Loading...
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: