Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-19 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session~` Reminder: News Conference begins at 1:00 p.m. in the Administration Conference Room. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 19, i9E8 2:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Update on Progress of Vail Athletic Facility Proposal 2. Discussion of Booth Creek Rockfall Mitigation 3. Update on x989 World Alpine Ski Championships Plans 4. Information Update 5. Other Reminder: "Jews Conference begins at 1:OG p.m. in the Administration Conference Rocm. UAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1988 2:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA ?.: 00 Tim Garton 1. Update on Progress of Vail Aquatic Far_ility Proposal Action Requested of Council: Receive presentation and make comments. 2:30 Bill Cheney Stan Berryman Larry Eskwith 2. Discussion of Booth Creek Rockfall Mitigation Action Requested of Council: Direction to staff on 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 rockfali 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. Biil Cheney of Banner will make a presentation describing the status of the prcject 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. 3:00 Bob Krohn 3. Update on 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships Plans Action Requested of Council: Receive report and comment. Background Rationale: Bob Krohn will update the Council on facility plans for Uail for the World Championships. 3:20 3:25 4. Information Update 5. Other 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 IVai1, 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 he 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 100% 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 l00 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. /?~~ Bill Cheney, P. . BC/rg cc: Stan Barryman AN ANALYSIS OF THE BOOTH CREEK ROCKFALL AREA USING A OOMPUTER MODEL OF ROCKFALL BEHAVIOR by Susan H. Cannon and Bruce K. Stover PREPAREll BY THE OOLORADO 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 CREEK ROCKFALL AREA USING A COMPUTER 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. CEtSP, 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. Rn Rt Normal Tangential Coefficent Surface Coefficient Restitution Beginning Ending Cell # Roughness Low High Low High X Y X Y 1 .2 .8 .83 .28 .32 0 844 136 741 2 .2 .8 .83 .2$ .32 136 741 219 685 3 1 .83 .87 .28 .33 219 685 234 616 4 .2 .8 .83 .28 .33 234 616 604 317 5 .2 .8 .83 .28 .32 604 317 838 163 6 .75 .78 .82 .28 .32 838 163 986 96 7 .1 .8 .83 .28 .32 986 96 994 82 8 .1 .87 .92 .37 .42 994 82 1019 88 9 .1 .87 .92 .37 .42 1019 88 1028 87 10 1 .8 .83 .28 .32 1028 87 1053 74 11 1.5 .78 .83 .28 .33 1053 74 1187 34 12 1.5 .78 .83 .28 .33 1187 34 1273 22 13 .2 .78 .82 .28 .33 1273 22 1419 2 14 .1 .87 .92 .37 .42 1419 2 1504 2 Slope Materials 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.O 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) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (f t) (f t) ft/lbs 2 , 0 1 sp ere ~ ~ 5~ 4 3- ~ 1, ,0 - , ,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_ PRELLHINARY.STRUCTURE 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 1000 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-ft-high berm stopped 1000 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 bens. 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 RECONAMENDATIONS 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 C~tSP model should be used for evaluating the effectiveness of other design possibilities. -5- REFIItFNCFS 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 81 S01 Attention: Mr. Bill Cheney Job No. I S, 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 Loboratory 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.6:1 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 -2 - flatten to about 1.7:1 and about 2:1 about 100 feet north of Katos Ranch Road. Our understanding of site geology indicates the slopes were created as glaciers retreated through the Vail Valley. The present conditions were established by subsequent erosion by Gore Creek and deposition of slope wash from the north. At the time of this investigation, slopes above Katos Ranch Road were covered with 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 existing 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 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. I -3- with attack-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 I I ( 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. -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 500 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 is -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 I:I. 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. -~- 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/THOMPSON INC. ~`~~` °'°°`°a at ~x '~ ~' 043 Ronald M. McOmber P.E. • .~~o =~'~`~ Reviewed by: j~~~°•. •...~.• ~~'V Robert W. Ttiomp"~'bh, .E. President RMM:RWT:gI (3 copies sent) VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1988 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ordinance No, 20, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 8.24.On0 H Amplified Sounds of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide that in nonresidential zone districts, sound amplifying equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. 2. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.40 Special Development Districts of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado. 3. Ordinance No. 22., Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.52 of the Municipal. Code of the Town of Vaii pertaining to fees assessed for parking requirements in exempted areas. 4. Resolution No. 28, Series of 1988, a resolution setting the date for a special election to choose a Council member to fill the unexpired term of retiring Council member Gordon Pierce; and providing details in regard thereto. 5. Metzker Request to Amend the Adopted Geo-sensitive Area Debris Flow Map from Hiah to Medium Hazard in the Area of Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing 6. Vail Water Conservation Proposal CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1988 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1988, first reading, changing Larry Eskwith the hour of 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for closing down amplified sound in the Core Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: The amplified sound ordinance provides that commercial sound in non-residential neighborhoods may not be played from 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Many of the restaurants in Vail serve dinner until 10:00 p.m. and would like to be able to play amplified music for their guests during this time. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1988, on first reading. 7:45 2. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1988, first reading, repealing Tom Braun and reenacting Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code (Special Larry Eskwith Development Districts) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: These amendments are intended to clarify specific elements of the present SDD ordinance. The PEC recommended approval of the proposed amendments by a 3-1 vote. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1988, on first reading. 8:15 3. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1988, first reading, amending Tom Braun Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code pertaining to parking fees charged for exempted areas Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: This ordinance is the result of Council direction to staff to initiate the process for amending fees charged for parking in CCI and CCII. Please refer to the minutes of July 11 for the PEC's recommendation on this proposal. 8:45 4. Resolution No. 28, Series of 1988, setting the date for a Larry Eskwith special election to choose a Council member to fill the Pam Brandmeyer unexpired term of Gordon Pierce Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 28, Series of 1988. Background Rationale: Due to Gordon's announced resignation, the special election date to fill his term needs. to be officially set by resolution. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 28, Series of 1988. 8:55 5. Metzker request to amend the adopted geo-sensitive area Rick Pylman debris flow map from high to medium hazard in the area of Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the amendment as per Section 1 of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1985. Background Rationale: The owners (Metzker) of Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing, has submitted informatio n concerning the debris flow maps in the vicinity of their property. Staff Recommendation: There is no staff recommendation. 9:15 6. Uail Water Conservation Proposal Jebbie Brown Background Rationale: Jebbie Brown wishes to address the Council regarding some community based ideas for water conservation to show concern for the drought. Her ideas could mean positive publicity for Vail. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 9:40 7. Adjournment -2- ORDINANCE N0. 20 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.24.060 H AMPLIFIED SOUNDS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE THAT IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS, SOUND AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS PROHIBITED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND 8:00 A.M. OF THE FOLLOWING DAY. WHEREAS, Section 8.24.060 H 2d provides that in all other zones except residential zones, the operation or use of sound amplifying equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day; and WHEREAS, many of the restaurants located in the nonresidential zone districts of the Town of Uail continue serving dinner until 10:00 p.m. and wish to have amplified music for the entertainment of their patrons during the time they serve dinner; and WHEREAS, the Town Council does not believe that an extension of the time amplified sound is permitted in nonresidential zones from 9:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. will be detrimental to the inhabitants of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Section 8.24.060 H 2d is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.24.060 H 2d In all other zones except such portions thereof as may be included within one hundred (100) feet of any residential zone, the operation or use of sound amplifying equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. 10:00 P.M. and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall. not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections,. sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of . 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -2- ORDINANCE N0. 21 Series. of 1988 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 18.40 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the present Special .Development District ordinance of the Town of Vaii was enacted in 1978; and WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the belief that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town would be benefitted by an updating of the Special Development District ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Chapter 18.40 Special Development Districts of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado, is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows: 18.40 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Sections: 18.40.010 Purpose 18.40.020 Definitions 18.40.030 Application 18.40.040 Development Review Procedures 18.40.050 Submittal Requirements 18.40.0&0 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 PURP OSE The purpos e 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 facili tate 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 the individual unit owners if authorized in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations and all other requirements of the condominium declarations are met. 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 andlor 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 18.40.020.6.) 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. -2- E. Affected Property Property within a special development district that, by virtue of its proximity or relationship to a proposed amendment request to an approved development plan, may be affected by re-design, density increase, change in uses, or other modifications changing the impacts, 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 legal 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 this meeting shall be to discuss the goals 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 -3- 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. -4- 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 and/or other acceptable techniques for demonstrating a visual analysis of the proposed development in relationship to existing conditions. 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 and additional copies for distribution to the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council 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 plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with Section 18.40.050. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, 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. -5- 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 out lined in Section 18.52. 4. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, town. policies and urban design plans. 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. -6- 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 special development district. 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. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the Design Criteria outlined in section 18.40.080. 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 the Department of Community Development. Notification of a 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 -7- 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 property requesting 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 special development district's underlying zone district or the rate which most closely resemble the density plan for the district, whichever is greater. 18.40.120 TIME REQUIREMENTS A. The developer must begin initial 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 phases, the developer must begin construction of subsequent phases within one year of the completion of the previous phase. 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 -8- 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 Filing fee for special development district applications and requested for major amendments to approved special development districts shall be $500.00. Filing fee for minor amendments to approved special development districts shall be $100.00. Projects deemed by the Department of Community Development (and affirmed by the Town Council) to have significant design, land use or other 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 portions 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 Uail. These districts, if not commenced at the present time, shall comply with Section 18.40.120, time requirements. 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. -9- 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. .The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of . 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -10- v '' y 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. II. 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. ~• EXISTING SDD ORDINANCE \ .' ZONING ' coverage area) may be higher than thirty-five feet, but not r~her than forty feet, Towers, spires, cupolas, chimne~•e, tla~n es, and similar archi[ectural features not useable as gro,s rcsi ntial tioor area may extend above the height limit a distant of not more than twenty-five percent of the hei~zht limit nor ore than fifteen feet. (Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.) . 13.39.180 Density control. Total density shall not exceed one veiling unit per ci~~irt acres of site area. (Ord. 38 (1983) ~ l.) ~- _ 18.39.190 Site coverage. Site coverage shall be as own on the appru~ e:d deti eiopmrnt plan. (Ord. 38 (1983) ~ l.) 13.39.210 Landscaping and site development. Landscaping re irements shall be as sho« n un the approved de~•elupment plan :III areas within the area(s) ui disturba'nce in the landsr.:pe pl n not occupied by buildin~~, ~,rour,a le~-el decks or patios, ur p, king shall be landscaped. (Ord. 3~ (19ti3) ti I,) . 18.39.230 Yarkin~. Off-s feet parking shall he pruvidrd in ;Irrur~i;urcc ~~ ith Chapte I ti.S? :Ind' or as specified on thr :Ippr<~~ed de~-elopment plan. rd. 35 (1953) 5 1.1 Pew ~.,. ' Chapter 18.-1O ~ - SI'I:CI:1L UI•:VL1.O('1tl•:ti C t)1STR1("I•S Sections: I ~`i--IO.O~U Srulrc. ( •ti.-3O.U.tll :11-plic:rtion. ~.-3O.U-lll I)r~rlulrnrrnt plan-:~hlrrov:rl Irroce~lurrs. y v • ~. ~. • ` ` ~..~~ SPECI;IL DL~'ELUP'~.tENT DISTF,ICTS 18.40.050 Development plan-Contents. 18.-10.060 Pernlitied uses, conditional uses and accessory uses. 18.40.070 Development standards. 18.-+0.080 1)esi~n standards. 18.40.090 Recreation amenities tax. 18.40.1 UU Time reuuirements. 18.40. I 1 U r ees. 13.40.120 Existing special development districts. 18.40.010 Purpose. The purpose Uf the special development districts is to encouraze flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use: to improve the design, character and duality of new development; to faciiitata the adeyuatc and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and ;conic features of op;.n areas. (Ord. 50(1978) § 9 (part l.) 18.40.020 Scope. Applications t~or special development district deli;nation may be made for land located in any zoning district. (Ord. • 50(1978) 3 9 (part).) ~xA~4 1 ~` x.11 `.111 Ir•IS~I~r ~, ~ c ~•. r' SPECIAL DEVELOPti1ENT DISTRICTS 18.40.030 Application. ,~ An application for approval of a special development district may be filed by a person having an interest in the - property to be included in the special development district. The application will be made on the form provided by the town and must include: A. A legal description of the property, the amourit of acreaLe of the property, and consent by the owners of all property to be included in the special development distnct. ~l`lt~ application must be accompanied by a development pian. further described in Section 18.10.050, 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 improvement of open spare, therz 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 s11a11 refer it to the planrtirt,, and environmental conunission, which shall consider the • plan at a regularly scheduled meetin,. ,_~ report of the .:planning and environmental commission stating its findin~_s • and recommendations shall be [fln5ntltted to the to::-t council for approval in accordance with the ;tl,l,li~ahle provisions of Section I;i.CC.OGO ~f the rnunicip:rl code. . ~~i The time de;ullinrs t`or the ahhrcn•a! ctf the spcrutl development district shall be those uscel in the ;unendment procccdin_s found in Sections l,~.d(i.l ~0 tltr~,u~~lt 1 S.(ih.l (,0. C. "I'he approved development plan slutll he used as the . principal ~,uidc t~~r all ~lcv~•lopm~nt :within the sl~r~•r;rl • dcvelc~pment district. I). Antcndntents to the apl,rcn~rd dev~•Ic,pnt~•nt t~l:ut ::high ,ic, not chance its substance ntav he approcrd hw the;pl;urnin_ and enwironntcntul cuntntissu~n at :r rrcul;rrl}' s~heclulrcl public hrarin~.: ut ;rccorclance :with the provisions cif S~•ctic,n I S.hl>.U(,0. . •' 1•:. I:a~h phase of the al'I'rc~~~ed development pl.ut >h;tll r~•cluir; C ZnNING ;, ' the approval of the desis;n review board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of tl:e nnulicipal • code prior to the commencement of site preparation. ~ (Ord. 50(1978) ~ 9 (parta.) - , c tti:,~ 18.40.00 Uevelopment plan-Contents. 'fhe proposed development plan shall include;. but is not limited to the followine data: A. An environmental impart report shall be subrnittrd to the zoning administrator in ae:cordan~e with C'Itapter 1~.5ci hereof unless waived by Section 18.56.030, exempt projzcts: B. An open space and recreational plan suffie:iznt to mezt tlta demands ~,enertted by the development without undue: burden on available or proposed public; facilities; C. Existing and proposed contours, after gradin~* and site development, having contour intervals of not more than Ii\•e fret if the avera~,e slope of the site is twenty percent or less, or with contour intervals of not more than ten feet if the averaee slope of the site is treater tltatt t\vent}~ percent; D. A proposed site p1a11, at a SCale nOt Slllallzf tllall Ong IIIC}t equals fifty feet, showing, the approximate locations and dimensions of all buildin_s and structures, us.;s therein, and all principal site development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facilities, pcd~strian plazas and walk\vays, service entries, driveways, and oft-greet parhin~ antl loadim; areas; E. ~1 preliminary Lutdsrapr Man, ;It a scaly not snutl(rr than ~ one inch rcluals fifty fret, ;huwin~~ rxi;tin~ landscape fr;tturrs to be retained or removed, antl sltowin~, proposed I;utdscapin~_ anal landscaped site drvrlopntrnt tratuns. such as outdoor recreational farilitics, bie;ye:lr p;tths. trails. prdrstri:ut plazas and walkway's. water features. and other rlrntrnts; . 1'. 1'rrlintin;u-y I,uilelin~~ ~Ir~;tlic~ns. ;,•e;tions, and Iluor plans, at :I scale nut sntall~•r than ~~nr-~•i~_•hth inch ~•~lirals one I-out. in sul lirirnl drtad to d~trrntinr Il~vu' an•a. ross rrstdrntial Il~~ur area. inlrri<tr cirrulatic~n. lorattuns ~~t' t~xs \\~tthin huildin~~s, and the ~~rnrrtl .calr ;unl ;~pprarancr ~,f the propou•d ~Irvrl~~pntrnt. C i ~~' r SPECIAL DE~'ELOP~IENT DISTRICTS ~, 18.40.060 Permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses. " A. The uses in a special development district must he uses "permitted by right." conditions[ uses. or accessory uses in the zone district in \vhich the special development district is located. In addition, commercial uses may be permitted . in residential special development districts it. in the opinion of the planninc and environmental commission, such uses are primarily -tor the sen•ice sncl convenience of the residents of the developtttent and the immediate' nei~~hbor- hood. Such uses, it any. ;hail not citan~_e or destroy the predominantly residential character ut the special development district. The amount or area and type of such uses, if any, to be allowed in s residential special develop- • ment district shall be estaitlished by the planning and environmental commission as part of the development plan. B. Accessory uses are to be based on the permitted snd conditional uses and can be indi\~idually determined for each special development district subject to the approval of the planning and environmental commission. (Ord. SO(1978) ~ 9 (part).) 18.40.070 llevelopment standards. Development standards. inrludin~, Ic~t area. site dintrnsions, setbacks, distance between buildin~*s. hri~,ht. densit}' control. site covera~_e. landscspin~_ and harkin~~. ;Itsll hr drtermin,:d h\• the planning- and ern•imnnrental comnrrss-on :Ind aphrovrd Iw the to\vn council as part of thr sppra\'ed drvrlopmrnt hlan. (Ord. ~0(197S) ~ 9 (part).) • 18.-IO.OSO I)csi_n st:rncl:rrd~. 1~he drvrlormrrtt plan f,~r thr she~isl dr\rlc,l,mrnl di~tn~t shall meet each of the tc,llu\vin~s >t:ut~lar~l: ur drmunstratr that either erne c,r more crl- thrnt i1 n,rt :r t,l,li~•able, car that a I,rsrti.•:r( solution consistent with th; I,ublic intrust, ha: been :rrhir\r~i: .~. :~ buffer zone tih:rll hr l~rcn rdrd in .ury >lirri:rl tlrvrlr,l,mrnt district that is ad_larrnt t~, a Ic~a•-drnsrt\' rrs-drntial u:r ,~~„ district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buiidines or .' ' " structures, and must be .landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding ` 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 "`f" comparable potentially incompatible factors: " ' i3. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic ' ` ' generated, takin~~ 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 emer,ency ' purposes. Bicycle traffic sltali be considerea and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes; C. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation ' of natural features t including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, ronven-ence, 3lld t>.trlrtton: D. Variety in terms of: housing t}•pe, 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, convenience, arc.ss to points of destination, and attractiveness; G. Buildin, type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk: ti, Buildin; desi~~n in terms of: ori~•ntation. shc-ciri,~, materials, , color and texnrre, aora~~e, ,igns. ti~shtim_. and solar blurkage; ~~tl:' Landscapin~s of the total site in terms uf: purposes, types, rnaintenanre. suitability, ;uul ~ I~fect can site nri~~hborhood. Inrd. ~U(I~)781 ~ 9 (p;u~tl.) ~- l~.-IO.U~)0 Itrc•rc:rti~~rr :rrncnitics t:r~. :1 rcrrratiun antcnities t:u >hall be assessed un each special developnunt di.trirt tit arrurdanr.' with ('hapter 3.3(~ of [he ~"ail Jfuni~ipal ('ode ;rt a rate to hr ~I. trnnrned by the plannirn~ and cn~~irunntental cuntmissi<rn. Tlti: rata sludl b~~ based un [he rate ul~ the prrcir-us tune ~li.trirt ;utd'ur site rate whirls mast • ', , , r 1 • ~ - _ ~•.. SPECI~IL DEti'ELOPtilE~1T DISTRICTS .: • closely resembles the density planned for the district. (Ord. 50(1978) § 9 (part-.) __ 18.40.100 Time rcyuiren)ents. A. The applicant must be~~in construction of the special development district within t:i,~}peen months from the time • of its tinai approval, and continue diligently toward the compietion of the prrJiect. !f the special development district is to be devrlopr(} in stages. the applicant must ;; begin constn-ction of each stake within ei~~hteen months of the compietion of the previous stake. B. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any _ . stake of the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, th(: planning and .environmental t:onunission shall review the special development district. They shall recommend to the town council that eithzr 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) 3 9 (part).) 18.40.110 Fecs. The town council shall ~stablistl a fir s~hrdul~• for sp~cl:I dwelopmrnt district apl,li~atic)n~ to t•uvt•r tht: cast of proc~ssin~_ and review. tOrd..01 I>7St ~) (h:trt-.) ~;~)~-' . 18.40.10 Existing, special tic~~rlopn)cnt districts. \othin; in this cha{)ter .hall l~~ ronstntt~d to limit, r;{,lacy .Or diminish the rcctuircmrnts, rt•s{)onsihiliti:s and sh~cil~i~atiuns t)I• sl)r~ial tlcvel~~n)rnt tlistri~ts _' tltr'nu~~h ~. 'I~ht~ town ~tuulril sl)rrtl~icall~• finds that .aitl sn~cial drvrlt,ln)lrnt districts [11rttU~~ll \ shall ~unhnlll Ill lull 1(lrCt' and ~'lti't'I, :Ind tllr It'rIt1S, COndl[It,IIS :Intl :I L'1'l'l'll)CnIS i(lntalnt'd (l1CrC111 s~l;lll ConIInUC Io ' ~ hr hurtling upon the apl,li~;ul[s thrrr(,I anal lll~• town ut Vail. ' _ I hrs~ di,tricts. it nu[ cununt:nt:~d :!l tht• {~rrsrnt tinlr. shall -~ ~"1 ?X7 ~..~~~.~, c `_ .~ ;: q 1'A; ~~ Chapter 18.52 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING ,.. ;, :Sections: ; `F• 18.52.010 Purpose. 13.52.020 Applicability. 14.52.030 Exisitin>; facilities. k 18.52.040 Additions or changes. :•~ 18.52.050 Construction and maintenance. 18.52.060 Parking-Off-site and joint i•• riities. 18.52.070 Standards. 18.52.050 Parking-Standards. 18.52.090 Loading-Standar 18.52.100 Parking-Requ' ements schedule. 18.52.110 Parking-Sc edule applicabilit}•. '- 18.52.120 Credit fo ultiple use parkin, facilities. 18.52.130 Loadi b-Requirements schedule. 18.52.140 Lo ing-Schedule applicability. 18.52.10 redit for multiple-use loadin;; facilities. 18.52.15 Exemptions. 18.52 0 Leasing of parkins; spaces. l8 .180 1'ariances. 18.52.010 Purpose. In order to allc~•iatc pntcrestii~cl~• ur t~~ prc~cnt trallic rungestion and shortaec of can-area p:trkin>; arras, ~~(1•-strC~t parking and loadint; Iacilities shall hr prc~~•s~lr~i in~~idrtttal to nr~e structures, rnlar~emrnts of c~istin~~ titrurturr. or :t rttn~ rrsion to anew use which rryuires atlclitiunal pctrkinc un~lrr this rhaptrr. The nwnhcr of purkine scares ;utd I~~arlinc hrrth~ hrr.rrth«i in this chapter shall he ut pretp~irtiun t~~ thr nrr~i I~~r such lacilities created h}• the particular h•pr ~~I usr. OI(-.trot parl.ute anal . loading; areas arc to hr drsienrti, maintainr~l :aril ~~I~rratr~l in a nrtnncrthat ~~~ill cnsurr their u.rlulncss, protrrt the puhlicsalrt~•. ORDINANCE N0. 22 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.52 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL PERTAINING TO FEES ASSESSED FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN EXEMPTED AREAS. WHEREAS, the cumulative affect of addition development creates a need for additional parking; and WHEREAS, parking demand in exempted areas is best met by payment into the Town's parking fund in lieu of providing parking on site; and WHEREAS, the current rates charged for parking demand in exempted areas are inadequate based on the cost of constructing structural parking spaces; and WHEREAS,- the Town Council of the Town of Vail considers it appropriate to increase these rates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, that: 1. Section 18.52.160 6.5 is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.52.160 B.5 The parking fee for uses listed in Section 18.52.100 shall be ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per space. The Town Council shall establish-fee rates for uses not listed in Section 18.52.100. 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in .this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988.• Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -2- r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department. DATE: July 11,.1988 RE: Proposed Amendments to Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code pertaining to fees charged for parking requirements in Commercial Core I and II. In a recent work session, the Town Council directed the staff to initiate an amendment to the parking section of the Zoning Code. Specifically, this amendment involves increasing the rates charged for new parking demand created by development in the Village and Lionshead areas. At the present time, the fees for development in these areas are $3,000 per commercial space and $5,000 per residential space. These fees are established in the Zoning Code within Chapter 18.52. 18.52.160 B.5. The parking .fee for uses listed in Section 18.52.100, with the exception of dwelling units or accommodation units, shall be $3,000 per space. The fee for dwelling units and accommodation units shall be $5,000 per space. The Town Council will establish fee rates for uses not listed in Section 18.52.100. These fees are established as an element of the zoning code, and as such, require Planning Commission recommendation to the Council before action on any ordinance to amend these rates. Your recommendations will be passed along to the Council when they consider this ordinance on first reading at their July 19th meeting. BACKGROUND ON THIS FEE Provisions for paying in lieu of providing parking on site were first adopted in 1973. This step was taken to reduce vehicular traffic in the Core, while at the same time assuring that private development shoulder some of the responsibility of providing parking for these two areas. Money paid into the parking fund is used for the sole purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. At the present time, the parking fund has a balance of $261,000 (as of 12/31/87). Following the payment of all current accounts, an additional $113,000 will be paid into this fund. While exhaustive research was not conducted as a part of this zoning amendment, the only substantial funds removed from the parking fund was approximately $56,000 for the purchase of landing mats at Ford Park. Assuming no additional withdraws or payments into this fund, the balance of this account will be approximately $375,000 in 1991. The majority of projects that have paid into this fund has been small remodels and additions to existing properties in the Village. While individually the number of spaces "sold" are small, cumulatively the numbers are considerable. While the staff has not kept a cumulative total of the spaces, it is estimated that between 100 to 140 spaces have been provided by payment into this fund over the years. PROPOSED FEE INCREASE The Town Council has requested an increase to $10,000 per space regardless of whether. the use is commercial or residential. This increase is based on the following assumptions: o Over time, the incremental increases in development results in an incremental increase in parking demand. o The private sector is responsible for bearing the responsibility of this increase of demand. o The premise of not encouraging additional vehicle trips into the Core areas should be encouraged to maintain the pedestrian experience. o At the present rates, the Town is essentially subsidizing development and the fees charged for parking spaces should be adjusted to more accurately reflect the costs of constructing structured parking spaces. o The proposed fee of $10,000 per space was essentially established by the Town Council. Their rationale for this fee is based on a number of considerations. Foremost among these are the general assumption that structured parking spaces cost in the area of $10,000 per space, that the estimated cost of the Vail Village Structure addition is expected to be approximately $8,000 per space (excluding landscaping, entry gates, and a few other features), and the estimates of constructing spaces in a new structure in downtown Aspen range from $12,000 - 15,000 (it should be noted that Aspen's new Pay In Lieu Program charges $15,000 per space). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the proposed amendments. While the actual dollar figures could be debated, there is little doubt that the current charges are significantly less than cost involved in actually constructing parking. Staff agrees with the premise that the Town is no longer in a position to be subsidizing parking demand created by private sector development, and would support the rate increases that are proposed: 3. A request to amend Section 18.52 of the regarding parking requirements. Applicant: Town of Vail 1 Code Tom Braun explained that the Council had directed the staff to research the cost of parking spaces and parking fees, and initiate the process for fees to be changed from $3,000 per space for commercial square footage and $5,000 per space for dwelling and accommodation square footage to $10,000 per space for both. Tom asked for a recommendation from the PEC for the Council's July 17th meeting. Peter added that in looking at the whole code on parking, a number of revisions are needed and they would be addressed as part of the upcoming parking study and code revisions. Jay Peterson felt that costs had gone up somewhat, but that he felt it was not the intention for the parking fees to pay the total cost of parking spaces. Jay stated that in the past, the payment was only a portion of what a space actually cost, not payment for the total cost, and the Town knew they were subsidizing parking. He reminded the Board that the purchasers did not have any priority because they did not receive designated spaces. Jay felt that a fee of $10,000 would discourage many developers from improving their property. He felt that providing parking was one function that the Town should do. Peter Jamar felt that $10,000 was a little high and suggested that there be more research. His big concern was that a parking study get underway. Pam Hopkins said that she did see developers who had a problem with the cost of development. Sid was not in favor of a flat $10,000, because it was as though the private sector had to take the full responsibility for providing parking for the Town. Diana felt the fee should be raised. She felt that those adding square footage should "tote their load." Jay felt that adding 300-400 square feet did not add a need for more parking. He felt that this would discourage upgrading of property. Bryan Hobbs wondered why the difference in the two original fees, and was told it was to encourage commercial activity. He did not feel that $10,000 should be charged, but felt he could support an increase. Peggy Osterfoss felt that there should be research done to find out many things, including which people were actually using the parking structures, which people are profiting most from the fact that certain people use the structures, etc. She wondered if the developers who added to their buildings were the primary beneficiaries of the parking spaces. Peggy supported a stop- `BLS` ~1/~~hJTl1 ~vt_ ~p~ ~CC`~ \'~n.oJ~~~ ~~ -~.~ ~~~ gap measure of an increase until the research could be done. She felt that the funding source for parking should be equitable. Grant Riva agreed with most of the comments and felt more extensive research should be done on the cost of construction, and whether or not the developer should bear the cost. Grant felt that to increase the fees without the research was slowing "strangling the goose that laid the golden egg." Jim Viele agreed with Grant and Peggy. He supported some increase and wanted additional research on parking user patterns. Diana stated that parking studies could be done, and when the studies were done, she was not sure the studies would give any answers. She felt the fees should be increased. Pam felt-the day skier had put a burden on the guest staying for a week. Tom summarized the comments of the Commission and stated that if the PEC did decide not to vote in favor of the $10,000 fee, they would want to know the reasons why. Ron Phillips felt the $10,000 number was easily justifiable in light of the studies and of the cost estimates of the Doubletree. Sid pointed out that the case of the Doubletree was a good example of a large developer who could not afford to build parking spaces at an estimate of $10,000 per space and wondered how a small developer could afford it. Jim pointed out that $10,000 represented a 330% increase in the fee with an absence of parking studies. Diana felt it would be of interest to have a list of businesses who have paid into the fund, what they have constructed, etc. Motion by Grant Riva to recommend to the Town Council that the amendment not be passed as presented. Reasons cited for the recommendation were: 1) lack of documentation on parking space costs; 2) need to analyze parking user patterns; and, 3) a change in philosophy on who pays for parking in Vail. Second by Bryon Hobbs. Vote was 5 in favor of motion (of denial) and 2 (Diana and Peggy) against. The Commission's discussion continued and an additional motion was made by Peggy and seconded by Pam that PEC recommend raising the parking fee to $6,000/per space now, that a study be made to ascertain present use of parking spaces, what percentage of the cost of parking should be borne by the Town, and then decide if $6,000 should continue to be charged, or whether it should be changed. Added to the motion was a suggestion from Pam that in conjunction with a fee increase, consideration should be given to assuring the purchaser the right to use the space. The vote was 5 in favor, 1 (Diana) against, with Hobbs abstaining to add these comments to the PEC's formal recommendation. RESOLUTION N0. 28 Series of 1988 A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO CHOOSE A COUNCIL MEMBER TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF RETIRING COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON PIERCE; AND PROVIDING DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Councilman Gordon Pierce has announced his resignation from the Town Council of the Town of Vail effective September 15, 1988; and WHEREAS, Gordon Pierce has an unexpired term of more than one year and Section 3.9 of the Town of Vail Charter provides that when it becomes necessary to replace a Council member who has an unexpired term of more than one year, a special election must be called for that purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, as follows: 1. A special election is hereby set for September 13, 1988 for the purpose of electing a new Council member to fill the unexpired term of retiring Council member Gordon Pierce. 2. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to take all steps required by law for the purpose of holding said special election. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of July, 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 19, 1988 RE: Geologically sensitive area reclassification, Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th filing. The owners of Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing, Stanley and Aldah Medsker, have submitted information in the form of a letter from Art Mears related to geologically sensitive classification of their property as shown on the 1984 Vail maps. In accordance with the classification amendment procedures as described in Ordinance No. 20 of 1985, the Medskers are requesting that the Town Council approve reclassification of their property and amendment of the hazard map designation from High Debris Flow Hazard to Moderate Debris Flow Hazard. The Community Development and Public Works Departments have reviewed the request, and all information seems to be in order. 1900 E. Girard P1., #1505 Englewood, CO 80110 June 20, 1988 Town of Vail Community Development. Department 75 South Frontage Rd. West - Vail, Colorado 81657 Attn: Betsy Rosolack Dear Betsy: Re: Lot 12, Block 1, Filing 13 Vail Hazard Ordinance This letter is for the purpose of requesting a hearing to change the designation of the area immediately above our house on the above-described lot in Booth Creek Subdivision from "High" to "Moderate" on the Vail hazard map. Enclosed is a copy of a letter written to Mr. Will Miller from Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., as a result of a site-specific study performed by Art Mears for Mr. Miller. The letter is dated October 18, 1987, and is submitted at Mr. Mears' suggestion with the full permission of Will Miller. Our house in Vail has been offered for sale since March, 1986; we moved to Englewood that spring. During the past two and one-half years, despite several price reductions, we have been unable to sell the home. It has been our continuing experience that a significant number of prospective purchasers would have seriously considered buying the house except for the fact. that the area immediately contiguous to the lot is rated on 1984 Vail maps as a "High" hazard zone due to the debris flow of May, 1984. You will note that Art Mears in his October 18, 1987, letter has recommended reducing to "Moderate" the hazard rating of the adjoining debris-flow area. Last week, I talked with Art Mears after his recent consultation with the buyers on another purchase contract which did not consummate. He restated to me his evaluation that the rating should be reduced to "Moderate" on the adjoining debris-flow area. We have this past week been made aware that local financing for one interested party would be contingent on the construction of a "protective berm" behind the house. Art Mears' estimate of a "1~ annual probability" of future minor debris flow damage places the property in the same ranks as a large proportion of Vail's residences whose financing obviously did not require a protective berm. This kind of negative reaction can only worsen with time, and is but another stumbling block to a successful sale. Town of Vail Community Development Department -2- June 20, 1988 It is our sincere wish to sell the house. However, in the absence of such a transaction, we plan to put the property into a rental program and will most certainly be faced with prospective renters' anxieties about the "Geologically Sensitive Area" designation. A reduction of the hazard rating on the neighboring ground, together with availability to the public of Mr. Mears' evaluation, should do a great deal toward easing the fears of would-be renters or buyers. Kindly contact us and inform us of a hearing date on the above matter. Thank you. Si~cly/ ~ -;/ ~ /~' L ~nley R. Medsker Aldah M. Medsker Copy: Ron Phillips, Town Manager ARTI{l.~R !. MEARS. P.F.. ItiC. • Natural Hazards C«uultants October la, 1957 ;r. Mill ~•iiller 041 Lioashead Circle Vail , ~.C 21657 wear -1r. I:iller: ?t your .request, I cr..nducte~l (1 :,:tee in5+r~:L^.'. cn ~:~"c~-c°.:. ly to re-~:al- ua.te the debris-flox hazar~? in 1~•ker Booth t:_•%el: • ~+s ou know, the rrea immedia:.ely above Le+. 12, Booth Fall. Rea:i xzs reachel 3y w ver',~ ia_ge, slow-moving debris f'_ow in May, 1984. This f_ ow di sr~.tFted the water- sJ ster: and stopped within 3C0 feet of existing h^us~: in the are4. _, ` 1 ins=~E ~ tiort of tha aid ' 1°:s4) r^ield xorl: done on Gc sober 1~ ~ons_sted o:~ °~~, _ iebris fl~.,w deposit, ~,b) inspec+ion of the n~:!-~;,ade diversion charr:~_ ~t,at f the ~.., OSlt and ,C) ci lsit t7 the SC=I: SOUrCO) a.°1, i,G'~'- was cu , across '°p ' v - F ( feet abov? the developed area. The folloxiiig cor.clusicns are base: on this: work. 1. Debris-flow size. thsY will be only 1 - glacial till material small volune of'loose scarp. Although future- debris flow.=. gay occur ~s°-~ ~3) r 1G'/ of the 1984-even : volune . *'-os t of the u~stacle has a.Lready slit: fro^ the sc~.rp area. :- ,-_? atively material remains in the scur_e area withi: the oid 2. P,eactiv1tinn of flow. T:ie old depoait}in lowe~ Booth Cree` iststab_e, is resting on a gentle s1oFe and will nc . Lesu~e d.,wnslope rcv--...r... 3. Future debris flows. Future flows can occur h=re and will criginat~ from the 1984 source area cr o+.her areas not affected in 1984• They are Tost likely during wet years when the soils a.e saturated ar.d grow.^.d- water and surface water flows are High. Future flew from the 1''-S4 scarp will start at the downhill edge of the 1954 deposit, within the scarp, approxir~ately 1,000 feet above Booth Creek. These will be small-volur^° events that will be conveyed doxnvalley by the cha*nel built through the landslide deposit in 1984. Although accurate probability estimates cannot be made, we estimate a 1~ annual Yroba.bilit;.- (a "100-year") event could reach the house on Lot 12 and cause minor da:-gage. 4. Hazard rating. The building on Lot 12 was located at the downslope boundary of the "High" debris flow hazard area on 1984 Yail maps. As 2 result of this current field evaluation and in particular my conclusio:ts regarding future debris flow size, I nox recommend the hazard rating be reduced to "Moderate." Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ l ~ (/~ ,tlosi µ'aNn~ • A„slnncJw • A.n/anrJk Ca~rro/Enstnte Arthur I . blears, •~ AM:lc ,. t ,~ ORDINANCE N0. 20 Series of 1985 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.69.052, SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS BY THE ADDITION OF PARAGRAPH H PROVIDING A PROCEDURE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC WHEN SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE T0~•JN COUNCIL SETTING FORTH MORE DETAIL THAN EXISTS ON THE OFFICIAL GEOLOGIC SENSITIVITY MAPS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND PROVIDING DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, THE TOWN COUNCIL wishes to provide the public with additional site-specific information than can be found on the official geologic sensitivity maps of the Town of Vail when such information has been accepted as reliable by the Town Council. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado as follows: Section 1. Section 18.69.052 Special Restrictions for Development in Geologically Sensitive Areas is hereby amended by the addition of paragraph H to read as follows: H. In any case where a person wishes to have one of the official maps adopted by this Ordinance amended to notate more detailed site-specific information is available, the following procedure shall be followed: 1. A written application shall be filed with the Community Development Depart- ment requesting such a hearing and providing a supporting site-specific geologic investi- gation. 2. A hearing shall be set on a date not less than thirty (30) days after the application has been filed nor more than sixty (60) days to allow fora staff review. 3. If the applicant establishes at the hearing by clear convincing evidence that the information contained in the site-specific geologic investigation is reliable, the Town Council shall direct the Community Development Department to keep a copy of said site-specific investigation on file in the Community Development Department and available to the general public and shall further direct the Community Development Depart- ment to notate the appropriate official map adopted by this Ordinance so that it indicates - that said site-specific investigation is on file with the Community Development Department. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the 1 validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. ELECTION CALENDAR - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TOWN OF VAIL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1988, FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF GORDON PIERCE. (EXPIRATION DATE: NOVEMBER 1989) town of nail 75 south frontage road office of the town manager vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 JULY 6, 1988 FIRST DAY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS. JULY 25, 1988 FIRST DAY TO CIRCULATE NOMINATION PETITIONS - TEN SIGNATURES OF REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE TOWN OF __ ... _, ~.._.. _ _ _._. __ _ VAIL REQUIRED . AUGUST 12, 1988 LAST DAY TO CIRCULATE NOMINATION PETITIONS. - -- - PETITION MUST. BE TURNED IN TO THE TOWN CLERK BY 5:00 P.M. (CLOSE OF BUSINESS). MUST BE SIGNED BY CIRCULATOR AND CANDIDATE. AUGUST 16, 1988 COUNCIL TO APPOINT ELECTION JUDGES AND CLERKS AT EVENING MEETING. AUGUST 19, 1988 DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO VOTE FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1988. AUGUST 19, 1988 LAST DAY TO WITHDRAW NOMINATION PETITIONS. AUGUST 29, 1988 PUBLICATION ELECTION NOTICE TO BE SENT TO THE VAIL TRAIL FOR PUBLICATION ON SEPTEMBER 2ND AND 9TH, 1988. SEPTEMBER 2, 1988 POST NOTICE OF ELECTION AT MUNICIPAL BUILDING. SEPTEMBER 2, 1988 BALLOTS MUST BE IN THE HANDS OF THE TOWN CLERK. SEPTEMBER 2, 1988 CANDIDATE EXPENSE STATEMENTS DUE. SEPTEMBER 9, 1988 CERTIFIED LIST FROM THE COUNTY CLERK DUE TO THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CLERK. SEPTEMBER 9, 1988 LAST DAY TO APPLY FOR ABSENTEE BALLOT. SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 DELIVER ELECTION SUPPLIES TO THE JUDGES. SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 ELECTION DAY. OCTOBER 13, 1988 CANDIDATE EXPENSE STATEMENTS DUE. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ron Phillips, Town FROM: Ken Hughey, Chief o DATE:.. July 5, 1988 SUBJECT: Arson Update On the afternoon of July 5, 1988 I met with police personnel involved in the investigation of the rash of arsons that have occurred in Vail over the last number of months. The purpose of the meeting was to assess our efforts up through and including July 5th, and to plan for the future. The results of the meeting are as follows: a) We will establish a "board" of two or three outside "experts" in the area of arson investigation to review our case files and corresponding efforts by the police/fire departments. This board will recommend additional. investigative techniques, methods. to solicit community input, surveillance techniques, etc. In essence, it will act as an advisory .board to ensure that we are doing everything possible to solve our arson problem. b) Detective Joe Russell will be "detached" from routine investigative functions so as to devote full time to this particular investigative effort. This will allow for more continuity of investigation and one contact person for any and all information. c) We will increase our efforts at soliciting community assistance by recommending that a "substantial" reward be offered for information leading to the arrest/conviction of any suspect(s). I will discuss this issue with you soon. We are also relocating the Crime Stoppers phone system to the Detectives' office so as to allow them to answer any incoming calls during normal business hours. d) We are in the process of reviewing our Computer Aided Dispatch information as it relates to any and all traffic or citizen contacts in a time period surrounding each arson incident. We will then attempt to determine any vehicles and/or persons contacted more than once in the area of the arsons. This process will be lengthy, but is another possible source of information. Ma g P ce page 2 e) With the assistance of the Glenwood Springs office, we are working with the FBI to develop a more detailed profile on the suspect. This profile will hopefully allow us to more accurately define a focus of investigation. f) We have devised a "proactive" game plan designed to hopefully allow us to catch the arsonist in progress, the details which I will discuss with you one-on-one to ensure confidentiality. Obviously, it is hoped that we can bring these efforts to a successful conclusion soon, and feel that these additional plans are a step in that direction. lowo 0 75 south frontage road vait, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 office of the town manager July 14, 1988 Ms. Pamela Story Executive Director Eagle Valley Arts Council P. 0. Box 1153 Vail, Colorado 81658 RE: Ski Museum Building Dear Pam: r. VAIL 1989 It has been mentioned at various times and by various people that the Eagle Valley Arts Council would be interested in using the Ski Museum building when and if the Ski Museum vacates it. The Town Council feels it would be desirable to explain the situation on that building so~there are no misunderstandings or unachievable aspirations concerning the use: of that building at its present location. The Uail Uillage Inn had a requirement in the urban design guide plan to provide a certain amount of open space on their northeast corner of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive. When the fourth phase of the Vail Village Inn went through the approval process, it was agreed that there would be a trade-off with the Vail Uillage Inn providing new space in their building for the Ski Museum in order that their open space requirement could be met across the street on the northwest corner where the Ski Museum now sits. In other words, when the Ski Museum vacates its present location to move into the new Vail Village Inn building space that has been provided for them, the existing Ski Museum building must be removed to provide the open space requirement on that corner. One possibility, which I have not looked into and cannot give a final answer on, is that of turning the building over to the Eagle Valley Arts Council to be moved to another location. The concern I have with that scenario is that the building may not be constructed adequately to allow Ms. Pamela Story July 14, 1988 Page 2 moving it and the cost to the Eagle Valley Arts Council might be prohibitive for no more than the building is worth. If you have an interest in moving the building to another location, we will be happy to look into that possibility further with you. If I can provide any further answers or clarification, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, ~' ~ "~ Rondali V. Phillips Town Manager RVP/bsc cc: Vail Town Council ~EC'D J U L 1 ~ X988 Burke Management Works, Ltd. July 12, 1988 Vail Town Council 7S South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Town Council, I live at 4257 Columbine Drive in East Vail and have been having a problem this summer. Specifically, construction of a duplex has been taking place since late May .across the street from my property. Work begins usually between 6s QO - 6:30 A .M . and finishes sometime after 7x30 P.M. Since late May, there have been approx- imately three days off from this routine. T have con- tacted both the Building department and the Police de- partment concerning these hours and they have both told me that construction is allowed from 7A .M. to 7P.M. with no restrictions as to the number of days outside of the village core. But enforcement of these hours has yet to be done even after my complaints to both departments: My reason for writing you is to consider an amendment to the old ordinance or a new ordinance which basically states the hours and times of construction which currently apply to the core are to also apply to the rest of Vail...i.e 7A .M. to 7P.M., six days a week. Half of my summer has already been ruined by the schedule and illegal hours of this construction company (from Ft. Collins). I will trust in your efforts so that the remainder of the season can be relatively peaceful. S'ncerely, Rick Haltermann P. 0. Box 2631 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476-7133 Pager: 949-7294 EXTENDED BUS SERVICE THE TOWN OF VAIL BUS DEPARTMENT WILL BE RUNNING AN EXTENDED SCHEDULE ON THE EAST VAIL/SANDS TONE AND WEST VAIL NORTH AND SOUTH ROUTES. THESE ROUTES WILL RUN ON THEIR NORMAL SCHEDULE HONDAY - THURSDAY. THE EXTENDED SCHEDULE WILL HE IN EFFECT ONLY ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. THE EXTENDED SCHEDULE WILL START ON AUGUST 5TH AND END ON SEPTEMBER 4TH. THE FOLLOWING IS THE EXTENDED SCHEDULE: EAS MONDAY - THURSDAY 7:OOA.M. - T VAIL 9:OOA.M.------]:OOP.M. - 6:OOP.H. FRIDAY 7:OOA.M. - 9:OOA.M.------]:OOP.M. - 12:OOA.M. SATURDAY 7:OOA.M. - 12:OOA.M. SUNDAY 7:OOA.M. - 7:OOP.M. ST80UND EASTBOUND •. Vail Trans Center s00 j{f, Main Gore-Juniper Lens :27 Golden Peak s0] Bighorn Park :24 Soccer Field :04 Racquet Club :25 Ptarmigan Road West s05 Timber Fella :26 Ptarmigan Road East s06 Streamside Circle :27 1448 Vail Valley Drive s07 Columbine-Bighorn Road :27 1610 Sunburst Drivs :10 Vail East Condos :28 Golf Club House :09 Pitkin Creek Park :28 1610 Sunburst Drive 210 Falls At Vail :29 Aspen Lane s12 Sooth Falls :11 Bald Honntain Road s13 Held Mountain Road :]2 Booth Falls i11 Aspen Lane :]] Falls At Vail s15 Golf Club House :]6 Pitkin Creek Park il6 1610 Sunburst Drive :]7 Lupine-Bighorn Road S17 1448 Vail Valley Drive :38 Columbine-Bighorn Road s18 Ptarmigan Road East :39 Streamside Circle s19 ptarmigen Road Wast :40 Timber Falls i20 Soccer Field :41 Mountain Meadows s21 Golden Peak :42 Meadow Lane East s22 Vail Trans Center :44 SAN MONDAY - THURSDAY 7:45A.M. - DSTONE 9i45A.M.------]:4SP.M. - 6:4SP.M. FRIDAY 7:45A.M. - 9:45A.M.------]:4SP.M. - 12:45A.M. SATURDAY 7S45A.M. - 12i4SA.M. SUNDAY 7i45A.M. - 7:45P.M. Vail Trans Center s45 Sandstone School s48 Red Sandstone Road :50 Red Sandstone Rd-Vail View Dr :S1 Sandstone Creak Club i5] Lions Ridge Loop-Samba Run s54 Vail Run-Hrenknway Mast s55 3endstona School sS6 Vail Trans Cantor :58 ]~j!aT - MONDAY - THURSDAY 7s15A.M. VAIL -NORTH - 9:15A.M.------3:15P.H. - 6:15P.M. FRIDAY 7:15A.M. - 9:1SA.M.--°°1:15P.M. - 12:15A.M. SATURDAY 7i1SA.M. - 12i15A.M. SUNDAY 7:15A.M. - 7s15P.M. Vail Trans Center s15 Sandstone School :18 Valli Hi :21 Buflehr Creak :2] Vail Das Schone 824 Raintres Inn :25 Chamonix-Frontags Road ?32 Valli Hi Sandstone School :]5 Vail Trans Center .79 ]ij!S MONDAY - THURSDAY 7:4SA.M. T VAIL SOUTH - 9:45A.M.------3:4SP.H. - 6:45P.M. FRIDAY 7s45A.M. - 9:45A.H.------]:45P.M. - 12:45A.M. SATURDAY 7:45A.M. - 12:45A.M. SUNDAY 7:45A.M. - 7:4SP.M. Veil Trans Center :45 Professionnl Building :48 Cascade Suildinq :49 Matterhorn :54 .. Ptarmigan :56 Underpass :58 Intermountain :00 Meadow Creek :O1 Underpess s0] Cascade Village :06 Concert Hall P1aLS s08 Vail Trans center :12 ~o n ~h~P-~ For additional inforsiation and lost and found, please call 476-2255.