
18.40. l 10 r ees.
13.40.120 Existing special development districts.
I8.~10.U l0 Puruose.
The purpose of the special development districts is to
encourage t7exibility in the development of land in order to ,;
promote its most appropriate use: to improve the design,
character and quality of new development; to facilitate the
adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities;
and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas.
(Ord. 50(1978) 3 9 (partl.)
i 8.40.020 Scope.
Applications Cor special development district designation
may be made for land located in any zoning district. (Ord.
50(1978) 3 9 (part).)
;`?_~l
' ~. ~
r"".
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DIS1'R[CTS ,
• 18.40.030 Application.
An application for approval of a special development
dist
i
r
ct may. be filed by a person having an interest in the
property to be included in the' special development district
>v .
The application will be made on the form provided by t}te
town and must include:
~•. A. A legal description of the property, the amount of acrea~se
of the property, and consent by the owners of all
-
property
to be included in the special dzveloprnent district. ~1~h,;
• application must be accompanied by a development pi:rn
.
further described in Section. 18.40.050, and a list of ail
adjoining property owners.
~. , ` (Ord. 50(1978) ~ 9 (part).)
18.40.040 Development plan-Approval procedures.
A. Before. the developer commences site preparation, buildine
construction, or other improvc;ment of open space
thzre
,
shall be an approved development plan for said district
.
B. The proposed development plan in accordance with Section
18.40.050 shall be submitted by the developer to the
zoning administrator, who shall refer it to the plannil),
:
.
and environmental conui)ission, which shall consider thc
~
.
plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. ,~ rt:port of the
planning and cnvironnlcntal commission stating its findings
• and recommendations shalt be transmitted to the to~~~n
council for approval in accordanc, with the applicable
provisions of Section l:i,CC,.Ue;O ut thr municipal rode
.
hr The time deadlines fur the ahprr)val of the special
development district shall be those u,ed in the anlrnelmrnt
proceedings found in SeCh011S l ~`~.~(i. l ,~ thruugll I S.(;(,
.
l e~0
.
.
L.
r}le appr0~'eCl dCVtaOprllCnt pl;lil sllllll l)e Used ;Iti ille
prlllClpal guldc tOf ;1I1 devt'Iuplnetl[ 1Vlthltl [Ile SpeCl;ll
• developrent district.
D. Anlcndnlents to the appruvrtl tlevrlultnlrnt ltl;ul whit It tlu
not chan~_c its substance nlav Ile at~hruved hy• the t~lannin_
anCl CItVIrOIlIl1CIlIaI l'OI11IItiSSil)I1 ;It :1 rC'~,lllarly S~I1Ctlllletl
pllbhC hl'arlll!~ In :Il'CORIanI't ~1'1[Il flit' prOVISIctIIS (,I ~el'httit
18.hh.U~tU.
. I•. t:ach phase ctl the appru~•rd ttrvel~>t~nlrnt Itl.ln ,hall r~•etuire
LnN[NG
~.
the approval of the design review board in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the nuulicip:ll •
• code prior to the connnencement of site preparation..
(Ord. 50(1978) ti 9 (part).)
18.40.050 Development plan-Contents. '
'The proposed development plats s11all lI1CIU(1C, hilt IS llOt
111111[ed t0 the fo110w111S data:
~-. All l`I1VIro1llTlelltal Inlpa4t Cepurt shall be submitted IO illz
ZOlllllL adn11111StralOr 111 aCCOCdall~e \Vl[I1 Cllap[er l~.~ib
hereof unless waived by Section 18.6.030, exempt projzcts: -
B, An open space and recreational plan sufii~ient to meet the ~
,
demands generated by the development \vitllout ulidu~
burden on available or proposed public facilities;
C. Existing and proposed contours, after llradlllg alld sitz
development, haVlllg COI1LOllf II1tCiValS Ot IlOI InOre [11afI tlve
fret It the aVC',ra~,e slope Ot the SiCe tS ILVenty percent or less,
Or with COIItOUr IllterValS Of IIOt I110I"~ tha11 ten feel if the ~
_
average slope of the site is greater than hventy percent;
' D. A proposed site plan, at a SCale nOt SI11al1zC than Olle 111C}I
equals fifty feet, Showlil~~ the al)prOxlltla[e locatlolls alld
~'' ~
• d1111eI1S10[1S of all bulldlnRs and structures, 11S„S th.Celn,
~,. and all principal site development features, such a;
landscaped areas. recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas
and .walkways, service entries. driveways, and off-street
parkin! and loading, areas:
E. A preliminary I:uldsrapr plan, at :l sc:de not slnallcr than
~5.~~, one. inch equals fifty. fret, sllowin~~ rxistin~, lan(iscap~
' franlres to be retained or removed, and showing, proposed
landscapin~~ and landscaped site developntrnt I'ratuns, such
as outdoor recreational t•:Irilitirs, bi~ycl~ Laths, trails.
pedrstri:ul plazas :Ind \valkwa\•s, water t•eaturrs, and other
elrnTents;
l'. Prrliniinary buildin~~ elevations. :,coons, :Ind Iluur }glans,
a[ :1 Sl'alr nc)t SITT:IIIrI' [I1:IIT c,lTr-rIL'htll Illlll rttllals oiTr 100[,
in suff~i~irnt drt:ul to drtrrniinr Ilt,t,r ;u•ra, ;gross residential
Iluur area. interior ~ire•ulatic~n. lor:loons of uses \\•ithin
i~ huildins, :old the ~~rnrral ualr :Intl :Ipprar:ulrr cif lhr
hrohou~d drvclt+pmrnt_
r
C,
SPECI,IL DEVELOPtitENT DISTRICTS
. 18.40.060 Permitted uses, conditional uses and accessorv
uses. '
:~. The uses in a special development district must he uses
"
permitted by rinht.~' conditional uses. or accessory uses in
the zone district in which the special development district
is located. In addition, commercial uses may be permitted
in residential special development districts iF, in the oninion
of the planning and environmental commission, such uses.
..are primarily For the sen~ice and convenience of the "
.
residents of the development and the immediate nei~zhbor-
hood. Such uses, it any, ;hail not citan~~e or destroy the
predominantly residential character of the 'special ,
development district. The amount of area and type of such
uses, if any, to be allowed in a residential special devzlop-
ment district shall be estai~iisited by the plannin_T a-td
environmental commission as part of the development
plan.
B. Accessory .uses are to he based on the permitted and
conditional uses and can be indi\~idually determined tore
each special development district. subject to the approval
of the planning and en\•ironnt~ntal cu-nmissiort.
(Ord. 50(1978) ~ 9 (partl.)
18.40.070 llevelopment standards.
_ Development standards, includin<~ lc~t are;t, sits dintrnsions
,
.setbacks, distance t?etw~en buildings. hci~.;ht, dcnsih• control,
site cosera_~c. ]andsrapin~, and harl:in~. ;hall he d~terntincd h\•
the plannin~_ and en\•ironntcntal comntis~ion :uui ah~,,ro\~rd b\~
'
the town council ;ts part of ih~ appro\'cd dc\•eloprn~~n[ Man
.
(Ord. ~U(1975) ~ `~ (part l.)
18.40.080 1)rsign stancl;u-ds.
1~hr dc~•clopmrrtt plan tc,r th~~ special clr~rlc,l,nt~•nt ~lstnct
shall mrei r;-ch of the ti,lluwin~~ .tan~lar~l: ur clrnronsh'at~ that
~itltrr one c,r morn c,f thrnt is n~,t ;r(,l,lirabl~•, ,,r that a I~ractic:rl
~olutic~n ronsist~nt with th; Inrhlic int~~rc~st. has hr~n achir\rd:
i .~. :~ hutfrr zone tihall he I~rcnidrd in ;rny ,pcri:rl dr~rlc,hnn•nt
district that is adiaccnt tc~ a Ict~r-,I~~nsrty residential u:~~
i ~ „'
., .
~.
F~ ~ .
---
,, 4
~'.
ZONING -
. .
district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildines or
`
structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected
by natural features so that adversz effacts on the surroundine
areas are minimized. -This may require. a buffer zone of
..sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from
the surroundin, properties in terms of visual privacy, noise,
adequate light and air, air pollution, signage, and other ''-
° comparable potentially incompatible factors:
i3. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic
` " generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from -;
living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control
Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used.
by police and fire department :vehicles for emergency _
purposes.. Bicycle n•affic shall be considerea and-provided
when the site is to be used for residential purposes;
C. Functional upen space in terms of: optimum preservation
of natural features t including trees and drainage areasj,
recreation, views, convenience, and function:
U. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and
open space;
E. Privacy. in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and
neighbors:
F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, ::eparation,'
conveni(~nce, access to .points of (lestination, and
attractiveness:
G. Buildin; type in terms ' of: ;lppropriateness to density,
site relationship, and bulk:
li. Building desi~zn in terms of•: orientation. strlrin~~, nrl[erials,
color and texture, stortge, ,i«ns. li~htin~s. ;uul solar tilockage:
'
I:` Landscapin° of the total site in terms uf: purposes, types,
maintenance. suitability, and efi~ect olt [Itc nei~~hborhood
.
turd. ~U(I~)7$) <) (hart l.)
1:I.-1'•0.090 Rrcrcatit)n antcnitics tax.
:1 rcereation antcnitics tax sh;tll be assessed on e;lc;lt st,ccial
develot~nlen[ di~h-ict in areortl:utre with ('hapter 3.3(~ of the
Vail .Municipal ('udc ;It a rlte to hr d~ternlincd by the t)I:uulin"~
;111(1 CnClfUllnlellf:d l:Ui111111Sti1U11. I'lll; 1':I[e .Il;dl bC b:1Sl'd Ulf Ilte
~- rale Ul tllc prl'~'IUUti /(tiff' dl~Irll;t :IlldrUr the tale 1b'llll'll I1tlISI
11","11 3-I S-'~11
.~~:h
.~,
SI'ECI~~L DEVELOP;tiIENT DISTRICTS
closely resembles the density planned for the district. (Ord.
50(1978) § 9 (part ).)
18.40.100 Time requirements.
r'~. The applicant must begin construction of the special
development district within eighteen months from the time
oi~ its final approval, and continue diligently toward the
completion of tl-e prviect. If the special development
district is to be developed in stages. the applicant must
begin construction of each stage within eighteen months
of the completion of the previous stake.
B. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward..
the completion of the special development: district or any
~ ~ stage of the special development district within the tune
' limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the: planning
~•. and environmental commission shall review the special
development district. They shall recommend to the town
council that either the approval of the special development
district be • extended, that the approval of the special
development district be revoked, or that the: special
development district be amended.
(Ord. 50(1978) ~ 9 (part).)
18.40.110 Fees.
The town council shall establish a fee nc~dule for special
development district :thhlicati~ns to cover' the cost ul'
processin~.* and review. I Ord. ~ O(I ~>7S 1 ~ ~t (h;rrt 1.,)
~1
~`~~ `~
..18.10.1'_0 Existing spcci;rl dc~~clopntcnt districts.
\othinp in this chapter shall lie construed t~ limit, replace
ur diminish the requirements, rrspunsihilities and shecific;rtiints
~
r~l
sltecial develctrmrnt districts ~Itrr~u~,lr ~. ~I'hrtown.•~-unril
spcrrl•ically finds that paid sp~•cial drveli~prn~•nt districts ~!
thrrnrLlt ti shall ~untinue in gull force and ~•Ifi•et.;utd the terms,
conditions and ;rcreentents cc~nr:unrd therein shall cctrthnuc to
'
~ hr hurdirt upon the apt~lic:utts tltrreof and the town pit Vail
-- I hose districts, if nut cununenced at the present tint, shall.
?t7 ~ ,.~ ~ ~ ~,~
1
,~
ZONING
complywith Section (8.40.100, time requirements. (Ord. 50(1978)
§ 9 (Part).)
Chapter 18.52
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
Sections; `
_ 13.52.0]0 Purpose.
13.52.020 Applicabilih~.
13.52.030 Exisiting facilities.
15.52.040 Additions or changes.
18.52.050 Construction and maintenance.
15.52.060 Parking--Off-site and joint f~ tiities.
18.52.070 Standards.
18.52.080 Parking-Standards.
18.52.090 Loading-Standar
18.52.100 Parking-Requ' ements schedule.
18.52.110 Parking-Sc dule applicabilit}•.
18.52.120 Credit fo ultiple use parkin;; facilities.
18.52.130 Loadi -Requirements schedule.
18.52.140 Lo ing-Schedule applicability. .
• 18.52.150 redit for multiple-use loading facilities.
', '' 18.52.16 Exemptions.
18.52 0 Leasing of parking spaces.
18 .180 Variances.
~} 18.52.010 Purpose.
In order to alle~•iate hruLressi~~l~• ur t~~ I~re~~nt traltic
congestion and shorta~r of can-street parkine arras, ~~If•-~u~ert
Parking and lirtdin~; tarilitics shall he pr~~~•i~le~t inridcntal t~~ nr~~~
~. ~ structures, enlar~emcnts of existin~~ structures ~~r a r~~n~ ersiun tci
a nett' use which requires additional parkine under this chapter.
~. ,_ ,
The number of parking spares anti lo;~cline hrrths hrescrthril in
this chapter shall hr in proportion to the nrr~l I~~r tiurh Iacilities
created by the particular t~~pr of use. OIt-.trrrt ;parkine anal
~_ loading areas are to hr drsigne~l, maintainr~l anal c~prr;-tr~t in ;t
manner that ~~•ill cnzurr their u,~tulncss, protrrt the public s:-Irt~•.
C
Preliminary Budget -.June 27, 1988
Booth Creek Rockfall Mitigation
Special Improvement District
Engineering 48,637
Construction 367,500
Contingency 50,000
Finance 15,000*
Capitalized Interest 15,000*
TOTAL $496,137
Less TOV Contribution -20,000
Less Eagle County
Contribution -20,000
$456,137
~:
BANNER
June 30, 1988
Mr. Larry Eskwith - Town Attorney
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Booth Creek RockFall Mitigation
Dear Larry,
This letter is in response to the meeting which took place
Monday, June 27. At that time you requested that Banner
Associates submit a short narrative pertaining to design
parameters and Engineer recommendations.
As you are aware the funding for this project is very limited.
It was therefore necessary to develop a design that does not
provide the normally accepted factor of safety from a engineering
standpoint in terms of slope stability.
The factor of safety of the existing hillside is approximately
1.5 with 1.0 being the point of failure and 2.0 being fairly
stable. Most slope structures are designed for factors exceeding
1.5 and slopes are generally considered suspect for failure when
factors lower than about 1.2 are calculated. The factors of
safety for the design as now developed range from 1.0 in non-
critical areas to 1.3 and 1.4 across the cut and fill slopes
respectively. If for some reason the hillside became saturated
the factors of safety. could be reduced to 1.0 or less resulting
in a surface failure, the magnitude of which is difficult to
predict. This scenario is unlikely, however the possibility does
exist and should be noted.
The berm configuration was developed utilizing information
supplied by the Colorado Geological Survey. The berm as designed
will theoretically stop 91~ of rocks weighing ten tons and 1000
of rocks weighing 2.4 tons or less. Based on a report prepared
by the Colorado Geological Survey in 1983, the rockfall
recurrence interval for rocks weighing from two to six tons is
every one to three years. As the rocks become larger in size the
recurrence. interval increases in years to the point where a large
slab failure is estimated to occur once every 40 to 100 years.
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
` CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242
BANNED
Mr. Larry Eskwith - Town Attorney
June 29, 1988
Page Two
With this in mind it is necessary to weigh the risks of
construction (falling rocks, etc.) and the resulting berm
configuration with a risk of landslide, against the rock fall
hazard currently present. After reviewing the various reports
and analyzing the data now available we feel the risks of serious
injury and property damage would be reduced considerably with the
construction of the proposed berm complex even though other
pcssible hazards may be created. There will be maintenance
problems associated with the design; i.e. erosion and spalling;
however these problems are easily remedied in comparison to the
rock fall hazard which now exists.
Additional information can be found in the CTL/Thompson, Inc.
report on slope stability prepared for Banner Associates in
conjunction with this study and design. If further clarification
or explanation is required we are available at your request.
Sincerely,
"' BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ia:~<~ ~
Bill Cheneyx~ P.~.
BC/rg
cc: Stan Barryman
~.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE BOOTH CREEK ROCKFALL AREA
USING A DOMPUTER MODEL OF ROCKFALL BEHAVIOR
~y
Susan H. Cannon and Bruce K. Stover
PREPARED BY THE COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL
JUNE, 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The Model
Model Variables
Slope materials.
Rock material properties
Source area locations
Results
Preliminary Structure Design Evaluation
Conclusions and Recommendations
Figures
1. Slope profile of Booth Creek rockfall area showing cell delineation,
locations of two source areas, and location of analysis point.
2. Potential travel distances of rocks of varying dimensions.
3. Average velocities in each cell for rocks of varying dimensions.
.. 4. Maximum velocities in each cell for rocks of varying dimensions.
5. Average bounce heights in each cell for rocks of varying dimensions.
6. Maximum bounce heights in each cell for rocks of varying dimensions.
Tables
1. Data used in analyses showing high and low Rn and Rt coefficients, slope
roughness factor, and cell coordinates.
2. Velocity, bounce-height, and impact-force data at analysis point.
- i -
' AN ANALYSIS OF THE BOOTH (MEEK ROCKFALL AREA
USING A OOMPUTE[t MODEL OF ROCKFALL BEHAVIOR
INTRODUCTION
Rockfall activity in the vicinity of Booth Creek in the town of Vail,
Colorado, has been a recurring problem for many years (Colorado Geological
Survey, 1983). Development in the rockfall acceleration and runout zones has
lead to increased damage by these events and interest in mitigating the hazard
has increased concurrently. In order to design an appropriate protective
structure, it is necessary to understand the behavior of rockfalls at the
site. CRSP, a computer model of rockfall behavior developed by Tim Pfeiffer
and Tim Bowen for the Colorado Department of Highways, provides an objective
tool for predicting the travel distances, velocities, and bounce heights of
rockfall events at Booth Creek.
In this report we briefly describe the computer model and the selection of
input parameters used to simulate the Booth Creek rockfalls. We present the
results as potential velocities, bounce heights and impact forces at the
proposed berm location, as well as velocities and bounce heights over the
length of the rockfall path. We also use the model to analyze the
effectiveness of containment structures of three different heights in stopping
a range of rock sizes.
THE MODEL
CRSP is a computer program that models rockfall behavior and provides a
statistical analysis of rockfall behavior at a given site. The model applies
equations of gravitational acceleration and conservation of energy to describe
the motion of a single rock traveling down a slope. Empirically derived
functions relating velocities, friction, and material coefficients are used to
model the dynamic interaction of the rock and slope. The statistical
variation among rockfalls is modeled by randomly varying the angle at which a
rock impacts the slope within limits set by rock size and the slope
characteristics. The program provides a site-specific analysis of rockfall
with output velocity and. bounce height statistics at various locations on the
slope.
Pfeiffer and Bowen (1988) describe the assumptions made in developing the
model, and thus its limitations.
MODEL VARIABLES
The behavior of rockfalls is influenced by slope geometry, slope materials
properties, rock geometry, and material properties of the moving rocks
(Ritchie, 19b3). How these variables were quantified for use in the model for
the Booth Creek area are discussed below.
Slope Geometry
In the CRSP model, the influence of slope geometry is quantified by dividing a
.slope transect into a number of cells of equal gradient. A slope profile of
the Booth Creek rockfall area .was generated by surveying the locations of 31
- points in a line down the slope. (Two additional shorter transects 100 and
200 feet to the west were surveyed for comparison purposes.) .Figure 1 shows
the inclination and length of the cells used in this analysis. A surface
-1-
roughness coefficient that quantifies the perpendicular variation in a slope
«.
segment is also assigned for each cell. These coefficients were assigned
based on field observations. The data used for each cell in the analysis is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Data used in analyses. Both the high and low slope material
coefficients (Rt and Ru) are shown.
Cell #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Surf ace
Roughness
.2
.2
.2
.2
.75
.1
.1
.1
1
1.5
1.5
.2
.1
Slope Materials
Rt
Tangential
Coefficient
Low High
.8 .83
.8 .83
.83 .87
.8 .83
.8 .83
.78 .82
.8 .83
.87 .92
. 87 .92
.8 .83
.78 .83
.78 .83
.78 .82
.87 .92
Rn
Normal
Coefficent
Restitution
Low High
.28 .32
. 28 .32
.28 .33
.28 .33
.28 .32
.28 .32
.28 .32
.37 .42
.37 .42
.28 .32
.28 .33
.28 .33
.28 .33
.37 .42
Beginning
X Y
0 844
136 741
219 685
234 616
604 317
838 163
986 96
994 82
1019 88
1028 87
1053 74
1187 34
1273 22
1419 2
Ending
X Y
136 741
219 685
234 616
604 317
838 163
986 96
994 82
1019 88
1028 87
1053 74
1187 34
1273 22
1419 2
1504 2
The properties of slope materials are quantified in the model by assigning
additional coefficients to each cell. Numerical representations of these
properties are termed the normal coefficient of restitution (Rn) and the
tangential coefficient of frictional resistance (Rt). Rn is a measure of the
degree of elasticity in a collision normal to the slope, while Rt is a measure
of the resistance to movement parallel to the slope. Specifically, Rn is
applied to the normal component of a rock's velocity at impact, and Rt is
applied to the tangential component of a rock's kinetic energy at impact.
Pfeiffer and Bowen (1988) define a range for these coefficients for the
materials present at Booth Creek. For example, Rn for talus with little
vegetation varies between 0.30 and 0.33. To insure that the modeling effort
is representative of the range of conditions possible, the program was run
with two data sets which included the upper and lower limits of the
coefficients, as shown in Table 1.
Rock Material Properties
Field observations and measurements were used to characterize the dimensions
and form of rocks involved in rockf alls at Booth Creek. To define the range
of variation in rockfall behavior, we evaluated the behavior of rocks of the
following dimensions:
Weight Form Dimensions
20, 000 lbs equant radius = 3.1 t
10,000 lbs disk radius = 3 ft, thickness = 2 ft
5,000 lbs disk radius = 2.5 ft, thickness = 1.5 ft
800 lbs disk radius = 1.25 ft, thickness 1.0 ft
- 2 -
The 800 lb rock is thought to be representative of the average rock dimension
observed on the Booth Creek slopes, and the 20,000 lb rock represents a
typical largest rockfall boulder observed in the field.
Source Area Locations
An additional variable in the model is the locations of source areas. In the
Booth Creek area, both an upper and lower potential sources were identified,
as shown in Figure 1 (Stover, 1983).
Our modeling effort thus consisted of evaluating the behavior of four
different rock masses, originating from two possible source areas, and
traveling over slopes with a range (low and high) of slope-materials
characteristics. Combining all these variables gives a total of 16 runs of
the program to define the range of behavior of rockfalls at Booth Creek.
RESULTS
The output from CRSP consists of velocity, bounce-height, and impact-force
data at one user-defined point (the analysis point) as well as velocity and
bounce height data for each cell. The range of potential travel distances of
rocks of varying dimensions are shown in Figure 2 as histograms of the number
of rocks stopped for a given slope position. The model predicts that a few of
the largest equant rocks are able to travel at least to I-70, while most stop
well before. The rocks of average dimensions (disks with radius = 1.25 ft)
generally stop below the small road cut, and most of the larger disk-shaped
rocks stop beyond the smaller rocks. These predictions are consistent with
field observations and thus impart a note of confidence in the range values
assigned to the coefficients used in the model.
We located the analysis point at the upslope edge of the proposed location of
the containment structure (Figure 1). The-range of potential velocities and
bounce heights for rocks of varying dimensions at the analysis point are shown
in Table 2. The range in each parameter is a result of defining a range of
possible slope materials coefficients and the varying source area locations.
Table 2. Velocity, bounce-height and impact-force data at the analysis point.
Average Maximum Maximum
Maximum Average Minimum Bounce Bounce Kinetic
Velocity Velocity Velocity Height Height Energy
Rock (ft/sec) (f t/sec) (ft/sec) (f t) (f t) ft/lbs
2 , 0 1 sp ere 7~4 ~ 5~ ~ 4~ , ,0 - ,3 ,U U
10,000 lb disk 66-80 58-73 45-66 4-5 5-6 630,000-1,000,000
5,000 lb disk 69-80 62-75 54-67 4-5 5-6 360,000-480,000
800 lb disk 74-83 66-72 58-64 5-6 7-9 69,000-87,000
We suggest that the maximum value of each parameter be used in developing
design criteria for the containment structure.
Maximum and average velocities as well as maximum and average bounce heights
are also predicted by the model for each cell. The maximum value predicted
for each of these parameters are shown for rocks of varying dimensions on
Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6. A range in these parameters was generated by using a
range in slope materials coefficients and the two source area locations.
However, the maximum value generated from the analyses is depicted on the
.figures as a worst case evaluation.
-3-
AtELL'NINt1[tY STkUCTURE DESIGN EVALUATION
The preceding analyses provide velocity, bounce-height, and impact-force data
that can be used in the preliminary design of a containment structure for the
Booth Creek area. However,. the addition of a structure on a slope will alter
the behavior of rocks as they travel downslope. Of particular concern is the
possibility that if a rock impacts a structure at mid-bounce, the energy of
the impact may be sufficient to skip the rock over the top of the structure.
Thus it is necessary to evaluate the effect of structures of various
configurations to .insure that the desired effectiveness of catchment by the
barrier is attained.
To evaluate the effect of structures of varying heights on the rockfall
behavior at Booth Creek, CRSP was run with varying structure heights
incorporated into the model and both 20,000 lb (maximum size) and 800 lb
(average size) rocks. The configuration of the structures consisted of a
1.3:1 (H:V) slope cut into the existing 1.6:1 slope over a distance of 72 ft
extending up to the proposed structure location; a 15-ft-high, 1:4 wall; and
then a 1:1 slope continuing from the existing ground surface to give the
remainder of height to the berm. The model was run with berm heights of 10,
15 and 20 ft to determine the effectiveness of the varying berm heights on
stopping both 20,000 and 800 lb rocks.
The analyses show that the 15-f t-high wall coupled with a 20-ft-high berm
stops 100$ of both rock masses. The 15-ft-high wall and 10-ft-high berm
stopped 100$ of the 800 lb rocks, but only 40$ of the 20,000 lb rocks. The
rocks that were not stopped by the structure traveled the length of the runout
slope. The 15-ft wall coupled with the 15-f t-high berm stopped 100$ of the
800 lb rocks and 97$ of the 20,000 lb rocks. The remaining 3$ of the rocks in
the sample stopped on the top of the berm. A maximum kinetic energy of 2895
ft-lbs was exerted on the top of the berm by the 20,000 lb rocks that topped
the been.
We now know that the present 1.6:1 slope cannot be increased and still
maintain a 1.5 factor of safety, and so the 1.3:1 cut modeled is not possible
(B. Cheney, personal comm., June 14, 1988). However, by eliminating the cut,
rock velocities and bounce heights will decrease slightly, and thus increase
the effectiveness of the 15-ft wall and 15 ft berm configuration on the ground
surface. The effectiveness of the structure will change with a change in the
form of the structure, so further simulations should be done for other
configurations under consideration.
OONCLUSIONS AND RECONA4ENDATIONS
The rockfall model provides a valuable tool for quantitatively evaluating
rockfall behavior in the Booth Creek area. The extent of travel of rocks of
varying dimensions predicted by the model fits well with field observations,
suggesting that the values assigned for the various slope and rock materials
coefficients were reasonable for the area. The rockfall model provides
information on predicted velocities, bounce heights, and impact forces for a
range of rock sizes at the proposed location of the containment structure.
These analyses suggest that velocities of 84 ft/sec, bounce heights of 9 ft,
and impact forces up to 2,300,000 ft lbs should be used in developing
preliminary design criteria for the containment structure.
- 4 -
The model also provides information on predicted velocities and bounce heights
for each cell that should be considered if the location of the structure is
moved from that considered here.
The effect of the addition of a structure to a slope on the rockfall behavior
and the structure's rock-stopping effectiveness was also evaluated briefly in
this study. A preliminary analysis demonstrated that a 15-ft-high, nearly
vertical wall cut into the slope, in conjunction with a 15-ft-high berm on the
existing. ground surface, would stop 97$ of all 20,000 lb rocks that travel
down the slope.. The effectiveness of a structure of this configuration would
increase if the entire structure (wall and berm) were at ground level.
The CEtSP model should be used for evaluating the effectiveness of other design
possibilities.
-5-
REFEttENCES
Pfeiffer, T.J., and Bowen, T.D., 1988, Computer Simulation of Rockfalls:
Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists.
Ritchie, A.M., 1963, The evaluation of rockfall and its control: Highway
Research Record, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council,
Washington D. C., No. 17, pp. 13-28.
Stover, B.K., 1983, Preliminary evaluation of rockfall hazard in
the Booth Creek area: Report prepared for the Town of Vail, Colorado,
Colorado Geological Survey, 17 p.
..
3808
-6-
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS
PRELIMINARY SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
PROPOSED BOOTH CREEK ROCKFALL MITIGATION
KATOS RANCH ROAD '"
VAIL, COLORADO
Prepared For:
Banner Associates
_ Consulting Engineers and Architects
2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Attention: Mr. Bill Cheney
Job No. 15, 194
June 16, 1988
1971 WEST 12TH AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80204 (303) 825-0777
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE
SITE CONDITIONS
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2
INVESTIGATIONS 2
Subsurface Conditions 3
Laboratory Testing 4
PRELIMINARY STABILITY ANALYSIS ~ 4
DISCUSSION 5
LIMITATIONS 6
FIG. I -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
FIG. 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
FIG. 3 - SUMMARY OF STABILITY ANALYSES
(CONCEPTUAL BERM CONFIGURATION -STA. 6+00)
FIG. 4 - SUMMARY OF STABILITY ANALYSES
(I .b: l CUT SLOPE)
FIG. 5 - SUMMARY OF STABILITY ANALYSES
(1.3: I CUT SLOPE)
FIG. 6 - SUMMARY OF STABILITY ANALYSES
(I :I CUT SLOPE)
APPENDIX A -LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our preliminary slope stability evaluation
for the proposed Booth Creek Rockfall mitigation program. The purpose of our
investigation was to sample subsoils at the site, perform laboratory tests and
preliminary stability calculations, and provide our opinions of the stability of the
proposed construction. The report contains results of field and laboratory
investigations, summaries of stability calculations, our opinions and
recommendations.
This report was prepared based upon conceptual designs for the project. If
final design is accomplished, we recommend further analyses be performed to
assess the slope stability of the proposed configuration.
SITE CONDITIONS
The Booth Creek Rockfall area investigated as part of this investigation is
located north of Interstate 70 and Katos Ranch Road in East Vail, Colorado
(Fig. I). The site was identified as a rockfall hazard area in studies completed for
the Town of Vail. The hazard exists due to cliffs of Permian-age bedrock which
occur above the site, to the north. Periodically, rocks from these cliffs fall and
roll down the slope. We understand rocks have impacted one or more of the homes
along Katos Ranch Road and Booth Creek Road since 1980. The homeowners wish
to consider construction of a rockfall mitigation structure to reduce the risk of
further damage.
The slopes below the cliffs are relatively steep and gradually flatten to the
south. The upper areas slope down at about I.S:I (horizontal to vertical) and
i
-2-
flatten to about 1.7:1 and about 2:1 about 100 feet north of Katos Ranch Rood.
Our understanding of site geology indicates the slopes were created as glaciers
retreated through the Vail Valley. The present conditions were established b~
subsequent erosion by Gore Creek and deposition of slope wash from the north. ~ht
the time of this investigation, slopes above Katos Ranch Road were covered maith
native grass and scrub vegetation with very few trees, except near the road. The
slopes to the west were vegetated with aspen, pine and native grasses.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand the proposed rockfall mitigation scheme will include a trench
and berm structure constructed on the hillside, to the north of the exis#ing
residences; Fig. 3 shows the conceptual berm configuration. Construction of the
proposed berm will involve excavating a trench to a depth of 8 feet below existing
site grades. This trench will be about 12 feet wide. The cut slope above the
trench will match existing grade approximately 200 feet north of the berm. You
indicated the cut slope may range from I :I (horizontal to vertical) to 1.6:1.
The berm will be constructed with the soils generated from the trench and
a.
,;;:
ti
~_
J.;
cut slope excavations. The top of the berm will be about 10 feet above existing
site grades and the downhill face will slope at 1.5:1 to a catch point on the slopes
below. The uphill face of the berm will be constructed at a I;I slope.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigations completed as part of this study included sampling of soils
from two exploratory test pits and laboratory testing of soils obtained from the
pits. The test pits were excavated at the approximate locations shown on Fig. t
-3-
with atrack-mounted backhoe. Our representative was on site during excavation
to observe soil conditions exposed in the pits, perform field density tests and
obtain samples. Test pit locations were somewhat limited by backhoe access and
the available time.
Subsurface Conditions
The subsoils exposed in the test pits can generally be described as a
matrix of silty to clayey sands surrounding gravels, scattered cobbles and
boulders. Samples were obtained by driving athin-walled metal tube (or
liner) into the soil matrix and with bulk methods. In test pit TP-I, we found
about 4 feet of dark brown, moist soils at the ground surface. These soils
were generally more clayey and silty than the underlying materials. Cobbles
and boulders up to about 4 feet in diameter were found at various depths
within the soil profile. In test pit TP-2, the moist, silty and clayey soils
extended to a depth of about S feet where drier, sand and gravel type soils
were exposed. From about 13 feet to 18 feet, a tense of cleaner, sands and
gravels was found. Cobbles and boulders up to about 4 feet in diameter were
also excavated in TP-2.
We performed field density tests using a Troxler nuclear gage during the
test pit excavations. The results of these tests are summarized on
Table A-I. In general, we found the existing soils to be of comparatively low
density; dry densities ranged from 100 to III pcf. The average wet density
from the six field tests was 114 pcf. The tests were performed in soil matrix
and results may not reflect the large rock contribution to the soil mass
density. In our opinion, wet densities of about 120 pcf should be appropriate
for the materials found in the test pits.
i
-4-
Laboratory Testing
Samples of the soils found in the exploratory test pits were returned to
our laboratory for testing. We performed grain size analyses, direct shear
tests and a modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557) compaction test. The results of
laboratory testing are presented in Appendix A. Direct shear tests on liner
samples of the near-surface silty to clayey sands and sandy silt were run at
natural moisture content. We measured sample cohesion from 350 to S00 psf
with an angle of internal friction of 34 degrees. Bulk samples from each test
pit were combined and remolded to approximate field densities for additional
direct shear tests. These tests were performed by immersing the sample in
water prior to shearing. A friction angles of 38 to 39 degrees was measured
with no apparent cohesion. In our opinion, the test results are consistent with
our experience with the soils in the Vail Valley. We believe these soils exhibit
some cohesion in a dry condition, but upon wetting the cohesion is lost and
the soils become purely frictional materials.
PRELIMINARY STABILITY ANALYSES
The analyses of slope stability focus upon determination of a "factor of
safety" which is commonly defined as the ratio of the available shear strength of
the soil to the shear strength required to bring the slope to incipient failure.
When forces are considered, "factor .of safety" is defined as the sum of forces
resisting failure divided by the sum of forces tending to cause failure. These
definitions imply that slopes with a factor of safety greater than one are "safe".
The actual safety of a slope is influenced by many variables and it is virtually
i
-5-
impossible to fully evaluate the variables. Thus, "factor of safety" must be
viewed as a qualitative measure of mass stability. Most slope structures are
designed for factors exceeding 1.5 and slopes are generally considered suspect
when factors lower than about 1.2 are calculated.
Our stability analyses were limited to preliminary evaluations of a
conceptual berm configuration and analyses of cut slopes of 1.6:1, 1.3:1 and 1:1.
The results of the stability analyses are summarized on Figs. 3 through 6. The
analyses were completed using the computer program Stabl. This program uses a
Modified Bishop solution procedure and circular failure surfaces. For our
analyses, we assumed the existing materials and the proposed berm fill would have
similar shear strength properties. This assumption is somewhat conservative in
that we believe the berm materials will most likely have slightly higher strength.
We varied cohesion from 0 to 250 and 500 psf and angle of internal friction from
33 to 35 and 37 degrees for each configuration. Our experience and the laboratory
test results indicate the natural soils under dry conditions could exhibit an
apparent cohesion and friction in the lower portion of the range. When the soils
are wetted, the apparent cohesion is lost and the soils behave as "friction only"
materials.
Our preliminary analyses of the conceptual berm configuration was based
upon topography at Sta. 6+00 and our interpretation of the conceptual berm based.
upon verbal communications with Banner Associates. The critical failure surface
for cohesion of 250 psf and a friction angle of 37 degrees is shown on Fig. 3
(calculated factor of safety 1.59). A Table on the figure summarizes the critical
safety factors for paired combinations of friction and cohesion. The safety
factors reported represent the minimum value obtained from 16 different failure
surfaces through the slope configuration.
-6-
The results of cut slope analyses are presented on Figs. 4 through 6. Since
the precise horizontal extent of cut slopes was not provided, we limited the
horizontal extent of the failure surface to 160 feet. The critical failure surface
for cohesion of 250 psf and friction angle of 35 degrees is shown on these figures.
A table on each figure- also summarizes additional analyses for the cut
configurations.
DISCUSSION
The results of our preliminary stability analyses indicate marginally stable
conditions for strength parameters in the lower range of those evaluated. The
calculations generally showed that slopes should be relatively stable, as long as
the soils maintain their cohesive, characteristics. If the soils become wetted, it is
likely some failures could occur. The proposed cut slope of I:I (horizontal to
vertical) does not produce a reliably safe slope regardless of soil strength
parameters considered.
We believe it is possible to construct the berm as conceived, provided the
fill is properly benched into the existing slope and adequate drainage measures are
provided to limit infiltraton of surface runoff into the soils below the berm.
The cut slope analyses generally indicated slopes steeper than about 1.6:1
become marginally safe when no cohesion is assumed. We believe the cut slopes
planned involve higher comparative risk than the berm fill. It may be possible to
compact the surface of the cut slopes while limiting their steepness to improve
performance. Revegation or artificial reinforcement of the cut slopes and use of
man-made retaining structures above the trench and berm may also be possible.
-7-
Summary
I. Analyses and our experience indicate the berm fill of 10 feet is
comparatively safe. The fill should be benched into the existing
slopes. Surface drainage .from slopes to the north must be
positively controlled to minimize infiltration of water into the
berm and underying soils.
2. We believe the cut slopes planned involve risk of slope failures. if
possible, they should be eliminated and an import fill used. Cut
slopes steeper than 1.6:1 involve comparatively high risk of
failures.
LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared based upon preliminary concepts of the proposed
construction and limited stability analyses. The slope stability of alternative
construction should be checked during final preparation of drawings.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with Banner and Associates on this
project. Please call if we can answer any questions or be of further service.
CTL/THO
!/ '\
Ronald M,
Reviewed
~~
~~
Robert W.
President
RMM:RWT:gI
(3 copies sent)
~,
lows o uai "
75 south frontage road
vail, Colorado 81657
(303)476-7000
department of public works/transportation
TO: RON PHILLIPS
FROM : STAN BERRYMAN ~'" - "
DATE: JULY 7, 1988
RE: EXPANDED OUTLYING ROUTE BUS SERVICE
~r
VAIL 1989
CURRENT PRACTICES
During the off season (April 18 - November 15), we operate two
outlying bus routes:
West Vail North/South (combined)
East Vail/Sandstone (combined)
Hours of operation, seven days a week:
7:00 A.M. - 10:00 A.M. (3 hours)
3:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. (4 hours}
We have operated this off season schedule for several years. We
have also had several requests to expanded service, but ridership
has not been adequate to justify the significant cost of providing
additional service.
RIDERSHIP HISTORY
Outlying routes combined:
March 1987 161,803
April 56,132
May 4,055
June 4,538
July 6,965
August 6,063
September 4,687
October 4,788
November .28,179
December 131,027
MEMORANDUM TO RON PHILLIPS
JULY 6, 1988
PAGE 2
January 1988 148,182
February 130,504
March 157,479
Off season monthly average (May-October)
Off season daily average (5,182/30)
O f f season hourly average (17 2/ 5 )
Off season average cost/passenger
($25 x 2/34.4)
COST OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SERVICE
= 5,182/month
= 172/day
= 34.4 passengers/hour
_ $1.45/passenger trip
7:00 A.M. - 12:00 A.M. (18 hours service)
11 hours of additional service
x 2 outlying routes x 13 days
(every Saturday and Sunday in
August through Labor Day) x
$25/hour/bus = $7,150
Two additional bus drivers would need to be hired to provide this
level of service for weekends August 6 through Labor Day.
Additional costs will be incurred by mechanic call-out in the event
of breakdown.
RECOMMENDATION
Continue exiting level of off season service (7 hours/day).
SB/njm
Planning and Environmental Commission
July il, 1988
2:15 PM Site Visits
3:00 PM Public Hearing
1. A request for setback variances and a stream setback
variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 10,
Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filling.
Applicant: Robert Gunn
2. A request for exterior alteration at the Hill
Building located on Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Blanche Hill
TO BE TABLED 3 • A request for an exterior alteration and for side and
stream setback variances in order to expand the
existing dining room and add an exterior deck at the
Up the Creek Restaurant located in the Creekside
Building.
Applicant: Up the Creek Restaurant
4. A request to amend Section 18.52 of the Municipal
Code regarding parking requirements.
Applicant: Town of Vail
~,
~;
lowo a uai
75 south frontage road
vail, Colorado 81657
(303)476-7000
office of the town manager
TM:
t
S
'.
VAIL 1989
July 7, 1988
Editor
Summit County Journal
P. 0. Box 98
Breckenridge, Colorado 80424
Dear Editor:
R,
Leigh Girvin Yule's column of Wednesday, June 29, 1988 on Vail's
handling of the Ride the Rockies event came as a saddening surprise to
' most of us who live and work in the Vail/Beaver Creek area.
,, .,
I think all resort communities are aware they have shortcomings. But we
do not increase our desirability to the guest by degrading other
communities. I think the differences in resort towns in the Colorado
mountains are a great asset for all of us in that we fill certain niches
in the tourism market and attract various people to different
communities because of those differences. Emphasizing differences in
order to make our own community sound better than another is not the way
to communicate to our visitors the many diverse resort activities and
outdoor experiences available in our mountain towns and counties..
In respect to Ms. Yule's comments concerning Vail's accommodations for
Ride the Rockies, we as a community were eager to welcome the riders.
The upper bench of Ford Park was specifically reserved for the riders.
The locals willingly opted to give up their use of the softball fields
in order to prov:i,de a grassy camping site for the riders with easy
access to dining, shopping, and entertainment. An evening concert and
barbecue was scheduled at the Amphitheater in an attempt to offer a fun
activity to our cycling guests. Breakfast was served at a local lodge
which was an easy walk for riders before they began their bike trip.
The breakfast fare of muffins, granola, assorted fruits, yogurt and
juices was planned to provide riders with a high carbohydrate, low-fat
breakfast at low cost which could also be packed to take along if they
'' ~.
Editor, Summit County Journal
July 7, 1988
Page 2
chose to do so. Muffins and juices were provided at the top of Fremont
Pass as a service to riders. The organizing committee's planning for
the event was based on trying to provide the best service possible for
"Ride the Rockies".
The Town of Uail has a very close working relationship with the Towns of
Breckenridge, Dillon and Silverthorne through the Colorado Association
of Ski Towns. We enjoy our associations together and learn much from
each other. There are many residents in both Eagle and Summit Counties
who go back and forth for recreation, entertainment and shopping and
find that interdependence and cooperation are the best ways to coexist
in our mountain environment. Eagle County does not have a bowling alley
and Summit County does not have an indoor ice arena, so we use each
other's facilities. Breckenridge has a unique mining history which
gives the town a very special character. Vail is known for its European
style and international influence. Keystone is a relatively new
community without a strong historic base like Breckenridge, but that
does not affect its standing as a lovely and pleasurable resort
destination. Many other positive statements could be made about our
various ski towns and counties. The point is that none of these factors
makes one area better than the other or deserves criticism from one
county to another.
I would hope our mountain communities could find reasons to work
cooperatively and be supportive of each other in a fragile industry such
as tourism, rather than looking for reasons to be critical and
alienating one another as was done in the Yule article. I suggest that
we all strive for excellence in our communities with the acknowledgment
that our neighboring counties and towns are unique and valuable in their
own ways.
Since e ,
~ .~,~~ ,
~~ -~-~~
Rondal9 U. Phillip~~
;,,~:-, Town Manager
t
RUP/bsc
~.
.:~
~1~~-,i~v' ~~~~-t ~2~~- .
` ^ - - .,, ~..~..~,, co„+c~ot . worinesdav: June 29,1988 - - - ~ - -
- t
. ,. , .:;
r ~ ~~.: ,,..., °.- .' ° ..; , ._.~W ,~... _. sionaires raced to the top of Fremo;x Chambe[ appemngs
This is not a ease of Vatl-bashing. dicative of the underlying attitudes of
.
' 2 ~ .; ~s~ ; , -'
~ y
~
~ Pass to try to peddle their leftovers.
This is an attempt to examine the
e - " . _ ,;
the residents °:
:The riders were-thrilled that all their ~
;_ ~ , ,,;
;
~~ "'' Frisco and Summit County,; ott the
did it right. W~ were sin-
other hand Tn~ monthly Eggs and Issues
tast meeting is set -for Wednes-
~,~at
ways that we in Summit County ar
ent from our neighbors to the ~
diff
facilities to Summit County were cen-
~ _
~„ ~ ~. ,
sitive to their needs and went out of .
u1.. July 6, at 8 a.m. at the Hvlid2y
•
er
t -- namely Vail/Beaver Creek. ~ they needed ~.
trolly located. Everything
' ~,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' our way to make them feel ,welcome.; Inn.' Frisco.. Steve Shoe of the ~ i
wes
" ° 1 ~
-- a grassy field for camping, three G
~ ~ Though Vail didn't `handle Ride the Gec;getown Loop Railroad will
u'e know we are different. vms in case of rain,~showers,
roomy g, ~ ~,
,
''
~ " they are doing something
Rockies well dt~cus; how. the historic narrow ~u~ „
We don't #tave the money They do. ~
h even swimming -were available at the
~ ~
l
h ~ ~,
A
-
~"
~~
~
N ,
-
light -- Vail was Colorado's moat
railroadis an attraction that beneie~s :-
ops,
We don't have the expensive s s.
oo
Summit High and Middle Sc
ha ,
- ~
.
r~x
~.
; ~~ popular individual S~uea once again- Summit County.
fancy restaurants, million-dollar man- t
;.:.They were grateful for tote food t ~
,
~. Wealth begets wealth and those who ^ ~ 0 ~
sions, and movie star cache. We also greeted them .when they arrived and _
idolize it ~- witness TV's "Life~r~lcs of
Meet the candidates far Summi:
don't have the snobbery and elitism ,
F impressed with the shuttle system that _
' the Rich and Famous." County Commissioner on Jay 18, at
they are known for. ~: brought them into Frisco br to their
_ ~
" by Lelgh G~fVln Yule
Everything we may consider unapt the Holiday [nn, Frisco `The luncl•~~r
_
W'e do have regular folk, friendly
'= '' ~~
lodging.
reciative of the ~
people manning the showers figured
petizing about Vail, they deem an
forum from 11:30 to 1 34 wIIl givz
members the oppurtunuy to question
communities, and the kinds of services
ities that make ordinary peo-
a And they were app
hearty breakfast of pancakes, eggs, no one was coming and closed them asset. They are rich; we are middle
They are elite; we are bourgeois.
ss
l the candidates on their position on the
i
men
and
ple feel at home here. ~ sausage, cereal, coffee and juice that .
5 down. At least one group of riders
sponge baths in a public
took .
a
c
And while they~have Polo and Pepi's, ssues
role of the Chamber, and other
Invitations will be matle<.t
of concern
Granted, these are gross generaliza- a.m.
was ready for them at 4:1
arently Vail was not so welcom-
A .
-
restroom. Brooke Shields and Bob Hope, we
'
d
h .
to all members shortly.
lions. Not everyone in Vail is a rich PP
ing. And the riders were more than Rumor has it that the reggae band
'
` t.
on
ey
have a lot t
not invented
«e have real towns
-
d not ever one in Summit
snob an Y
County isn't. But there is an underly- happy to tell us about it.
there was
to the hearsay
din
o
A enter-
the riders
that-was provided for,
tainment was actually a nuisance. ,
ones. We have history, not marketing.
ac-
h
l L~i~h Girvin Yule will be workis<
'
ing truth to the stereotype.. ,
g
r
cc
no food when the hungry riders arriv- Most of the riders wanted to go to
d
l o
e w
~Ve have real, friendly peop
live here and work to make the
all
t pith trig Summit County Chambe' 1=
t
What prompted this examination is ed in Vail after 100 hot miles from on
aye
.bed by 9:30 and the band p
m
il 11 y
u
community grow. o
Corrr~terce through the summer,
r
the rave reviews we received durin
g
Ride the Rockies, and the pans that
'Steamboat. -
Y
The showers were 10 miles awa
. ,
p.
unt
The breakfast oµ jute ane
tt so s
SumsmitlCounty forwall theeVails in the
,-~~-~
~ hertprojectts. He8 colum;~wi~hr
-`
Vail received. The reception the riders
i
i
i from their campsite and the first shut-
the
that time
B
6 ntl
that Vatl offered as pp Y
unpopular that the breakfast conces-
~ world. - - tu-ic,. ;aenthly.
n-
s
es
got in each of the communit :
,
y
p.m
tle left after _.___
D
• y Meeker ~ ,'
2_._..,
.;Y
_ E~g,e Du!on
~a~r,r1a;e
tCtti t~i2 1"d't;itB t~.IVt (.~`a3';G,~"~~;{ Ki(25t
t' `SL 1. F?~ ;3 -~.~:~n
c; !
~ yr _
~~ ~~o:~~ S~r~n~s. CO Relaase Qate: July 1, 1988 (~'Q,~~. ' S
~':5~2 Contact: Wi 1 T i am Wood
(3U3}, 945-2521
R,r+P3;~En e?iSTpit.; r ~
~A~~rr~ ' ~" A Decision Notice has been issued by the White River National
c~:~ha~xF; Forest Supervisor for construction of a powerline across
asU~'"`.~:ai'~!~`r National Forest land north of Avon and Uail, Colorado. The
~'`"''~ 'b1` 115KV transmission line would be constructed by Holy Cross
~~'' s?s_ ~4' Electric Association to assure a back up "1 oop" for el ectri c
~W~~~
;;;,;~~ -arr~Fr power to the communities of Avon and Vai 1.
?33 'Azsn 34.
~~•-~r'~~~ The Decision Notice follows the preparation of an Environmental
~~~p~~r, ~c ~:,al Assessment Re ort recentl
a~aES~~_4~,=;:~ p y prepared for the project. Copies
of the Report are available for review at the Holy Cross
i/!~«y Ranger District Office, 401 Main Street, Minturn, Colorado 8165.
4 S~" ~ `~y`'6~`' Inquiries may be directed to Bi 11 Wood, District Ranger or
lul Y.. jaa" Bob Pool e,
~~ ~co ~, h ~.~;; District Staff Officer. The phone number for the
t~~~~ss-~~~~~ District Office is (303) 827-5715.
~.:~;~~<
r"~-~~. ~ ax _~
c~t?e, CCt 8I£3
=3L'3~ 3d8-C3~.3
i.1t~Li~ i~?~0::~
~`J.Z: 8C% C1
;1.'+~turZ, G~ 81645
s3C3j ~"c?-571; .
Vii, ~ F
n:~-irici Bargee _
~', k~cew. Rd.
°.u: Box 289'
~.i?ie, Cc~ 8i6~C'
~L'' 62~-23%i
"OPR1S"
Uis~rict ;ar,~ar
~.G Bax [:~
r.~,l,^r;:~a'F, CG Ft1623.
'1C3i c~-22fi3
Try ~ `~~~~Y
'v'Ir
~;;?, 9u3-~3~;G
!~
~;,~;
.r. ~- 6
..t ;...: ~..
^ey~M~~
DECISION NOTICE
AND
FINDING OF NO SIGi1IFICAIQT IMPACT
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION 115 KV TRANSMISSION LZNE
Eagle County, Colorado
USDA, Forest Service
Holy Cross District - White River National Forest
The Environmental Assessment which discusses the construction of a 115 KV
transmission line from the Beaver Creek substation to the Vail substation on
the White River National Forest in Eagle County has been completed. The
Assessment is available for public review at the Holy Cross Ranger District at
Minturn, the White River National Forest Supervisor's office, and the Holy
Cross Electric Association at Eagle-Vail, and the Holy Cross Electric
Association at Glenwood Springs.
Based on the analysis and evaluation described in the Environmental Assessment,
it is my decision to adopt Alternative B for a 115 KV transmission line across
nine miles of National Forest. This alternative, with specified mitigation
measures, provides the best combination of physical, biological. and
recreational benefits. The permitting process for Eagle County and the Town of
Avon recognizes Alternative B as best to serve the needs of local publics.
Alternative B was selected as having the least visual impact of the three
alternatives. It also crosses the least amount of deer and elk winter range
and the preferred route to the Colorado Division of Wildife.
Alternatives to the proposed project include No Action and two other powerline
routes.
The following mitigation measures are required:
1. A written agreement will be obtained from the land exchange proponent
to cross the selected Buck .Creek tract.
2. The permit granted to allow this use will include a clause containing
the following salient points:
Construction Plan
Prior to beginning construction of the transmission line. the Holder
shall prepare a site specific construction plan for approval by the
Forest Supervisor which will contain the following:
(1) General line location via ground or air reconnaissance - probably
Forest Officer and Holder together.
(2) Preliminary tower location. Could be done by Holder only. Tower
leveling will not be allowed.
(3) The location, size, and number of structure sites, crane pads,
assembly sites (individual or groups), storage areas,-pull sites,
helispois, and others.
(4) Towers which will include design style and number. Tower
structures and sites will be designed to conform with the
terrain. Leveling and benching on the tower sites will not be
allowed.
{5) The location of the roads (including type), trail, or other
access needed. Unless programed for .future .forest management
such as timber sales, no new roads will be built.
a. Constructed leveled earth equipment platforms for the use of
cranes in the assembly, erection, and stringing of the
transmission line will be allowed at the end of temporary
spur roads, if the roads are available. The crane platform
locations will be identified in the site specific plan.
(6) Provisions for tree topping, tree removal, skid trails, wood
chipping areas, slash burning areas. log and firewood decks lop .
and scatter slash areas.
(7) Clearing boundaries and other vegetative treatment shall be
'designated in the plan, marked on the ground and approved by the
designated Forest Officer for each segment prier to clearing
operations on that segment. Vegetative .clearing .around the
transmission tower structure site shall not exceed twenty (20)
feet from the perimeter of any transmission structure.
I have determined that this action would not significantly affect the quality
of the human environment; therefore an environmental impact statement is
unnecessary.
The determination was made considering the following factors:
1. There are no known threatened or endangered- resources within the
affected area.
2. There are.no identified adverse, cumulative. or secondary effects from
this proposal.
3. There are "no irreversible resource commitments resulting from this
project.
4. Potential on-site erosion will be mitigated.
5. Visual management system for utilities will be used to protect scenic
values.
6. Water quality will not be degraded.
Implementation of the action may take place immediately.
My decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 211.18, as revised on
November 19, 1986. To initiate an appeal, a written notice of appeal must be
filed with me at White River National Forest, P.O. Box 948, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado within 45 days from the date of this decision. A statement of reasons
to support the appeal and any request for a oral presentation must be submitted
within the 45-day filing period.
- ~ ~ ~~
. HOOTS Da e
orest Supervisor
~, ~~_
~, ~
T '~ ~ ~
~~,.
s~
World Alpine !>t~B• 1989 WORLD ALPINE
Ski Championships •q~ SKI CHAMPIONSHIPS
Vail, Colorado 81658 VAIL/BEAVER CREEK
303-476-9500 r~c
Telex 910-920-3183
CONFIDENTIAL PENDING VVF FORMAL RELEASE
X89 LINE #012
July 5, ly$8
RECD J U L - ?1988
JOHIJ DIiJVLR JOIidS WORLD CHAi~iPIONSHIPS CONCERT SERIES
LINEUP
John Denver, the man who musically helped to put
Colorado in the international spotlight, has agreed to
become part of the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships
concert series. Denver will help kick off the
two-week festivities with a concert on Sunday evening,
January 29, at Dobson Ice Arena as well as performing
tYle national anthem along with several other musical
offerings during the World Championships Opening
Ceremonies earlier in the evening at Golden Peak.
Denver joins internationally renowned concert
violinist Itzrlak Perlman as part of the World
Championships concert series. The final concert in
the three-event series will feature a current rock
superstar and will be held Saturday, February 11.
Information concerning the final concert and series
ticket sales will be forthcoming.
ror more details, contact Bob Knous
President, Organizing Committee
198y world Alpine Ski Champions'rlips
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
JULY 6, 1988
3:00 P.M.
12:30 to 1:30 Public Art Worksession
SITE VISITS
1:30 p.m.
8 1. Alverde Residence - remodel details
Approved as built - no motion required
6 2. Born Free Express
Tabled
3. D'nairi Fur Sign
Vail Village Inn Plaza
Motion: Leary
Second: Riva Approved 3-0
1 4. Molloy Addition
Cottonwood Townhomes
Motion: Leary
Second: Riva Aproved 3-0
7 5. Wisenbaker/Hamilton Addition
Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village 1st
Motion: Leary
Second: Riva Approved 3-0
9 6. Gralino Residence
Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn 1st
Motion: Leary
Second: Riva, Approved 3-0
7. Corona Cafe Awning & Signage, Mountain Haus,
Vail Village
Motion: Leary
Second: Riva, Approved 3-0
3 8. Solar Vail - repaint of building
Lot 8, Potato Patch
Tabled to 6/20/88
5 9. Lions Pride - repaint of building
Lionshead
Motion: Leary
Second: Riva, approved 3-0
2 10. Meyer Residence Garage Addition
Lot 1, Potato Patch (conceptual review)
Cancelled
10 11. Berger Remodel & Garage Addition
Lot 5, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision
Consent approval
12. Betty Ford Alpine Garden: Phase II Mountain
Perennial Garden, Ford Park
Consent approval for garden design
Sign: Motion Leary, second, Riva, 3-0 approved with
condition that staff review final design
MEMBERS PRESENT
Leary
Riva
warren
MEMBERS ABSENT
Gwathmey
Saute
STAFF APPROVALS:
Charlie's T-Shirts - New Window
SHAPINS/MOSS
Planners/Landscape Architects
June 30, 1988
Mr. Jim Bragdon
District Traffic Engineer
Department of Highways District I I I
P.O. Box 2107
222 So. Sixth St., Rm. 317
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502
Re: Town of Yeil Phase One Slgnage Improvements
Dear Jim ,
Thank you for vlslting with us to describe the current status of CDOH involvement concerning the
Town of Vail Interstate and Frontage Road Signs. I discussed your wmmenis with Stan Berryman
and we would like the Colorado Department of Highways to prepare the final signege drawings end
specifications as soon es possible. Although you mentioned that the Denver Sign Shop may be able
to start the protect in mid- August/6 weeks, we would hope that you may be able to begin them
sooner.
Based upon our discussions and input from the Town of Veil, the following modifications will be
acceptable:
1. Eliminate the "?" and "P"symbols for "Information" and "Parking" on all signs.
2. Add "Tourist" to the two Information end Parking signs along the interstate( Sign ~`3)
All other signs with "Information" should remain the same.
3. We would like CDOH to keep the same color scheme as proposed for ail signs. We d7nat
want the colors split for Information and Parking.
4. Space will be left on sign ~ 1 for the Town to provide artwork for the Yeii logo.
The symbol changes ere lndtcated in the revised preliminary graphics enclosed herein.
We appreciate your continued assistance and support for this protect, and look forward to seeing
this project completed. We believe that the Town has developed a program that will ease
circulation in the Town.
Sin rely,
Jerry Shapins,ASIA
ce Stan Berryman,John Kjos
1871 Folsom, Suite 205, Boulder, CO 80302
303-449-8831
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
June , 1988
~~/1~~:~ ~ ~~o er3 C~
Prepared By:
Ampersand Studios, Inc., Graphic Design
Shapins/Moss, Inc., Urban Design, Planning, Landscape Architecture
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Recommended Sign Symbols
.y
International Symbols:
Source: The American Institute of Graphic Arts
i~
Camera ready art work for AIGA International symbols
and Vail Logo are available from Ampersand Studios
315 St Paul Street Denver, Co 388-1211
Vail Logo
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 1
Sign Color: Green
Message: Logo, Vail Town Limits,
Elevation 8600 ft
Location: Eastbound/Westbound Town
Entries I-70
Number Signs: 2
Comments/Criteria:
• Apply Logo/Color
• Center Logo
• Coordinate with Vail Associates
• Vail Town Limits lettering larger
White Logo on green background
/~
Vail Town Limits
Elevation 8600 ft
Alternative
to outline with Black and blue logo
Vail Town Limits
Elevation 8600 ft
White copy on a preen badcpround
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 2
Sign Color: Green
Message: Vail, Next 3 Exits
Location: Eastbound/Westbound Town
Entries I-70
Number Signs: 2
Comments/Criteria:
• Coordinate Location with Sign 1
Vail
NEXT 3 EXITS
~Ct/f'I G~~
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 3
Sign Color: Blue
Message: Information, Parking, Next
Right
Location: Westbound I-70
Number Signs: 1
Comments/Criteria:
• Locate as shown on map
• Relocate existing signs as shown on
map
Information
Parking
NEXT RIGHT
Information
and Parking
NEXT RIGHT
Alternative Copy
Town of Vail
` Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 4
Sign Color: Green
Message: < East Vail, Bighorn Road
Location: Exit 180 Westbound Ramp
Number Signs: 1
Comments/Criteria:
• Locate in relation to Parking/
Information signs
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 5
Sign Color: Blue
Message: < Information, Parking (>)
Location: Exit 180 Westbound
Ramp (1)
Exit 176 Westbound Ramp (1)
Exit 173 Eastbound Ramp (1)
Number Signs: 3
Comments/Criteria:
• Apply symbols
• Consider 45 degree arrow at
Exit 180 ramp
• Remove other confusing Guide
Signs as required
OOO ~~ pit
Exit 180 Westbound Ramp
Exit 176 Westbound Ramp
Exit 173 Eastbound Ramp
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 5A
Sign Color: Blue
Message: < Information. Parking
Location: Exit 173 Eastbound at
Frontage Rd.
Number Signs: 1
Comments/Criteria:
• Apply symbols
• Remove other confusing Guide
Signs as required
J
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 6
Sign Color: Blue
Message: < Information, Parking >
Location: Exit 176 4 Way Interchange
at Frontage Rd.
Number Signs: 1
Comments/Criteria:
• Apply symbols
• Be able to cover left turn parking
arrow when Village Structure is full
• Remove other confusing Guide
Signs as required
Altertnative Layout .
Information
Parking
~-,
~_J
Cover for left Wm arrow
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs .
Sign Code Number: 7
Sign Color: Blue
Message: ^ Information, Parking
Location: Westbound Frontage Road
(2)
Eastbound Frontage Road (2-4)
Number Signs: 4-6
Comments/Criteria:
• Apply symbols i~
• Remove other confusing Guide
Signs as required
• Sign to reinforce route to parking/ •
information
• Consider use of "P" and "?" symbols
only to reinforce route and to
minimize excessive signage
~.
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 8
Sign Color: Blue
Message: < Information (>)
Location: Westbound Frontage Road
(2)
Eastbound Frontage Road (2)
Number Signs: 4
Comments/Criteria:
• Apply symbol
• Remove other confusing Guide
Signs as required
(~ Information
C
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 9
Sign Color: Blue
Message: <Parking (>)
Location: Westbound Frontage Road
2
Eastbound Frontage Road (2)
Number Signs: 4
CommentslCriteria:
• Apply symbols
• Remove other confusing Guide
Signs as required
• One Westbound sign at Village
Structure to have changeable arrow
to change from (<) to (>) '
Changeable Arrow
«.
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 10
Sign Color: Green
Message: Vail Village, 2 Miles;
LionsHead, 3 Miles; Cascade Village,
4 Miles
Location: Westbound Frontage Road
Number Signs: 1
Comments/Criteria:
• Consider Location to Minimize
Aesthetic Impact to Golf Course
Vail Village 2
LionsHead 3
Cascade Village 4
.u
Town of Vail
Phase One Signage Improvements
Standard CDOH Signs
Sign Code Number: 11
Sign Color: Blue
Message: < Outlying Free
Skier Parking (>)
Location: Westbound Frontage Road
(1)
Eastbound Frontage Road (1)
Number Signs:2
Comments/Criteria:
• Remove other confusing Guide
Signs as required
Outlying Free
Skier Parking
"'~`,.
enm~i
E. Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657
BUSINESS BOOKED IN MAY 1988
Group Arrival
Adolf Coors (LB) Jun'88
Unit Nights
28
C4 Assoc. of County Treas.(SW) Jun' 88 320
Strombus (SW) Jun' 88 510
Lear Data Tnfo Serv.(SW) Jun' 88 30
Bridge Creek Travel (SW) Jun' 88 12
Starstruck (LB) Jul' 88 112
Hill Family Reunion(LE} Jul' 88 24
Coopers & Lybrand (JS) Jul' 88 140
Central Soya (JS} Jul' 88 200
Judy Peil Travel (LB} Jul' 88 30
Council of State Gov't(SW) Jul' 88 750
Ford Motor Co. (SW) Jul' 88 66
Unipec (JS) _ Jul' 88 40
University of So. Calif (S~d) Jul' 88 300
Coopers & Lybrand #2 (JS) Aug' 88 150
Honeywell Inc. (JS) Aug' 88 175
Meadow Country Club (LB) A.ug' 88 52
Porter Memorial Hosp. {SW) Aug' 88 120
Administrative Health Mgmt. (JS) Dec' 88 175
Attorneys Title (JS) Feb' 89 210
F.cofing Industries (JS) Apr' 89 80
CEtiTR.~L RFSFR~'f~ TIONS • (3031 4.6~So; 1 3 5 2 4
i`1ARi<ETItiG CI-iAti?E?FR SFk'JICES • (30:i~ ~1,6.1Q00 • Denver Line 595.9383
Commission
207
1920
3740
189
39
364
120
1053
1160
98
4500
575
300
2400
1050
1663
524
1068
1575
3675
544
5 26,764
Gam)
~.~
u~
~'v ~,
241 E. Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657
BUSINESS BOOKED JUNE 1 - 17, 1988
GROUP ARRIVAL ROOM NIGHTS COMMISSION
Mountain Bell(SW) Jun' 88 15 $ 93
Battle Mtn. High(LB) Jun' 88 40 168
Mt. Washington Turtles(SW) Jun' 88 25 278
Cramm Family (LB) Jul' 88 21 95
Vulcan Binder(LB) Jul' 88 150 819
Desente America(SW) P.ug' 88 48 734
River City Renegdes (LB ) Nov' 88 16 280
Swim & Ski Travel(LB) Dec' 88 49 627
Deerbrook Travel(LB) Dec' 88 42 546
Tennessee Ski E:~press (LB) Jan' 89 70 1400
Carmel Country Club(LB) Feb' 89 70 1103
Skull Retail Mgmt.(JS) Mar' 89 75 1238
621 $ 7381
CFNTR,~L RSSERVATlON5 • (303) ~3'ti~5ti~?
M:~RI~;EETIVG. Cf-ir1`if3EfZ Si=nl'ICES • i30;;) •l~ti 1000 • D~tnver Lire 595.9~3SS
~EC'~ JUL 1 1 1988
July 7, 1988 355 Mill Creek Circle
Vail; Colorado 81657
TOWN OF VAIL
Planning & Environmental Commission
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Attention: Mr. Thomas Braun
Dear Sirs:
With regard to the recent requests for variances by
residents of Mill Creek Circle, we strongly believe
that the single-family residential aspect of this
area should be preserved. We oppose variances that
would encroach on the set-back requirements both of
roads and of streams.
Mill Creek itself is a watercourse on which we have
witnessed flooding in the past with r.he realization
that it will get much worse in some future storms.
The Town recognizes this risk. We built an addition
to our house far from the creek, in fact, on the
opposite side of the existing house from Mill Creek
and we were required by the Town to sign a waiver ab-
solving them of any damage if our addition were
carried away by flooding, mudslides, or whatever.
Thus, to encroach on the watercourse itself would
surely be imprudent. (Copy of Hold-Harmless Agreement
enclosed.)
We are also opposed to developments on Mill Creek
Circle such as *he multi-family .,,,,,.~i.ro~itie~ that
have gone up on~Forest and Rockledge Roads. Vail
will be a more attractive place, and will be less
criticized for over-development, if it maintains at
least one attractive single-family residential area.
Again, we urge you to reject variances that will lead
to over-development.
Sincerely,
Gli
rraine ~. i ie
r I~
Harle G. i ie,~ Tr.^
cmm
Enclosure /
cc: Vail Town Council t/
R~C'n JUL 1 1 1988
RE LEAS E
AND
HOLD-HARiI-ILESS AGREEh~ENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that prior to the. receipt
of the building permit for the construction of
on certain property located within the Town of
Vail and more particularly described as
he has reviewed the official hazard map for the Town of Vail and
further acknowledges that said structure is located in a geologic
hazard area.
In exchange for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good-and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
undersigned for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns, does hereby release, discharge, waive and .
convey unto the Town of Vail all rights of action, either legal or
equitable which the undersigned, his heirs, executors, administra-
tors, successors, and assigns may have now or hereafter from the
action of the undersigned, his successors and assigns in building
said structure pursuant to said building permit.
The undersigned further agrees to indemnify and hold the Town
harmless against any_and all damages to property or injuries to
or death of any person or persons and shall defend, indemnify and
hold harmless the city from any and all. claims, demands, suits,.
actions or proceedings of any kind or nature of and by anyone whom-
soever in any way resulting out of the construction of said
structure pursuant to said building permit.
/ ~
r•
Harley G. Higb , Jr.
~~1C~lJyLL ~• ~ L~
Lorraine N. Higbie
August 14, 1984
~~
THE DENVER POST
~'' "`. ' ,
• ~ • ~ .:er rec ce ers oost ~~ rev - n
~~ a~ .~~... a ues
SyaCa,Inny~~Kibben , • cading waterfalls,. fountains, huge: was three times higher than fpr the , generally replaced smaller; .less
ot!*~t~9,~. slides, ro e swin and eve
siatr.w~~~eF. p gs. ~ picnic:; same period in 1986. Revenues for elaborate centers.. But in some
" Ritzy riew ~"super centers" high= areas. , " ~. the first six. ,months of1988 were cases, districts had iip centers" at
]ightedbydazzling swimming pools ;:.:The. centers also boast of tubs,., $93,036, Compared.t9. $51,386 for the , .all.
are d~awing~ crowds to suburban :saunas, .steam ,rooms, and .a, vari-. same period last year. , ~ ~ The super centers are built with.
public recreatioi~~.districts,•boost- sty of other recreational of Brings. ~ When.the pool at,:Englewood's 3- taxpayer."money anal supporteci`by
ntg revenues and' jolting the pri- But Haines., acknowled ed that year..-ald facility had tq be. closed user fees. They represent an effort
vats health club industry. "the indoor play pool is the..,big_. _for two months fpr maintenance, by recreation districts to become
Aulea$t nine smiIlhoneeach~ have li sW: because it caters o fame- "attendance dropped, throughout more self-supporting. ~.,::
P $ , ,~ ," ;. the whole 'center, :'said director; k : "parks :;i and; recreation"!has:
sprun~p ;~+ithin' a 60-mile radius. Westminster's ,center; which Ken Ballard. ~°`` ~ n - ~ changed its philosophy," said=B~1;.
of Denver-iii the lastlive.years:."~ opened`in late' 1986, dre 279,000 Other super centers are in Boul- lard. _ fi,~,~
Tb~~:-makes Colorado. the na- .;people last year. He specul ted the der, Castle Rock, .Commerce City, ;, "Traditionally, it was seryicez=
tipn's~~leader.., n the .'concept. center's thiec-tiered pool .as .re- Fort Collins;' ;Gree~ey~ and Love- "~: oriented and never operated in, tie
"There •is no such concentration sponsible for much of th atten- 'land. black. Now, because of ,the econa-
anywhere in•,the country,".:said. dance. ~~ ~" Recreation 'officials from 2I my and short dollar,; we are inte>-
Kirk :Haines su erv sor of the The South $uburbapn Re reatioy,1 states recently touxed the Cplorado ested in 'the- bottom. line. Supply_
Westmuister R.ecreati n Center. District center m Ara aho .Count facilities to ;learn' how, to model and demand has, become a matter;
The centerpieces of the facilities added a fancy pool and s a facile-; their own centers.
are indoor .pools that include cas- ties in April. Attendance in May The facilities in Colorado have '
I.
1nvL`e;r,crPost
~SPLISH, SPLASHt Westminster Recreation Center's'pool is athree-tiered design.
..T
a a e none i used to ~ build
~Y
• Y .
~uburba~i . der' rec centers
x ~~
• CENTERS from Page 1-B eriff; general manager of
Rac2
~ rld at Inv
' mitment to ..fitness ,because. they
ft
i
n
"
-for public concern. '' 1
erness.
"Bute... r ' ecurity in the pri- o
en s
gn lo
g-term
contracts.
Private club members also
"When crunch-time comes and ' vats sector, it i 'nd of intimidat- may prefer to work out in a facili-
councils look to eliminate or close ' ing to see. the things taking place ty solely for adults. that has bars
a program; if it is cost-effective,
" with taxpayers' dollars." and restaurants..
;they won'tdo that."' `'
'
_ ~ Dave Lorenz, executive direc- But super centers have proven
~•
The trend .has some private .
health club operators worried. tor at South Suburban,said a, des-
tinguishing characteristic of pri- than. many people enjoy working
out in facilities that cater to fami-
"On the one hand, I am glad to vats club patrons is that. they .lies and offer lower
. prices, recre-
see more interest in fitness," said, appear to have more of a' con- .
anon district officials say: