Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-02 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1990 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Approval of September 4 and 18, 1990 Minutes 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 3. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 3, Subsection 18.46.050(6) and repealing and reenacting Section 3, Subsections 18.46.090(6), 18.46.100(6), 18.46.160(8), 18.46.180(6), and 18.46.220 of Ordinance 10, Series of 1990, to provide changes to Area B, Special Development District No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums that concern density, gross residential floor area, site coverage, parking, and employee housing; and setting forth the details in regard thereto. (Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association) 4. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 5.04.040 B.1. to provide for bed and breakfasts to pay the same rate for an annual business license fee and to be treated in the same manner as a short term rental business within the Town of Vail; .and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending 3.40.020 and providing a definition of construction materials to the definition section of the sales tax ordinance of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 6. Action on Forest Service Participating Agreement 7. Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission decision to approve the preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance, and road grade variance for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, a 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery (Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.) 8. Request to amend the Town of Vail's snow avalanche hazard map in the general vicinity of Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1, pursuant to Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (Applicant: Town of Vail) 9. Appeal of Design Review Board decision to deny approval of construction of a fence/trench to mitigate rockfall hazard at Booth Falls 10. Appeal of Design Review Board decision to deny approval of proposed bike path on north side of Bighorn Road in Colorado Department of Highway right-of-way 11. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1990 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Approval of Minutes. of September 4 and 18, 1990 Meetings 7:35 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7:50 3. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1990, first reading, an Mike Mollica ordinance amending Special Development District No. 4, Shelly Mello Coldstream Condominiums, in order to amend Section 18.46.100 (B), Floor Area, at Lot 53, Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive (Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1990, on first reading. Background Rationale: See enclosed memo. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1990, on first reading. Both PEC and staff recommend approval of the request with conditions. 8:20 4. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1990, first reading, an Sally Lorton ordinance amending Section 5.04.040 B.1. to provide for bed and breakfasts to pay the same rate for an annual business license fee and to be treated in the same manner as~a short term rental business Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1990, on first reading. Background Rationale: This ordinance is to provide for the same licensing requirements for bed and breakfast operations and short term rental operators. Currently, bed and breakfast operators are required to purchase a business license, but short term rental operators are not if they operate less than three units. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1990, on first reading. 8:35 5. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1990, first reading, an Sally Lorton ordinance amending 3.40.020 and providing a definition of construction materials to the definition section of the sales tax ordinance Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1990, on first reading. Background Rationale: Construction materials are exempt from sales tax if a building permit has been issued for the project. There have been questions as to what the Town considers construction materials; this definition should clarify the ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1990, on first reading. 8:50 6. Action on Forest Service Participating Agreement Ron Phillips Bill Wood Action Re.auested of Council: Approve/deny proposed agreement. Background Rationale: This agreement outlines the way in which the Towns of Vail, Avon, and Minturn, Eagle County, and the resort associations will participate with the Forest Service in the new information center at Dowd Junction. Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed request. 9:05 7. Appeal of PEC decision to approve the preliminary plan, Kristan Pritz retaining wall height variance, and road grade variance for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, a 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery (Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.) Action Requested of Council: Review and uphold/deny the PEC approvals on the preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance, and road grade variance. Background Rationale: See enclosed memo. Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC decisions. 10:05 8. Request to amend the TOV's snow avalanche hazard map in the Greg Hall general vicinity of Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1, pursuant to Kristan Pritz Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (Appl,icant: Shelly Mello Town of Vail) Action Reauested of Council: Direct staff to amend existing hazard map as per "Quantitative Analysis of Runout Distance, Energy and Avalanche Zoning Implications, Vail Meadows, Vail, CO" by Art Mears (Sept., 1990)/deny request and maintain existing mapping. Background Rationale: See enclosed memo. Staff Recommendation: The staff and PEC recommendation is for approval of the amendment. 10:50 9. Appeal of DRB decision to deny approval of construction of a Jill Kammerer fence/trench to mitigate rockfall hazard at Booth Falls Stan Berryman Action Requested of Council: Council call up of the DRB decision. Background Rationale: Fence/trench rockfall mitigation solution is to replace existing improperly constructed trench/berm mitigation solution. 11:10 10. Appeal of DRB decision to deny approval of proposed bike Jill Kammerer path on north side of Bighorn Road in Colorado Dept. of Stan Berryman Highway right-of-way Action Requested of Council: Council call up of the DRB decision. 11:30 11. Adjournment -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 4, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Under Citizen Participation, Josef Staufer stated the Forest Service was doing more clear cutting now than in the past ten years, and felt the Town should do something if possible. Mayor Rose responded the Council had taken a site visit a couple of weeks ago and had noted their concern to the Forest Service representatives then. Kent added Council had asked the Forest Service to hold a meeting to discuss the issue. He commented the Council was not ready to state a position, but would encourage the Forest Service to hold a meeting for the public. Item two on the agenda was action on the proposed 1990-91 parking policies. Stan Berryman distributed copies of the revised proposed parking policies, which had been changed at that afternoon's Work Session. He then remarked they were ready to take public comment and answer any questions of the public. After a lengthy question/ answer period, Ron Phillips explained what the changes were and how the Advisory Committee had arrived at these decisions. There was much more discussion by the audience. James Johnson asked if the blue parking passes could be financed, which Council agreed could be for locals only. James then gave other suggestions such as local lodge owners setting up a local van pool and reservationists should urge guests who rent cars in Denver and drive up to just take the van pools. After much more discussion, Rob Levine stated he would like to see the restrictions on the blue pass dropped, but was in favor or raising prices. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the Policy Statement 90-1, including blue passes be available for financing for locals 1/3-1/3-1/3, with further instructions to staff to strongly encourage lodge owners to begin carpooling/vanpooling programs, and to improve the parking status signs at the four-way intersection. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Stan Berryman asked if anyone was interested in serving on the Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee to please give him a call. Ron Phillips then asked Council about the financing cost of the blue pass; Council agreed the cost would be $140 for each third for a total of $420, instead of the $400 price for paying in full. Next was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance designating an underlying zone district for the Marriott's Mark Resort. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Mayor Rose remarked Ordinance No. 22 was put on the agenda prematurely and would not be discussed tonight. Merv Lapin asked when would it be heard, which Jay Peterson replied not until something had been decided regarding underlying zoning, at least 30 days which would be the first evening meeting in October. Kristan Pritz reviewed a chart comparing the existing special development district (SDD) and proposed SDD zoning changes. She then reviewed the three criteria used in the evaluation of the underlying high density multi-family (HDMF) zone district for SDD No. 7: A. Suitability of the proposed zoning. B. Was the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with municipal objectives? C. Did the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? She added the staff recommendation was for approval for three reasons: 1. They believed the request met all the three criteria for a zoning review. 2. It was their opinion, from staff research, that the underlying zoning on Tract 1 appeared to have been HDMF and Tract 2 appeared to have been zoned public accommodation (PA) and possibly HDMF. 3. By approving the request, the underlying zoning was clarified for the existing SDD and any possible future SDD amendments. Kristan noted the Planning and Environmental Commission had passed the request by a 5-1-1 vote. She then answered questions of the Council. Jay Peterson gave further information regarding the request. Rob Levine made a motion to approve the ordinance, with Tom Steinberg seconding. Jim Gibson commented he could not support the ordinance because he felt the most appropriate zoning for two-thirds of the parcel was PA, and he did not like the patchwork zoning proposed, PA was a more consistent use. Jay responded to Jim's concerns. After some discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Jim Gibson and Lynn Fritzlen opposed. The fourth item was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 7, commonly referred to as the Marriott Mark Resort, and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Merv Lapin made a motion to table this item for an indefinite period of time, but for not less than 30 days. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Kristan Pritz requested that Jay Peterson notify staff at least 14 days prior to the hearing so they could send out notices to property owners. Fifth on the agenda was a rehearing by Council of Design Review Board approval of the proposed residence at 3010 Booth Creek Drive (Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing) (Applicant: George P. Caulkins, Jr.). Shelly Mello gave brief background information regarding the DRB decision. She then distributed new proposed plans submitted by Mr. Caulkins, but which the DRB had not yet seen. After some discussion by Council, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to uphold the DRB decision to approve the Caulkins residence, which. Rob Levine seconded. Peggy Osterfoss felt they should require more evergreen screening around the parking area, and Rob Levine agreed. Lynn Fritzlen stated she was uncomfortable with Council taking over duties of the DRB, and she did not want to add any additional requirements to the DRB approval. Kent Rose felt the motion should be denied and the item sent back to DRB with directions to have appropriate screening added. Ned Gwathmey, Chairman of the Design Review Board, felt it would be good to have it go back to the DRB. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5, with Peggy Osterfoss, Jim Gibson, Merv Lapin, Mayor Rose, and Tom Steinberg opposed. Rob Levine then made a motion to have the item taken back to the ORB because there was not enough screening of the parking area. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, with Lynn Fritzlen opposed. Next was an appointment of a Design Review Board member. Fitzhugh Scott and Sherry Dorward were the two applicants for the vacancy. A secret ballot vote was taken and Sherry Dorward had the majority vote. Rob Levine made a motion to appoint Sherry Dorward to the DRB to complete the term ending February 1991. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. At this time, Mayor Rose requested Council reconvene to complete the Executive Session they began this afternoon at the Work Session to discuss clarification of a legal decision. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman _ -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item was a ten year employment anniversary award to Jeff Layman. Ron Phillips gave a few background remarks about Police Lieutenant Jeff Layman, and congratulated him. Ron then presented Jeff with his ten year anniversary gift. Ken Hughey, Police Chief and Assistant Town Manager, stated he wanted to thank Jeff for his personal support of Ken as Chief and of Jeff's support of the department, and he looked forward to continuing working with Jeff in the future. Mayor Rose congratulated Jeff and thanked him for his years of service. There was no Citizen Participation. Next was the approval of the August 7 and 21, 1990 meetings minutes. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, which Lynn Fritzlen seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Fourth on the agenda was action on the purchase of Holy Cross property at Red Sandstone Creek Road. Ron Phillips stated the Town had been negotiating with Holy Cross Electric Association for several months for the purchase of this site, which was between the Vail Associates maintenance area and the Vail Professional Building. He added that Holy Cross had two additional provisions in the contract: 1) the closing of the transaction not happen until after January 1, 1991; and 2) the contract be conditional upon approval by the Rural Electrification Administration of the contract, which would allow Holy Cross to use the proceeds of the sale for other than mortgage payments. Ron remarked the proposed purchase price was $565,500, which was the appraised value of the property as of 2-1/2 years ago. He added the Town would be required to pay $56,500 down, and the balance would be paid over a 14 year period at 8-1/2% interest; the annual payment would be $63,543.56. Larry Eskwith also stated the purchase was conditional upon the Town doing a survey of the property, an environmental survey and analysis, and providing a bond counsel opinion letter. After some discussion by Council, Jim Gibson made a motion to approve the purchase of the property subject to the conditions of the purchase agreement. A second was made by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. At this time, Ron Phillips stated there were a few other items for Council to discuss. He noted the M-K Corporation's request for zoning of the Marriott Mark Resort had been withdrawn and was not up for consideration by Council until a new application was presented. Larry Eskwith announced a settlement agreement in the lawsuit of the Williams vs. Chester vs. Town of Vail had been presented to the Town. He stated per the agreement, the Chester house would remain as present, the site coverage would remain the same, the height would remain the same, and the GRFA would be adjusted to meet Town requirements. Larry noted he would like to give the press a detailed press release after a discussion of confidentiality with the Town's insurance attorney. Rob Levine made a motion to accept the settlement agreement as presented today by the Town Attorney, and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. Lynn Fritzlen stated she would abstain from the vote. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0-1, with Lynn Fritzlen abstaining. Mayor Rose asked Jay Peterson, who had been representing M-K Corporation, if he had any remarks he would like to make regarding the withdrawal of the request for zoning. Jay responded no, that his client felt it was inappropriate to go forward with the problems they were encountering and it would be better to come back later with a total plan rather than piecemealing it together as they had been doing. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -2- TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 2, 1990 RE: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Section 18.46.100 (B) floor area, at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. On September 24, 1990, the PEC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to amend SDD No. 4, Area B to allow the maximum GRFA to be increased to 67,930 sq. ft., from 65,000 sq. ft. (see attached memo). The PEC recommendation for approval carried the following conditions: 1. The number of allowable units for Area B be decreased from 65 to 45 free-market units and 3 permanently restricted "employee" units, for a total of 48 units. 2. If at any time the existing racquet facility is removed, at least 2 restricted employee units are to be developed into the facility. 3. Up to 5 additional parking spaces may be required by the Town at any time should the parking be deemed necessary. 4. A reduction of the allowable site coverage to 36,500 sq. ft. from 65,000 sq. ft., as per the staff memo. Should the applicant wish to enclose the existing carports, any site coverage generated by the enclosures will not be considered site coverage. The PEC's added conditions will require amendments to the following Sections of the SDD (Please see the ordinance for specific language of amendments). 1 ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 24, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Section _18.46.100 (B) floor area, at Lot 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to SDD No. 4-- Cascade Village, Area B - Coldstream Condominiums. The following is the Section to be amended and the applicant's proposal: 18.46.100 (B) Floor Area - 65.000 sa. ft. GRFA: PROPOSED -The applicant is requesting 1032 sq. ft. of additional GRFA in order to allow for future additions. Presently, the GRFA for the project is 66,898 sq. ft. The request would increase total GRFA to 67,930. The maximum GRFA originally approved for the SDD is 65,000 sq. ft. (Please see background section on GRFA calculations). There is no request to amend the allowable site coverage or density. The existing site coverage is 34,878 sq. ft. The maximum site coverage allowed for the project is 64,216 sq. ft. Currently there are 45 units in the project. According to the SDD, up to 65 units are allowed. II. BACKGROUND Upon application, the staff researched the available GRFA for Area B--Coldstream Condominiums. According to all available existing information from building permits, the project appeared to have a total GRFA of 63,968 sq. ft. which includes the existing 45 units and subsequent additions to 2 units which were approved based on the building permit numbers for GRFA. With a new staff GRFA check as of June 28, 1990, it was determined that the existina GRFA on site is 66.898 sa. ft. Because the staff calculations from the original GRFA check are not available, we can only speculate the reason for the differences. One reason may be the measuring policies. 1 GRFA Accordinc to Town of Vail Files Prior to June 28. 1990 GRFA on Building Permit 63,847 sq. ft. Additions to units (previously atinrovedl 121 sa. ft. Total 63,968 sq. ft. GRFA Allowed 65,000 sa. ft. GRFA Available 1,032 sq. ft. r GRFA Cbeck June 28. 1990 Unit tv~e # of units Sa. ft of unit Total UNIT A 6@ 2153.5 12,921 sq. ft. UNIT B 11@ 1768.5 19,453.5 UNIT C 8@ 1409.5 11,276 UNIT C1 3@ 1377.5 4,132.5 UNIT C+ 6@ 1427.5 8,565 UNIT D 5@ 1161 5,805 UNIT E 5@ 726 3,630 Special 1~ 994 994 Total 45 units 66,777 GRFA Additions to units tireviously approved 121 E%IBTING GRFA FOR PROJECT 66,898 GRFA Additional GRFA Proposed 1,032 Total 67,930 GRFA III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS There is no underlying zoning for this property because at the time of annexation the property was zoned SDD No. 4. At this time, the staff feels that there is no reason to establish underlying zoning on this property. The staff believes that Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) would be the most appropriate zoning for this project, if an underlying zone .district were to be imposed. The following shows what is currently allowed by the SDD and what would be allowed on the property with MDMF zoning. Lot Area: 4.2121 acres !183.479 sa. ft. 1, Allowed by SDD Existinq MDMF Density (D.U.'s) 65 units 45 units 76 units* GRFA 65,000 sq. ft. 66,898 sq. ft. 64,216 sq. ft. or 353 Site Coverage 64,216 sq. ft. 34,878 sq. ft. 82,566 sq. or 353 ft. or 453 2 i Allowed by SDD Existing MDMF Landscaping/Site 91,740 sq. ft. 98,406 sq. ft. 55,044 sq. Development or 50$ or 53$ ft. or 30~ Parking 84 spaces 79 spaces 93 spaces required Height 48 ft. 48 ft. 38 ft. sloping 35 ft. flat Setbacks 20 ft. (all) 20 ft. (all) 20 ft. (all) *In the MDMF zone district, density (D.U.) and GRFA are based on buildable area. Buildable area would exclude any areas of floodplain on the property.Buildable area was not available, therefore the numbers used are based on total area of the site. IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA Section 18.40.080 of the Zoning Code sets forth the following design criteria to be used in evaluating the merits of a Special Development District. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with each of the following standards or demonstrate that one or more are not applicable or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment. neighborhood and adiacent properties relative to architectural design. scale. hulk. bu,i,.l.dinq height. buffer zone's, identity, character. visual integrity and orientation. With this amendment, the property would have 1,032 sq. ft. of GRFA available for small additions to individual units. The overall mass and bulk of the buildings will be increased as a result of the additions. However, due to the amount of additional square footage requested, the impact will be limited. The staff feels that the proposal will have no significant impacts on any of the other above criteria. 3 v B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff finds that due to the amount of GRFA being requested, relative to the overall size of the project, there will no impact on the surrounding uses or activities. C. Compliance with parking and loading reauirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. No additional parking is required at the time of this amendment, however the installation of additional parking may be required at the time of the individual requests to use the GRFA. The applicants will be required to comply with the Town of Vail parking standards. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Design Plans. There are no specific Comprehensive Plan goals related to the proposal. The Town of Vail Ir~nd Use Plan proposes High Density Residential (HDR) for the Coldstream property. Housing in HDR would typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding 15 units per buildable acre. 10.6 units per acre exist on the property at this time (based on the total area of the property). E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or - geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural or geologic hazards affecting this property except for the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to t~roduce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vetretation and overall aesthetic guality of the community. There are no proposed changes to the existing site plan. Changes will be made to the site plan when the GRFA is used for additions. Each addition will be reviewed by staff or the DRB to insure the expansion is sensitive to the above factors. 4 1 G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. There are no proposed changes to the existing circulation plan. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to otitimize and preserve natural featuresi recreation, views and functions. The increase in GRFA should not affect the above criteria in a negative way. The project exceeds the required amount of site coverage and landscaping even if the entire 1032.sq. ft. were to be constructed at ground level. I. Phasing Ulan or subdivision elan that will maintain a workable. functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. No phasing plan will be required. Requests for additions to .individual units will be handled on a case by case basis at the Design Review Board level. V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All development standards for Area B--Coldstream Condominiums have been set forth in SDD No. 4. The applicant is not requesting to change any other standards except GRFA. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA with the following conditions, that we believe will bring the project more in line with what exists on site: 1. The density of the project shall be reduced from 65 units to 45 free market units (the number of free market units currently in the project), and three permanently restricted "employee" units, for a total of 48 units allowed. 2. The allowable site coverage shall be reduced to 36,500 sq. ft. from 64,216 sq. ft. Currently, 34,878 sq. ft. of site coverage exists. The staff feels that 36,500 sq. ft. will allow for the use of the proposed GRFA and also allow for other types of improvements which do not constitute GRFA, but would be considered site coverage. 5 ~~Y The staff has concluded that because of the differences in .the previous staff GRFA analysis and the recent staff GRFA check, it is reasonable to allow for a change in the allowable GRFA in this project. The staff finds that by increasing the allowable GRFA to 67,930 sq. ft. The applicant would still have 1032 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining for future additions. The 1032 sq. ft. of GRFA is the difference between the previous building permit GRFA and the approved GRFA. (63,968 sq. ft. building permit GRFA - 65,000 sq. ft. = 1,032 sq. ft.). 6 r ORDINANCE NO. 33 _ Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE .AMENDING SECTION 3, SUBSECTION 18.46.050(B) AND REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 3, SUBSECTIONS 18..46.090(B), 18.46.100(B), 18.46.160(B), 18.46.180(B) AND ,18.46.22;0 OF ORDINANCE.l0,.SERIES OF 1990, TO PROVIDE CHANGES . TO .,AREA B, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4, COLDSTREAM CONDOMINIUMS ,THAT CONCERN DENSITY, GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA, SITE COVERAGE, PARKING AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, an application has been made to amend Special Development District No. 4, c..u~only referred to as Cascade Village, Area B Coldstream Condominiums; and WHEREAS, in accordance with section 18.66.140 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and has submitted a recommendation to approve said amendments to the Town Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all other requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2. The Town Council finds that the procedures set forth for amendments to Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. Section 3. Section 3, 18.46.050, Subparagraph B of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990 is hereby amended with the addition of Subsection 3 to read as follows: 3. Employee unit as defined in Section 18.46.220(A). Section 4. Section 3, 18.46.090, Subparagraph B of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 48 dwelling units, 3 of which shall be permanently restricted employee dwelling units as defined by Section 18.46.220(A). Section 5. Section 3, 18.46.100, Subparagraph B of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums Sixty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty (67,930) square feet of GRFA. 1 i Section 6. Section 3, 18.46.160 of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: A. Area A. Cascade Village In area A, no more than 35$ of the total site area shall be covered by buildings, provided, if any portion of the area is developed as an institutional or educational center, 45~ of the area may be covered. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums In area B, Site Coverage shall be restricted to thirty- six thousand five hundred (36,500) square feet. Should the owner wish to enclose the existing carports, any site coverage generated by the enclosures shall not be counted as site coverage and shall not be deducted from the total allowable site coverage of 36,500 sq. ft. C. Area C. Glen Lvon Ducilex Lots In Area C, no more than 25$ of the total site area shall be covered by buildings , unless the more restrictive standards of Chapter 18.69 of the Vail Municipal Code apply. D. Area D. Glen Lvon Commercial Site In Area D, no more than 37$ of the total site area shall be covered by buildings and the parking structure. Section 7. Section 3, 18.46.180, Subparagraph B of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: B. Area B. Coldstream Condominiums Fifty percent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. The Town of Vail may require at any time, should it be deemed necessary, that the owner add up to five (5) parking spaces with the total parking not to exceed eighty-four (84) spaces. Section 8. Section 3, 18.46.220 of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Emnlovee Housing A. Definition: The development of SDD 4 will have impacts on available employee housing within the Upper Eagle Valley area. In order to help meet this additional employee housing need, the developer(s) of Area A shall build a minimum of 8 employee dwelling units within Area A Westhaven Condominium building. Each employee dwelling unit in Area A shall have a minimum square footage of 648 square feet. The developer of Area D shall build two 2 I (2) employee dwelling units in the Area D east building per the approved plan for the East Building. In Area D one employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum GRFA of 795 square feet and the second employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum GRFA of 900 square feet. The GRFA and number of employee units shall not be counted toward allowable density or GRFA for SDD 4 except in Area B. In Area A, the GRFA and number of employee dwelling units shall be restricted as employee dwelling units for 20 years plus the life of Tiffany Christine Lowenthal from the date of final certificate of occupancy for said units. The three (3) employee units in Area B and two employee dwelling units in Area D shall be restricted as rental employee dwelling units permanently. In Areas A, B, and D, the following restrictions shall apply to all employee dwelling units: The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that if rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full time employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week. In Area A, if an employee dwelling unit is sold, it shall be sold only to a full time employee in the Upper Eagle Valley. The owner shall occupy the unit or lease/rent as per the requirements in this section. In Areas A, B, and D, the employee dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of timeshare, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership. A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed on record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to ensure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land before a building permit is released for the construction of the employee units in either Area A, B. or Area D. B. Special Requirements, Area B, Coldstream Condominiums: Should the developer at any time convert the existing racquet facility at least two (2) employee dwelling units as defined in Section 18.46.220(A) shall be located in the existing facility. Section 9. 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 3 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. Section 10. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the heal~h, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 11. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code 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 proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 12. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers~of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of , 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 4 ORDINANCE N0. 34 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.04.040 B.1. TO , PROVIDE FOR BED AND BREAKFASTS TO PAY THE SAME RATE FOR AN ANNUAL BUSINESS LICENSE FEE AND TO BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL BUSINESS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that it is equitable to treat the short term rental business and the bed and breakfast business in the same manner for the purposes of the Town of Vail annual business license fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Section 5.04.040 B.1. is hereby amended to read as follows: An annual business license fee shall be paid by every person doing business within the Town in accordance with the following schedule: 1) Short term rentals and bed and breakfast operations. Any person who engages in the short term rental of either accommodation units or dwelling units to one who uses, possesses, or have the right to use or possess such accommodation unit or dwelling unit, and any person who engages in a bed and breakfast operation as that term is defined in Section 8.58.310 of this Code shall pay a fee as follows: a) If the management office is located in Zone 1, a flat fee of three hundred twenty-five dollars ($325.00) and in addition, a fee of seventeen dollars ($17.00) for each unit located in Zone 1. And an additional fee of twelve dollars and seventy-five cents ($12.75) per unit for each unit located in Zone 2. b) If the management office is located in Zone 2, a flat fee of two hundred forty-three dollars and seventy-five cents ($243.75) and an additional fee of seventeen dollars '($17.00) per unit for each unit located in Zone 1, and twelve dollars and seventy-five cents ($12.75) per unit for each unit located in Zone 2. c) Persons who short term rent no more than two (2) units and people who have a bed and breakfast operation which rents no more than two (2) units shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. 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. ORDINANCE N0. 35 Series of 1990 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 3.40.020 AND PROVIDING A DEFINITION OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TO THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE SALES TAX ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; - AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Section 3.40.020 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section E. Construction Materials to read as follows: 3.40.020 E. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS "Construction Materials" means tangible personal property which, when combined with other tangible personal property, loses its identity to become an integral and inseparable part of a complete structure or project including public and private improvements. Construction materials include, but are not limited to, such things as asphalt, bricks, builder's hardware, caulking material, cement, concrete, conduit, electric wiring and connections, flooring, glass, gravel, insulation, lathe, lead, lime, lumber, macadam, mill work, oil, point, piping, pipebouts, and pipe fittings, plaster, plumbing fixtures, putty, reinforcing mesh, roadbase, roofing, sand, sanitary sewer pipe, sheet metal, site lighting, steel, stone, stucco, tile, trees, shrubs, and other landscaping materials, wallboard, wall coping, wallpaper, weather stripping, wire netting and screen, water mains and meters, and wood preserver. The above materials, when used for forms, or other items which do not remain as an integral or inseparable part of a completed structure or project are not construction materials._ Construction materials do not include such things as: carpeting, equipment, furniture, removable fixtures, window coverings, or similar items. 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. 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of , 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -2- r ~ Control No. PARTICIPATING AGREEMENT BETW~EN The White River National Forest, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to as the Forest Service, and the Avon/Beaver Creek Resort Association, Vail Resort Association, the Town of Minturn, the Town of Avon, the Town of Vail, and Eagle County (hereinafter referred to as the Association). WITNESSETH: Whereas, the Forest Service is responsible for developing the National Forest resources for sustained yields of products and services in the best combination for the use, enjoyment, and education of the American people, as provided in the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and other laws. It is the policy of Congress that the National Forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. Whereas, The Forest Service, within this mandate responsibility, is conducting a program to provide facilities within National Forests for outdoor recreational and educational activities for the public; and Whereas, the Forest Service deems it desirable to provide educational and interpretive information about the forest resources, natural phenomena, local history, and similar matters; and Whereas, the Forest Service intends to build administrative offices including visitor information services (hereinafter to be referred to as the VIS Center) for the Holy Cross Ranger District at Dowd Junction to be operational in calendar year 1991; and Whereas, the Association desires a convenient and central location for travelers and others to obtain information about the various activities, programs and facilities of the parties to this Agreement; and Whereas, the Association desires to donate funds to the Forest Service for the design and construction of kiosks and displays and for furnishings to be located in the VIS Center in order to provide the public quality service. Now therefore, pursuant to authority contained in the Act of December 12, 1975 (89 Stat. 804), and in the Act of April 24, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 572 and 16 U.S.C. 580d) the Forest Service and Association agree as follows: ` 'i 2 J f 1. FOREST SERVICE The District Ranger, Holy Cross Ranger District, is hereby designated as the official representative for administering the terms under this Agreement for the Forest Service. As such the District Ranger has final authority on all matters pertaining to the administration of the VIS Center. A. VIS Center The Forest Service agrees to allow the Association to share the information area of the VIS Center for those purposes detailed in section 2. This information area consists of approximately 800 • square feet of display/information space, the conference room, and the public restrooms. B. Promotional Displays 1. The Forest Service shall approve the planning and design of VIS displays and kiosks at the VIS Center. C. Facilities 1. The Forest Service will plan and construct the VIS Center. 2. The Forest Service shall provide the Association with facilities as may hereafter be deemed necessary or desirable by ' the Forest Service. 3. The Forest Service reserves the right to design and construct any new facilities. The Forest Service will solicit comments and recommendations from the Association for future additions or modifications to the VIS Center and will endeavor to incorporate the reasonable recommendations of the Association into the design and construction of such facilities. 4. The Forest Service will maintain ownership and title to the building, furnishings, fixtures and kiosk displays. 5. The Forest Service will provide for the operation and maintenance of the VIS Center. D. Operational Expenses 1. The Forest Service shall provide the Association with incidental utility services and operational expenses at the VIS Center, including water, electricity, heat, air conditioning (if applicable), building and parking area maintenance, and janitorial work subject to the provisions detailed in 2.D. 2. The Forest Service shall pay the balance of the operational expenses not paid by the Association in 2.D. r 1 3 3. The Forest Service shall establish a fund, hereafter referred to as the "VIS fund," for contributions by the Association as detailed in 2.D. This fund shall be used for operation and maintenance costs which shall include, but not be limited to, incidental Forest Service salaries, necessary supplies, utilities, and building and parking area maintenance, and ,janitorial work. E. Accounting Records 1. The Forest Service will be solely responsible for the financial arrangements and completion of the work to be performed under this Agreement. 2. The Forest Service shall keep appropriate financial books, records, and accounts pertaining to this Agreement to standards acceptable to the Forest Service. 3, The Forest Service will allow authorized officials of the Association to examine such financial books, records, and accounts of the Forest Service, and these records and accounts will be retained by the Forest Service and kept available for 5 years after termination of this Agreement, unless disposition is otherwise authorized in writing by the Forest Service. Such books, records, and accounts may be examined at any reasonable and convenient time during such periods. 2. ASSOCIATION The Association will assist the Forest Service in providing educational and informational services at the VIS Center by donating funds as detailed below for VIS displays, kiosks, furnishings and related items. The Association will be represented by the Directors of the Vail Resort Association and the Avon/Beaver Creek Resort Association. A. Donations 1. The following members of the Association shall provide donations to the US Forest Service as a one-time contribution in the following amounts: Town of Avon - $15,000 Town of Vail - $15,000 Town of Minturn - $5,000 (in cash or in-kind services) Eagle County - $13,500 2. Donations shall be tendered with the signed original of this Agreement. B. Promotional Displays 1. The Association shall work with the Forest Service in the planning and design of VIS displays, kiosks, and furnishings. s a j 2. VIS displays, kiosks, and furnishings for the Association must be part of an integrated theme representing all partners and must meet Forest Service standards and be approved by the District Ranger, Holy Cross Ranger District. C. Association Activities 1. Association activities (i.e, questions asked by the general public) may be conducted by Forest Service personnel if they are incidental to regular Forest Service work. 2. The Association may install direct telephone lines from the VIS Center to the offices of the Vail Resort Association and the Avon/Beaver Creek Resort Association. 3. The Association may provide additional staffing for the VIS Center at Association expense. D. Operational Expenses The Avon/Beaver Creek Resort Association, and Vail Resort Association shall each pay $2,500 yearly (or provide in-kind services) to the Forest Service towards the operation and maintenance of the VIS Center payable on October 1 of each year beginning October 1, 1991. Operation and maintenance costs shall include, but not be limited to, incidental Forest Service salaries, necessary supplies, utilities, building and parking area maintenance, and janitorial work. E. Approvals 1. Hours of operation, standards of service, furnishings, and displays shall be subject to the approval of the District Ranger, Holy Cross Ranger District. 2. The Association may at any time make a written request for such necessary approvals. 7. MISCELLANEOUS A. Members of Congress and The United States of America shall not be liable for any damage incidental to the performance of work under this agreement to any depositors or landowners who are parties to the agreement and all such depositors or landowners hereby expressly waive any and all claims against the United States of America for compensation for any loss, damage, personal injury, or death occurring in consequence of the performance of this Agreement. B. The rights and benefits conferred by this Agreement shall be subject to the laws of the United States governing the Forest Service and to the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, whether now ' in force or hereafter enacted or provided; and the mention of specific restrictions, conditions, and stipulations herein shall not be it y 5 construed as in any way impairing the general powers of supervision, regulation, and control by the Forest Service. C. In all cases where rights or privileges are granted herein in general or indefinite terms, the extent of the use of such rights or privileges by the Association shall be determined by further written agreement. D. This Agreement will be effective on the date when all parties have signed the Agreement and donations have been tendered and will be in effect until terminated. The parties reserve the right to terminate or amend the Agreement upon 60 days written notice to each of the other members of the Visitor Information Services Advisory Committee who are parties hereto. The parties agree to meet prior to the termination notice setting forth the reasons for such action. In the event one or more parties terminates its participation in this agreement, this agreement will remain in effect for the remaining parties. E. If any clause or provision of this agreement shall be held to be invalid in whole or in part, then the remaining clauses and provisions or portions thereof shall nevertheless be and remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Association hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year written below. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE Date By Forest Supervisor, White River NF AVON/BEAVER CREEK RESORT ASSOCIATION Date By VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION Date gy 6 TOWN OF AVON Date BY TOWN OF VAIL Date BY TOWN OF MINTURN Date BY EAGLE COUNTY Date BY 7 ~'e ~ TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 2, 1990 RE: Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission decision to approve a road grade variance, retaining wall height variance and preliminary plan for the proposed`Spraddle Creek major subdivision. Applicant: Mr. George Gillett Jr. On September 24, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved the preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance, and road grade variance by a vote of 5-0. Chuck Crist abstained from the vote and Connie Knight was absent. The two variances were approved with the condition that the preliminary plan and final plat receive final approval. The preliminary plan was approved with the following conditions (comments in bold are changes/additions made by the Planning Commission): 1. The proposed road grades and retaining wall heights are maximums for the subdivision. If it is determined by staff through the final plat review and/or building permit, or construction phase that road grades and retaining wall heights may be further reduced, the applicant will agree to do so. The final plat submittal will provide a thorough analysis of the soil nailing and tie rod system for cut walls in order to minimize site disturbance. 2. Construction guidelines will be used during the actual building phase for the wall and road improvements. See Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo. 3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade onto this portion of the property if and when the North Frontage Road is extended to the east below the subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to Blue Cow Chute. 4. An agreement finalizing the stable relocation and reclamation of the existing livery site will be submitted with the final plat information. 5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30$ will be applied to the subdivision. This section of the code is 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L. 1 ~r i 6. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100 of the 'allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition will be finalized at final plat. 7. If a fireplace is desired by the owner, gas appliances or gas logs shall be used in all caretaker units. 8. A chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision entry will be removed and a more aesthetic barrier provided with appropriate landscaping if allowed by the Colorado Division of Highways. 9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the south side of Gillett Road shall be relocated. 10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per the let"ter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990 shall be complied with by the owner or as otherwise modified. 11. Before any building permits are released for the subdivision and once the subdivision receives final plat approval, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. 12. Six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road for a public bike path shall be provided by the developer. 13. All construction on each lot shall occur within building envelopes. The building envelopes shall be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated September 7, 1990 before final plat. Staff and applicant to determine what will be allowed outside the envelope at final plat. 14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply with requirements found within the Environmental Impact Report for the project. 15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding material for sanding the private road within the subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail Environmental Health Department. 16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall be rezoned to Green Belt Open Space at the same time the final plat is reviewed. Additional greenbelt open space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest Service switchback, Lot 5/6 switchback, and secondary road per the staff amendments to the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. 2 r r~ 17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all common areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also agrees to be responsible for establishing the landscaping along the public road for a two to three year period from planting of the materials. Once the landscaping is established and accepted by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the Town will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscaping. 18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from the Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate. 19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot 1. The separation of the Lot 1 caretaker unit is under staff consideration. The units will be pe?^manently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10) a-d of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Conditions on the 3 employee units will be resolved at final plat. 20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as follows: a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely steep slopes. b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of residences but large lawn areas are not encouraged. c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8~ unless approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall be prohibited. e. No chain link fence is allowed within the subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs are proposed, another type of open fencing should be used. 21. All construction within the subdivision shall comply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in Section 18.69 3 ~a 22. No on-site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision. . 23. Aspens and large shrubs shall be used on all retaining walls. 24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from contributing site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site coverage. The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended specifically -that the applicant work on reducing the road grade to the livery .and also refine the architectural guidelines. The PEC also recommended that the applicant be responsible for maintenance of the, landscaping along the public road for a two to three year period after the landscaping has been established rather than two to three years after planting. 4 ` TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C.,....«unity Development Department DATE: September 24, 1990 RE: A request to approve the preliminary plan for a major subdivision, a request for a variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly referred to .as Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Applicant: George Gillett, Jr. I. THE REQUEST Spraddle Creek is a forty acre parcel located northeast of the Main Vail Interchange. Mr. George Gillett Jr. is the owner of the property. The property is surrounded by White River National Forest land on the north, east, west, and south. I-70 right-of-way is located adjacent to Spraddle Creek's southwestern boundary. The applicant is requesting approval for a major subdivision, a variance to the percent grade for the roadway, and a variance to retaining wall heights. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in January of 1985 and Hillside Residential zoning was applied in November of 1987 by Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1987. Below is a summary of the subdivision proposal, some of which has been taken from the applicant's project notebook. This section of the memo provides an overview of the key components of the project and also explains the two variance requests. A. 14 Hillside Residential Lots: The proposed subdivision is comprised of 14 residential lots. Each lot will be allowed a main dwelling unit plus one caretaker unit which is required to be attached to the main unit, or may be integrated within the garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a separate freestanding structure. The caretaker unit shall not exceed 1200 sq. ft. of GRFA. This zone district requires that the caretaker unit not be subdivided or sold separately from the main unit. The caretaker unit will be limited to one gas fireplace or gas appliance. The owner has agreed to provide a minimum of three caretaker units within the subdivision and said units will be located on Lots 14 and 15. A caretaker unit/gate house is also being considered for 1 Lot 1. The gate house unit would be located to the south of Gillett Road on Lot 1. This unit would be used by an on-site manager for the entire subdivision. The issues of separation of units and ownership need to be resolved (please see the attached zoning summary sheet for a breakdown of lot size, building envelope, GRFA, and site coverage). B. Building Envelopes: Envelopes have been established for each lot indicating the limits of construction and building. No development is proposed to be located beyond the boundary of any building envelope. C. Site Coverage: Site coverage is to be reduced from the allowed 15$ of total site area under Hillside Residential to an amount equivalent to the allowable GRFA. This issue will be resolved at final plat to insure that a reasonable amount of site coverage is available. D. Access: The subdivision will be accessed by a road beginning at the North Frontage Road and extending through the existing livery site and to the east side of the subdivision. The connecting road passes through U.S. Forest Service property. The Forest Service has agreed to allow access to the subject property upon the final platting of the project and upon compliance with the terms of the letter dated November 12, 1987 to Jay Peterson. Agate will be located on the owner's property at the entrance to the subdivision. Upon completion and acceptance, the road will become a public road maintained by the Town of Vail. From this point on, the road will be a private road extending up to the top of the subdivision. The public will have access from the North Frontage Road up to the gate. A cul de sac is located on the lower must eastern switch back. The applicant proposes that the Town of Vail maintain the public section of the road and the owners of the subdivision shall maintain the private section. The private part of the road is 2300 l.f. and has grades from 7.0$ to 8.0$. The secondary spur road (access to Lots 1-6), 670 l.f. at 8.8$ will also be maintained by the owner. The Town of Vail will maintain the 3900 l.f. of road from the Frontage Road to the gate. This portion of the road has grades from 8.0 to 8.6$. 2 The lineal footage of the roadway from the Frontage Road up to the top of the subdivision is approximately 6,200 l.f. In addition there is a secondary roadway of 670 ft. The road right-of-way is 50 ft. The asphalt width is 22 ft. and has a minimum 2 ft. of shoulder on the downhill side of the road with curb and gutter proposed for the uphill side (2 ft. standard section). Pavement and roadbed widths will be widened in switchback areas and shoulder widths will be widened to accommodate guard rails as required. A variance is requested to allow the road to be designed to a grade which exceeds the maximum allowable grade of 8$ per the Subdivision Regulations, Section 17.28.300. The overall average grade of the road is 7.88$ if the secondary roadway is also included. The steepest grade is 8.80. Below is a chart showing the length of road which meets various percent grades. Lineal Feet Percent Grade 250 l.f. @ 3.85 200 l.f. @ 4.27$ 400 l.f. @ 6.00$ 500 l.f. @ 7.00 2300 l.f. @ 8.00 2600 l.f. @ 8.59 650 l.f. @ 8.80$ 6900 l.f. Total A road grade variance is required for 3250 l.f. of roadway that exceeds the 8~ maximum and falls within the range above 8~ to 8.80. 47~ of the roadway requires a variance. Approximately 200 lineal feet (l.f.) beyond the cul de sac, a gravel access road leading up to the new livery site and Forest Service trail head is proposed. This road has a maximum grade of approximately 16$. E. Retainina Walls: Retaining walls are proposed to accommodate the subdivision road. A variance is required for walls which exceed the maximum height allowed of 6 ft. The section of the code which relates to retaining wall heights is found in Section 18.58.020. 3 Y 'The maximum wall height proposed is 8'-8". Total lineal wall length is 6179 feet. Below is a chart showing the break down of wall height to length of wall. These figures are as accurate as possible given the level of design work required at preliminary plan. Please keep in mind that these numbers may vary slightly at final plat. Height Length of Wall 8'-i"' to 8'-8" 291 l.f. 6' to 8' 2663 l.f. lower than 6' 3225 l.f. Total 6179 l.f. In some areas, the 8 ft. to 8'-8" high walls will be terraced with a 10 ft. bench between each wall. The maximum number of terraces proposed is three. These 3 terraced walls have a maximum combined height of 30 ft. This situation is found at the eastern most switchback on U.S. Forest Service property at the lower end of the subdivision, the switchback adjacent to Lots 5 and 6, and the intersection of the secondary road accessing Lots 1-6. The applicant proposes to build the retaining walls with a colored, split-face, concrete block veneer using a geogrid support system. Type Length Height of Number Location of Wall of Wall Tiered wall of Tiers Forest Service Fill 116 l.f. 19 ft. 2 Switchback Forest Service Cut 236 l.f. 30 ft. 3 Switchback Lots 5 & 6 Fill 130 l.f. 30 ft. 3 Switchback Lots 5 & 6 Cut 79 l.f. 30 ft. 3 Switchback Secondary Road Fill 135 l.f. 30 ft. 3 to Lots 1-6 In summary, a wall height variance is necessary for 2954 l.f. of wall above 6 ft., not to exceed 8'-8" or 47.8$ of the wall length. 4 F. Landscape and Irrigation for Retaining Wall Areas: The applicant proposes to revegetate with approximately the same number of trees and shrubs per acre as currently exist on all disturbed areas within the subdivision. The applicant states that the concentration of plants will be heavier along the walls and lighter in less visible areas. Most plant materials to be used will be native to the site. Native vines will also be introduced some of which were not seen on the site. Test plots have been established this summer in the Potato Patch area to determine the most appropriate vines for the final planting plan. Grasses to be reseeded will be native to the site as much as possible. Blue Spruce and Aspen will be the types of trees included in the revegPtation plan. All disturbed areas will be seeded with a mix of grasses, forbes (herbaceous plants other than grasses), and shrubs as indicated in the plan list in the project notebook. The terraces between the walls will be seeded with grasses, forbes, and shrubs and planted with vines and possibly small one to ten gallon size shrubs and small trees such. as aspens. It is expected that cut walls built above the road will average only 2 feet between the road and the bottom of wall. Planting pockets will be made wherever possible to allow planting of trees and shrubs. Spruce trees may be used on the top of the cut walls only if there is room to place them a sufficient distance away from the wall (approximately 12 ft.). The top of the fill walls will get various treatments, depending on slope and if there is a guard rail. Areas with guardrail will be planted with aspens and fill slopes without the guardrail will be planted with smaller shrubs, forbes, and grasses. The base of the fill slopes will be planted with aspen, spruce, and native shrubs. With respect to irrigation, a permanent system will not be installed due to the potential for accidental water seepage into the wall if the system failed. One of two temporary irrigation methods for watering the wall plantings are proposed. The first method would be to 5 water the plant materials by hand from a portable water tank. The second method would be to place several small tanks at the top of the walls with drip tubing and emitters going to each plant. The tanks would then be filled by a water truck at periodic intervals so that if there was a malfunction, there would not be any significant water seepage. This system would then be removed after the plants were established. The subdivision owners would maintain the walls and landscaping on the private section of the road. The Town of Vail would be responsible for maintaining the walls and landscaping on the lower/public road up to the subdivision gate once the plant materials are established and accepted by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, in approximately 2 to 3 years. Staff would also like to see a landscape plan for the entry to the subdivision at the North Frontage Road. The design should consider the planting concept in the Town of Vail Landscape Improvement Plan for this area. G. Frontage Road Desian: A jug handle intersection is proposed for the Frontage Road and entry to the subdivision. The Colorado Division of Highways (CDOH) access permit has been approved for the project. It is included in the project .notebook. A 6 ft. shoulder for a bike path will also be provided on either side of the Frontage Road beginning at the entrance to the subdivision and extending west approximately 300 to 500 ft. H. Drainage: The drainage system will consist of both surface and storm sewer routing. Surface drainage along the roads will be contained by curb and gutter or in limited areas by ditches. Where the run-off velocities in the ditches exceed acceptable velocities rock check structures are proposed for erosion control. The proposed storm sewers along with the drop inlets will control the drainage along the curb and gutter sections. Storm sewer outlets will discharge frequently using energy dissipaters to slow down the outlet velocities to minimize the erosive effects. The majority of the runoff will lead to Spraddle Creek. Portions of the storm runoff will be discharged into the natural drainage Swale to the east of the property. Prior to release into Spraddle Creek, a sedimentation 6 basin will be utilized to control both sedimentation and water velocity. During construction of the project, storm runoff will be routed through temporary sedimentation basins. I. Water: The water system will connect to the existing Upper Eagle Valley Water system at the location of the I-70 Frontage Road and Spraddle Creek entrance. Because of the elevation variation on the project site, a booster pump station will be necessary on the low end of the project. The pump station will pump into a storage tank located near the northwest corner of Lot 12. A water storage tank of 150,000 to 180,000 gallons is proposed for the project. The tank would be located underground at the west corner of Lot 12 adjacent to the property line. Placement of fire hydrants and siting of the storage tank will be per the Town of Vail Fire Department requirements. The water system including valves, piping, and construction will comply with the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District requirements. The water system will be placed in road right-of-way and utility easements (see the attached subdivision preliminary plan for location of easements). J. Sewer Svstem• A sanitary sewer system will connect to an existing manhole located southwest of the Town of Vail Transportation Center. The crossing of I-70 will be accomplished by utilizing a bore under the Interstate Highway. Anew bore will have to be provided along side the two existing 10 in. ductile iron pipes under I-70 to accommodate the sewer. The system will be gravity flow and will be located within road right-of- way and utility easements. All materials, design, and construction procedures will comply with the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District requirements. K. Electric and Other Utilities: Holy Cross Electric has an existing overhead high- voltage line crossing the project site. This line will be placed underground. However, the subdivision will not be served by this line (please see the preliminary plan for the route of the subdivision service line). All other utilities (gas, telephone, and cable T.V.) will be placed underground within the road right-of-way and within specified utility easements. 7 L. Livery: The owners intent is to relocate the existing livery to a bench to the east of the subdivision on Forest Service property. The parking and trail head access for Forest Service land will also be provided in the area of the livery. This site will be accessed by a gravel road extending to the east in the approximate location of the gate for the subdivision. The existing livery site will be reclaimed and revegetated by the owner. Several cabins, tents, a stable, and corrals will be relocated at the new livery location. At this time, the agreement between the owner of the stable, Mr. Y~iark Wentworth, and the owner of the subdivision has not been finalized. An agreemen} was approved in 1985, however, this agreement has expired. The applicant and owner of the livery are in the process of working on the agreement. Anew Forest Service special use permit is also necessary. The applicant will submit the livery agreement at final plat. M. Hazards: Rockfall Hazard, Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard zones from the Town of Vail 1984 studies were extended into the subdivision area. The hazard zones include and are located as follows: 1. Rockfall, to the west of Spraddle Creek; and 2. Rockfall, along the southern edge of property; and 3. Debris flow, along the Spraddle Creek drainage. The rockfall hazard zones are located away from any proposed development. No lots are included in the Rockfall Hazard Zones. The debris flow has a potential to restrict traffic along the access road. The owner has also agreed to comply with Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code which outlines special restrictions for development on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of 30$. The Sections that would apply to this subdivision include 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L. 8 N. Pedestrian/Vehicular Access: The utility easement through Lot 12 and a portion of the old road bed at the top of the subdivision, which provides access to the domestic water storage tank, have also been designated as a pedestrian easement for use by the residents of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. The owner has also agreed to provide a pedestrian easement along Spraddle Creek within the subdivision. Public access to Forest Service Land is provided at the lower switchback on the east boundary of the site. The Forest Service access easement on the northern portion of the proposed subdivision will be relocated to match the lower public access road as a condition of final plat approval. O. Oben Space: The owner has agreed to rezone the open space tracts to "Greenbelt Open Space" at the same time the final plat is submitted. However, the applicant wishes to maintain ownership of the property as opposed to deeding the land to the Town of Vail. Greenbelt areas are designated for land in between road switchbacks and the hillside area below the lower subdivision road leading up to the entry gate. P. Architectural Guidelines: Architectural Guidelines are proposed with the subdivision. The guidelines would be administered by the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board. Approval of the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board would be required before a proposed residence could be submitted to the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The Spraddle Creek Design Review Board would be responsible for enforcing their guidelines. The Town of Vail would be a party to the covenants and would have to review and approve any changes to the covenants. The guidelines also address site planning and landscape concerns. Q. Construction Phasing: The applicant has submitted a phasing plan but has decided to submit a revised phasing plan at final plat when the scheduling of the construction can be more accurately planned. Phasing is effected by the timing of requested approvals for the project. 9 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY _ Below is a summary of the staff comments on the environmental impact report (EIR). A. Retainina Walls/Slotie Stability/Drainage: 1. Walls: Because of concern regarding ground water and also the desire to minimize disturbed areas, the proposed soil nailing system is particularly relevant for the large cut walls. The applicant is asked to address the possible use of either a soil nailing or grouted tie rod/panel retaining system in the extreme cut sections as soon as possible. The locations for this system to be considered are STA 34+00-39+00 and STA 50+00- 52+00. In addition, preliminary designs of the worst case retaining walls must be computed. (Worst case being, 8'-8" fill wall with traffic loading, 8'-8" cut wall, triple tier full wall with traffic load, triple tier cut wall). Preliminary design should be approved by both the Geotechnical Engineer and the wall design Engineer. The latest Geotechnical report only states the accepted bearing capacity of the soils is 5000 lbs/sq. ft. This report should also address maximum slores above the wall, the phi angle of the soil (older reports give 2 different ones), the unit weight of the soil, and the soil parameters which the wall designers need in evaluating the walls. Based on agreed upon soil parameters, the wall technology needs to be looked at for the four worst case scenarios. The walls overall stability regarding failure to overturning, sliding and bearing pressure in addition to fabric strength needs to be determined. From this information, the areas of disturbance can truly be determined and the need to look at other wall technologies can be evaluated. The groject's cross-sections as submitted show no cut or fill slopes greater than 2:1. There will be specific areas during final design and construction where slopes greater than 2:1 could be beneficial to the overall project. Approval to exceed slopes greater than 2:1 must be received first from the project's design/geotechnical engineers and landscape architect. Secondly, the 10 Town of Vail project planner, Town Engineer and Landscape Architect must review and approve any slopes exceeding 2:1. Construction guidelines should be used during the actual construction of the project. These guidelines should include: a. Encourage the elimination of walls; and b. Vary slope grades and undulate the slope lines; and c. Provide planting pockets where possible; and d. Save significant vegetation or rock outcroppings through use of steeper grades, small boulder walls, or minor road realignment; and e. Maintain maximum 2:1 slopes on fill walls with plantings in front of wall. f. The project will be slope staked prior to the beginning of the clearing, grubbing and topsoil removal operations. Town staff will walk the project and approve the limits of construction. During construction, if significant geological features appear which enhance the final project, the Town staff should be notified to possibly incorporate these into the design. 2. Slope Stability/Hazards: Staff concurs with the Koechlein Consulting Engineers' recommendations on Page 11 of the December 17, 1985 report concerning slope stability. The report states: "The stability of slopes are greatly influenced by surface and groundwater conditions. We recommend that all surface and subsurface drainage on this site be carefully designed and constructed so that the existing stability of slopes can be maintained. All areas should be carefully sloped to reduce the possibility of infiltration of surface water into cut and fill slopes. In addition, all water should be directed away from the face of cut and fill slopes to reduce the risk of significant 11 erosion. Some drainage areas may need stabilizing with rip rap or other erosion control materials." The site does have geologic hazards. No housing is proposed in any hazard area. From the hazard reports, it is evident that hazards will need to be addressed during the construction of the road to insure safety. 3. Surface Drainage: Koechlein recommends in their December 1985 report that surface water be directed away from the top of all slopes so that significant erosion or possible infiltration of water into the slopes will not occur. They also state that a fabric for reducing surface erosion be considered for the faces of all disturbed slopes. Vegetation should be grown on these slopes as soon as possible to reduce any erosion. Staff agrees with this approach to the surface drainagA and believes that the existing plans incorporate these design considerations. These concerns will be fully addressed in the final construction plans. The report from Koechlein concludes that excavations for the road and water tank should be inspected to verify that subsurface conditions are as anticipated by the exploratory boring. Placement and compaction of fill as well as the installation of retaining wall systems or soil retaining systems will be inspected during construction and the developer shall have a soils testing technician on site to ensure compliance with the strict construction specifications. B. Reveaetation: Overall, the proposed revegetation plan submitted for roadways and walls is acceptable. The applicant has stated that all disturbed areas will be revegetated to the same approximate density which exists today on the site. Indigenous species of plant materials will be used as much as possible. The concentration of plantings will be heavier at the walls. 12 Much of the wall planting is dependent upon the results obtained from the test plots in Potato Patch. These results will not be available until next year. Staff will look at this more closely when the final landscape plans and specifications are submitted at final plat. - In respect to irrigation of the landscape materials, a drip system, gravity fed from tanks, is probably a workable system. Proper maintenance to fill the tanks and inspect the lines and emitters is critical to the system's success. The owner should commit to ensure the continuation of maintenance of the system, until all plants have been well established. The Town of Vail Landscape Architect requests that the final landscape plan address what will happen to the six spruce trees east of the main entrance along the I- 70 off ramp. All six trees are within the construction limit line. If they are to be moved it should be done this fall or next spring while the sap is not flowing. C. Wildlife: The wildlife section of the Environmental Impact Report states that "there will not be a significant impact on wildlife in the area as a result of the proposed project." Staff agrees with this statement as long as the option for Lot 14 to have a livery is not used. The applicant has proposed several methods to minimize impacts on any wildlife in the area. These measures include: 1. Any owner with a dog will be required to have a dog run or kennel which is fenced to a sufficient height to prevent the dog from jumping out. This is a direct recommendation from the Division of Wildlife which should be incorporated into the covenants for the subdivision. 2. The applicant has agreed to require that all trash containers for units must be bear proof. This also complies with the Division of Wildlife's (D.O.W.) concern on this issue. The D.O.W. has identified this area as being bear habitat. With the ongoing problem with garbage bears in the County, the Division is recommending all development in bear habitat have bear proof containers. They also 13 recommended that one central garbage point - would reduce cost and lessen the problem with garbage bears. This approach should be used by the applicant. 3. The developer has also maintained the requested buffer zone between the Forest Service property line and development in the subdivision. The required distance is 60 ft. This distance will allow for an adequate buffer between the residential development and surrounding U.S. Forest land. 4. The owner has agreed to use landscape materials which are unpalatable to wildlife. The Division of Wildlife states that by using unpalatable landscaping items, the developer will reduce damage to landscaping caused by wildlife (letter dated December 19, 1989 from Bill Andre, District Wildlife Manager). D. Atmostiheric Conditions: The Town of Vail's Environmental Health Officer reviewed the original Air Quality Report and recommended that the analysis use the Vail Valley emission factors from the Town of Vail Air Quality, May 1989, report. It was also required that total build- out numbers be used for evaluating the air impacts. The report has been changed to incorporate these concerns. The report states: "PM 10 emission for the peak day (assume to Christmas Holidays, 1990) will be approximately 24 lbs or 6/10 of 1$ of the PM l0 emissions expected for the Vail Village area." These numbers reflect that 1/2 of the units will have a woodburning fireplace and the caretaker units would have gas appliances or gas logs. The impact is also due to road sanding. Because the subdivision will at times require heavy sanding during the winter the staff believes it is appropriate to require the owner to use the least polluting sanding material available. This material would be submitted to the Town of Vail Environmental Health Officer for review and approval. The Town of Vail is also investigating materials which are less polluting than the existing sanding materials. 14 • E. Visual Impact: The view analysis clearly indicates that there will be visual impacts resulting from the subdivision's walls, . new road, housing, and livery relocation. These __structures will impact the view of the present site which is now predominantly a natural mountain setting. The applicant has proposed the following mitigation measures to address the view impacts. 1. The final plat submittal will include a detailed landscape plan that will address common open space areas as well as the retaining walls for the subdivision. Fill walls will be screened by aspen and spruce plantings. The applicant has agreed to 'use the "grove planting arrangement" to try and create a natural appearance for the plantings. This approach is especially important on the lower portion of Gillett Road from the Frontage Road up to the Forest Service switchback. These walls are particularly visible from Vail Village and Vail Mountain and must be screened adequately. 2. The major switchbacks shall also include aspen and shrub plantings in the terraces between retaining walls. This is a critical design element of the landscape plan and will help to mitigate the impact of the terraced walls. 3. At final plat review, building permit, and actual construction of the project, the staff will continue to try to reduce the retaining wall heights and eliminate walls when possible. This design approach should minimize visual impact as much as possible through each refinement of the retaining wall/road design. 4. Because much of the site will be disturbed during construction, an erosion control plan will be submitted by the applicant to minimize erosion during the construction process. 5. The building envelopes have been decreased in size from what was originally proposed. This will limit the disturbed areas and also concentrate development, thereby decreasing visual impacts. This approach will allow for more of the natural landscaping to remain and will reduce the overall disturbed area within the project. 15 6. Site coverage has also been reduced to 100$ of the ' J allowable GRFA to encourage development that is more compact and less spread out on the site. 7. Architectural guidelines are su~mitted with the proposal. Many of the guidelines will help to make the project as compatible as possible with the surrounding site. Sod around the perimeter of the house is allowed. Staff recommends discouraging large lawn areas. Retaining walls are also recommended to be minimized and extremely steep slopes are discouraged. A color board will be submitted at final plat to ensure that the range of colors for the houses will be attractive, yet subdued. Owners should also be required to site their houses using the natural terrain. These concepts as well as others within the architectural guidelines will encourage the project to be as compatible as possible with the site. 8. The owner has agreed to create open space areas in the major switchbacks and to also maintain open space in the lower portion of the site. The owner will rezone these portions of the project to Greenbelt Open Space at the final plat review of the subdivision. This site planning approach will help a great deal to minimize the visual impacts of the project on the Vail community. In summary, the staff concludes that although there will be visual impacts because of the man made development on the site, the applicant has proposed measures to off-set the visual impacts as much as possible. The proposed mitigation measures are acceptable to staff. F. Circulation and Transportation: 1. Frontage Road Intersection The applicant has obtained a CDOH access permit for the project. A left turn lane for east bound traffic will be provided at the project entrance. The intersection for the development, once constructed, will be further to the east to allow greater separation between the project intersection and the west bound off ramp of I-70. In addition, 6 ft. shoulders will be provided on each side of the widened Frontage Road to accommodate future bike lanes as proposed in the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan. 16 2. Emergency Accessibility The major portion of the road grade exceeding Town standards will be maintained by the Town of Vail. The addition of the first turnaround will give the Fire Department the ability to travel 3700 ft. and turn around or go an additional 3200 ft. before reaching the top. Some houses cannot be accessed within 150 ft. on all sides and these houses will need to be internally sprinklered. 3. Road Grade The road grades have been refined numerous times to achieve a balance between a low road grade and low retaining walls. At this time, 47~ of the road exceeds the 8o maximum grade, but does not exceed 8.8~. In other words, a variance is required for a 0.8$ increase in road grade. The Town engineer believes further refinement of the road grade will be required at final plat in order to fine tune the relationship of grades to retaining walls. However, staff believes that the road grade has been designed to an acceptable grade at this time given site constraints. 4. Driveway Grade The driveways for each lot shall meet Town of Vail standards for 8$ and if grades exceed 8~, the Town Engineer's approval shall be required. Driveway grades must be refined at final plat to insure safe access to each lot. 5. Public Access Public access to the Forest Service trailhead and livery has been improved, with the exception that the gravel roadway to the livery which will be a 16.5$ maximum grade versus. the current 11~. It should be pointed out that the livery road varies from 16.5 to 10.67 grade. The applicant should try to decrease the road grade to the livery as much as possible. This concern should be addressed at final plat. A turnaround for the general public has been placed within 200 ft. of the proposed security gate. This may cause minor traffic problems, however with proper signage it should not cause great concern. 17 G. Hvdroloaic Conditions: Increased runoff from the site will have an insignificant impact on the overall drainage basin. The development of the site will have a noticeable impact on the minor events and specific drainage .channels, especially the eastern basins. Care should be taken in the final design to address the handling of the increased flows and the need to provide adequate protection against erosion. H. Noise and Odor The noise and odors associated with this project will occur primarily during the construction phases for the subdivision. When the final phasing plan is submitted at final plat, staff will review the plan to try to minimize impacts from construction e:~uipment, blasting, and any odors that may occur during construction. I. Social and Economic Report Staff concurs with the social and economic section of the EIR which states that there is no requirement within the Town of Vail that requires a subdivision to pay its own way as does exist in some communities. The biggest concern with the project is related to possible increased costs for road and retaining wall maintenance. Because the grades are steeper on the proposed road than allowed under the subdivision regulations, the additional 0.6~ increase in road grade does contribute to an increase in maintenance cost for the Town on the portion of the road that the Town of Vail will be maintaining. However, Public Works is of .the opinion that the cost increase will be minimal now that the road grades have been lowered significantly from the original road grade proposal. The Town also believes it is positive that road access to Forest Service land has been impr~~ved through this project. The public access road will now be paved and allow for somewhat easier access to Forest Service land. The Police and Fire Departments concur that they will be able to provide adequate protection to the subdivision. 18 • At this time, no public bus stop for Town of Vail Bus Service is proposed. Public Works' opinion is that it would not be appropriate to provide a service through this subdivision due to the limited population and road grade. It may be reasonable to ask the applicant to look at a possible school bus turn off at final plat. This turn-off would be located at the base of the subdivision adjacent to the Frontage Road. In summary, the primary concern of the staff with the social and economic section of the EIR concerns road maintenance cost. At this time, it appears that the road grades will not significantly increase maintenance costs for the public portion of the road for the Town of Vail. The steepest portion of the road, 8.8$ will be maintained by the owner. In respect to the retaining walls, the applicant has agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and retaining walls for the first two to three years after construction. Once the vegetation has been established, the Town of Vail would be responsible for landscape and retaining wall maintenance on the public section of the road. Public Works finds this maintenance arrangement acceptable. J. Land Use: This section of the staff's review will relate the Town of Vail Land Use Plan to elements of the Spraddle Creek proposal. Below is a list of goals and comments from the staff summarizing the projects relationship to the Land Use Plan. The property is designated HR or Hillside Residential. This designation states: "This category would allow for single family dwelling units at densities no more than two dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permitted would be typical single family accessory uses such as private recreational amenities, attached caretaker units, or employe units and garages. Institutional/public uses would also be permitted. These areas would require sensitive development due to slopes, access, visibility, tree coverage and geologic hazards. Minimum buildable area of 20,000 square feet would be required per dwelling unit." 19 Staff did not ask the applicant to provide a total "buildable" acreage as the zone district requires that each lot have a minimum of 21,780 sq. ft. of continuous buildable area. All lots met this requirement and intent of the HR designation. Please see the attached PEC memo on the adoption of HR zoning for Spraddle Creek. Goal 5.4: Residential growth should keep place with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. This is the first subdivision to utilize the Hillside .Residential Zoning. When the Hillside Residential Zone District was applied to this parcel in 1987, the staff opinion was that this site was well suited to the zoning standards for Hillside Residential. The developer is abiding by most standards of the zone district: The Hillside Residential Zone District will provide a luxury home housing type for the Town of Vail. In addition, the developer has committed to provide three employee dwelling units and each of the remaining eleven units will be allowed to have a caretaker unit if the owner so desires. Goal 5.3: Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Goal 5.5: The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at various sites throughout the site. The applicant is meeting these goals by providing a minimum of three employee units. Units will be provided on Lot 14, 15, and 1. Staff would like to - require that these employee units be constructed within three years of subdivision approval. The Lot 1 unit is proposed to be separated from the main unit. This caretaker unit would be located at the gate for the subdivision and would serve as an employee unit for a person who would be responsible for maintaining the entire subdivision. The unit would not exceed a total GRFA of 1200 sq. ft. and would be integrated into the site as much as possible. Lot 1 would not be allowed to have an additional caretaker unit at the main house and would be required to reduce GRFA for the main unit by 1200 s.f. Staff believes this idea has merit and needs further study to resolve the unit separation issue and ownership arrangement. 20 The potential number of employee housing units that could be provided within the subdivision is 14. The project complies with the employee housing goals by providing a minimum of 21~ or 3 units of the total allowable units as permanently restricted employee housing. The restrictions. are per Section 18.13.080 (Bj and a, b, c, and d. Goal 1.2: The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. Goal 1.6: Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not _ highly visible from the valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. Goal 1.7: New subdivision should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. All of these goals relate to the general site planning for the subdivision. At staff's request, the applicant has agreed to incorporate more restrictive standards into the subdivision than normally required under the Hillside Residential Zone District. Building envelopes are provided for each lot which locate development in areas that do not have hazards, and reduce disturbance of the existing tree line as much as possible. By the use of building envelopes, development will be limited to the most appropriate locations on each lot. GRFA has been reduced on Lots 14, 5, and 4, by excluding any hazard areas from site area that would contribute to GRFA. This reduces the GRFA for Lot 14 by approximately 3,190 sq. ft., Lot 5, by 325 sq. ft., and Lot 4, by 1,050 sq. ft. Lot 7's GRFA has also been reduced to allow for a greenbelt tract on the western end of the lot. Lot 1 has also had its GRFA reduced by approximately 2,520 sq. ft. to allow for another greenbelt open space segment on the southeastern corner of the subdivision. 21 Staff felt that it was appropriate to require Lot 1 to - reduce GRFA as the developer was able to utilize the adjacent Forest Service land for the switchback. It is an equitable solution to take the land that is within the subdivision that is no longer being used for the switchback and devote that area to greenspace for the project's and general public's benefit. Site coverage has also been reduced to 100$ of the allowable GRFA instead of taking 15~ of the total site area. Due to the large size of the lots, the site coverage was in excess of the allowable GRFA. Certainly, a low profile building is desirable, however, staff feels that the development also needs to be as sensitively located on the site as possible. In 'order to accomplish this, given the slopes and high GRFA allotments for each lot, staff felt it was appropriate to reduce the site coverage for each lot. Staff is considering a site coverage percentage of 80 - to 90~ which is similar to the site coverages normally allowed in Primary/Secondary and Single Family zone districts on 30$ slope sites. We feel this approach is more in keeping with the intent of site coverage and will result in better site planning for the subdivision. We believe it is positive the applicant is willing to reduce site coverage to 100 of the allowable GRFA. However, an 80 or 90~ ratio may be more appropriate. Staff would like to finalize the percentage at final plat when final lot sizes are determined. The developer has also proposed to maintain open space on the lower portion of the subdivision. Instead of providing lots in this area as originally proposed several years ago, this area will be designated as open space. The owner agrees to submit a rezoning of the property at the same time final plat submittal is made to the department. An important question related to the subdivision is how many lots could realistically be located within the subdivision given the road alignment. This is a very difficult question to answer as it is obvious if the owner only wished to build one house on the lower portion of the subdivision, the upper access road would be completely unnecessary and impacts from the - subdivision would be greatly minimized. 22 • Staff believes it is appropriate to recognize that the parcel was annexed by the Town of Vail and received Hillside Residential zoning with the intent to allow for development per the standards of this zone district. Given the fact that the developer is not requesting any variance to the Hillside Residential development standards, it is estimated that approximately four to five additional lots could be located within the subdivision, if so desired. Staff believes a balance has been found between a reasonable number of lots for the subdivision and good site planning principles. Given the above comments on how this project relates to the land use plan, the staff believes that it is in conformance with the Land Use Plan. Even though the project does have some hazard areas, no development is proposed in these areas and hazard areas are not contributing to any additional GRFA or site coverage. K. Utilities: All utilities will be placed underground. Revegetation of disturbed areas will be required and will be addressed in the landscape plan submitted at final plat. IV. CRITERIA FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17.16.110 of the Town Subdivision Regulations and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies, and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other applicable documents, environmental integrity, and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses. " 23 Public Aaencv and Utility Company Reviews: - - Notification has been mailed to the following agencies and as of this date, the following comments have been received by the Town: 1. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District: Please see the letter dated September 19, 1989 from Fred Haslee in the project notebook. The District does not have any problems with the -project as long as all rules and regulations and payments of appropriate tap fees are agreed to by the developer. 2. Public Service Co. of Colorado: Please see the letters dated October 5,.1989 and May 22, 1990 from Gary Hall in the project notebook. These letters indicate that service will be provided per the rules and regulations for gas service extensions on file with the Public Service Commission of Colorado. 3. Holy Cross Electric Association: Please see the letter dated September 21, 1989 from Ted Husky in the project notebook. The utility is able to provide service to the project. 4. Mountain Bell/U.S. West Communications: Please see the letter from Bonnie Herod dated September 22, 1989 in the project notebook. The phone company has indicated that they cannot commit to providing service until all studies are completed. U.S. West will request that the developer provide an analysis for the services required by the developer or ow:~er. It is their understanding is that the developer accepts the responsibility for completing this work. 5. Heritage Cablevision: Please see the February 28, 1990 letter from Steve Hiatt in the project notebook. Service will be provided to the project. 24 . 6. United States Forest Service: Please see the April 30, 1990 letter from Bill Wood in the project notebook. If, the Forest Service parcel to the west is deeded to the Town, it will be necessary to determine the exact location of the public easement to be retained by the Forest Service. It also states that: "As with all subdivisions bordering National ,Forest System Lands, it is desirable to allow permanent public access across the private land to the forest. The proposed subdivision plan does allow for this." "The main access road to the proposed subdivision crosses National Forest System Lands on the Spraddle Creek Parcel on an existing road. I understand the grade of this road exceeds Town of Vail standards. I feel it is appropriate to grant a variance at this location to keep the access road on this alignment. Keeping the road on the present alignments seems to be the environmentally preferred location to keep from disturbing additional ground and to minimize the visual impact from Interstate 70, the Town of Vail and the ski area. This alignment would also become the Forest Service Easement when the parcel is deeded to the Town of Vail." "In summary, the Spraddle Creek Subdivision meets the needs of the National Forest System. I feel the access road across the national Forest is in the best possible location and urge you to approve this alignment for access to the subdivision." Staff will require an updated letter at final plat from the U.S. Forest Service stating their approval of the switchback on their land. This letter should be included in the final plat submittal. 7. Town of Vail Public Works, Fire and Police Departments: Comments form the Town of Vail Public, Fire, and Police Departments have been incorporated in to this memo. 25 8. Colorado Division of Highways: An access permit has been approved by the Colorado Division of Highways for the Frontage Road improvements. The approved CDOH Access permit requires that final roadway construction plans be submitted to CDOH 45 days prior to commencing construction. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development rec..~.LL...ends approval of the requested variances based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. a) Road Grade: There will be no major negative impacts because of the road grade variance to allow 0.8~ increase in road grade from the allowable 8%. Public Works believes that the increase will be difficult to discern and that safety concerns have been addressed. Public Works would prefer to have the roads meet the 8$ grade throughout the entire subdivision, however, the applicant has reduced as much as possible the road grade without dramatically increasing wall heights. b) Retaining Wall Height: The request for an addition 2'-8" in wall height above the 6 ft. allowable wall height will increase the visual impacts of the project. However, it is the staff's opinion that the visual impacts could be even worse if 6 ft. high walls were maintained with additional terracing. Staff believes that a balance has been found between actual wall height, heights of the terraced walls, and view impacts. The three tiered retaining walls have a combined maximum height of 30 ft. It is staff's opinion that the height of these walls would increase if 6 ft. high walls were maintained as more terracing would be necessary. 26 Staff does believe that it is very important for the applicant to analyze soil nailing and the tie rod systems to minimize disturbed areas. This analysis should occur during the final plat review. The landscaping plan will also be reviewed carefully and the use of on-site construction guidelines will help to minimize the visual impact of the project from points within the valley. The specific color for the concrete block veneer facing for the retaining walls should be chosen before final plat approval. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal nteruretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amonq sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special orivileae. Road Grade and Retaining Wall Height: Because of the topography and soil found on this site, difficult development constraints are created. Staff believes it would be a hardship if the strict and literal interpretation of the code requirements for road grades and retaining wall heights were required for this project. In many instances, the road is proposed through areas where the slope is at 40$ or greater. The variances allow the developer to minimize the impact on the site as much as possible while maintaining appropriate road grades and reasonable wall heights. The variances result in better site planning by decreasing disturbed areas. The Town Engineer has examined other alignments for the road and it is his opinion that this alignment is the best given the road grade and wall height requirements of the Town of Vail regulations. Each variance request should be reviewed for its own merits. However, other owners of property within the Town of Vail have also received variances for retaining wall heights because of topography and soil conditions on their property. Recent approvals included the Cerisola wall in Potato Patch and the Byrne wall in Vail Village 1st Filing. 3. The effect of the reauested variance on light and air, distribution: of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and oublic safety. 27 a) Road Grade: The increase in road grade above the 8~ standard to 8.80$ will have some negative impact on the ability of vehicles to negotiate the roadway, however, it will be very hard to measure any empirical amount of reduction in public safety. b) Retaining Wall Height: Staff believes it is appropriate to require a grading easement on the southwest corner of the property to allow the Town of Vail to grade onto this portion of the site if and when the Frontage Road is extended to the east to create~a new underpass connecting to the Blue Cow Chute area. This proposal is part of the preliminary recommendations in the Master Transportation Plan for the Town of Vail. However, this option is believed to be something that would not be accomplished in the immediate future. Staff believes that it is.appropriate to allow for this option as it results in the decrease of retaining walls for the tiossible future road extension. V. FINDINGS The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the follow.ina findings before arantina a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. B. That the granting .of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 28 } 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Variance Request: Staff recommends approval of the variance requests to allow road grades to be at a maximum of 8.8$ as well as the retaining wall heights at a maximum height of 8.8" .per the preliminary plan dated September 7, 1990 and associated cross-sections and road profiles submitted by RBD Engineering: We believe that the request would .not be a grant of special privilege and that the variances would not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare. The topographic and soil conditions on the site have created development constraints which warrant relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the zoning code. It is felt that if the strict and literal interpretation of the wall height and road grade maximums were required, the project would have more visible impact on the community. Findings supporting the variance are IV A, B, and C 1, 2, and 3. This approval is contingent upon the preliminary plan and final plat receiving final approval. Staff would also like to emphasize that additional fine tuning of the road and wall heiahts.mav result in slight `modifications to the grades and wall heights. B. Major Subdivision: The staff recommends approval of the major subdivision preliminary plan. It is felt that the project meets the Hillside Residential Zone District standards and subdivision regulations except in the areas of road grade and wall height which were discussed in the criteria and findings section of the memo concerning variances. The recommendation for approval includes the following conditions: 1. The proposed road grades and retaining wall heights are maximums for the subdivision. If it is determined by staff through the final plat review and/or building permit, or construction phase that road grades and retaining wall heights 'may be further reduced, the applicant will agree to do so. The final plat submi~ctal will provide a thorough analysis of the soil nailing and tie rod system for cut walls in order to minimize site disturbance. 29 2. Construction guidelines will be used during the actual building phase for the wall and road improvements. See Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo. 3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade onto this portion of .the property if and when the North Frontage Road is extended to the east below the subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to Blue Cow Chute. 4. An agreement finalizing the stable relocation and -reclamation of the existing livery site will be submitted with the final plat information. 5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30$ will be applied to the subdivision. This section of the code is 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L. 6. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100 of the allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition will be finalized at final plat. 7. Gas appliances or gas logs shall be used in all caretaker units. 8. A chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision entry will be removed and a more aesthetic barrier provided with appropriate landscaping. 9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the south side of Gillett Road shall be relocated. 10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per the letter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990 shall be complied with by the owner. il. Before any building permits are released for the subdivision and once the subdivision receives final plat approval, the appropriate easements allowing for public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service requirements. 12. Six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road for a public bike path shall be provided by the developer. 13. All construction on each lot shall occur within building envelopes. The building envelopes shall be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated September 7, 1990 before final plat. 30 14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply with requirements found within the Environmental Impact Report for the project. 15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding material for sanding the private road within the subdivision. 16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall be rezoned to Green Belt Open Space at the same time the final plat is reviewed. Additional greenbelt open space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest Service switchback, Lot 5/6 switchback, and secondary road per the staff amendments to.the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. 17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes all common areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also agrees to be responsible for establishing the landscaping along the public road for a two to three year period from planting of the materials. Once the landscaping is established and accepted by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the Town will take over the responsibility of the retaining walls and landscaping. 18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from the Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate. 19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot 1. The separation of the Lot 1 caretaker unit is under staff consideration. The units will be permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10~ a-d of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Conditions on the 3 employee units will be resolved at final plat. 20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as follows: a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely steep slopes. b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of residences but large lawn areas are not encouraged. 31 c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8~ ' unless approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall be prohibited. e. No chain link fence is allowed within the subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs are proposed, another type of open fencing should be used. 21. All construction within the subdivision shall comply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in Section 18.69 22. No on-site livery shall be allowed within the subdivision. 23. Aspens and large shrubs shall be used on all retaining walls. 24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from contributing site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site coverage. VII. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL MATERIAII Below is a list of final plat submittal material which is necessary to resolve issues raised at preliminary plan review: 1. A complete landscape plan which addresses the entire subdivision and the Frontage Road entry and gate design. 2. Building envelopes which reflect the staff changes. 3. Wall heights will be reduced as much as possible particularly in the areas of Lot 14 and 15 at STA 53+00 and 57+00 and also at the intersection of the secondary road by STA 5+00 to 2+00. 4. The subdivision improvement agreement. 5. Erosion .Control Plan 6. Final Driveway locations with approximate grades. 7. Final agreement on the livery. 8. Revised final EIR in one submittal package that includes all the updated reports. 32 9. Final Plat drawing should indicate the following information for each lot: lot size, building envelope, site coverage and allowable GRFA. 10. Revised architectural guidelines. il. Realigned access road to the water storage tank utilizing the old road bed. 12. Revised phasing plan. 13. Reduce the livery road grade as much as possible. 14. New letter from the Forest Service addressing the switchback on their property. 15. Greenbelt areas designated per staff recommendations on the final plat and a rezoning submittal. 33 i ...y~.:~v}~:~:SP::RAQDLE:: FREE DE1lE . K L,OP~II~NT ST~? ~ l~fi~C.~:.......~:::.:~::.. o. Si~'3 to . LOt ;SIZE . BUILDING ENVELOPE SI ~ t' COVERAGE GR FA :ORIG ;.REV.: ORIG. REV. ORIG :::REV..:.. ORIG. REV. LOT 1 ........134809' ..;84409 14805 < 20221 . ;5990; ; 10007. 7487 LOT 2 53304: ` . ;13632`: ~ " .:::::7995 ; :.4746....:....:;;.5932.:: > L T 3 . °<:>>~8s~as` 14403 12922 ,:6059`:: 7574 • LOT 4 , ,:85266 '64258 ....,.15806 10648 ...:;:::12790 5184:: 7530:::: ; :..:..:6480:.: LOT 5 .;61082 :,54982.: 22397 13700 ;x::91'62 4797_, 6321 5996 21895 ' ~ " LOT:6; -:7922a 11884 ;5782' 7228'..:` . LOT 7 ....._..50354 .48854 14572 11924 - <<; 7553. 402$ ' 5785 5035 ; . LOT 8<: ,.._31873. • 12271 :::4781... ;.:3885; 4861. " „ LOT 9 sa752 , , , „ 12983 10675 971'3 ' ;.::.,,..5204 6505 • LOT10 .32296 4 . ;,:11593 844 ..:..:;..3905' ;4882 LOT 11 . ...,.;,71419 14592 9937 ; :::10713 ,.,;.5470..:; 6838 • LOT::.:;12~ . ss2~ 3 20153 y 4471 .14432 ' . ;:..;6462 :8078. L T O 14 ~~'»>285oa 3 ,;.::221253` 22953 14612 ''::::::42756:::' . _ ''"<»i.1~464: 17519 14330 . L~T:.1:5 251.6fi ,;.7538 ;:.6226 ; 3774 ; . ....:::::::.3620::... :...4525.: • No Change ~ . N ~ . • • • • i.~~~l.. =~1."iCQA~~"i... •'~'i~'.y. ~':f i.~1't'ri ^ . ~ ~,;a~.: .1 • . • = V~•'• • N'`~ ~ ` ~ ~ _ .,ti:. r•` .w;~~~~'~': a~:~ar'Y ~.,..-r"Y~•.:~d ~ '%1)t..~a~ w~=;•.;;y r~:.~y",.rr of ia~~.`,~.:;• ~ ~s= - . ~:r _ ~ . • fir, ~ • • • • • _ ~ ~r• w ii:=•5:.;~.!~~.~, ~ . ~'a' (~J°. pp • • ~ • • • ~ \ "ma'r` • ~ A... ~ 'Y ~ • O • . • • . , ~..rr . '.'~1.. ~ J,.,~ ~/4H t 3i1DRALt . • • \ 'Z 'a V ~ _ ` r _ - . Y ~ ~ mac., : . ' - t` • ~ ~ ~ • ~ ' t'\ 84 ` • • • ~ ~ ? • ~ 1]f~ • • • • • • • ~ / ~ 11•. _ V . G: . , 85 i. .i..:... .~.i. _ L X1_:__..1 _ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ i i 1 ,r i ._.1 ~ i.. _ I ~ • I I I I I ..j ~ , ~ ~ I I ~ I _ ..O ~'A~ _ . II ~ ~ ~ ~°j° . , _ 9550 ' _ . - .8 ~o m~ t ~ ~ ~ . 8330 ST L.E . CCE ~°R ~'L~' A~C3 ~1 SS O / S _ . _ . esz o ~ ~ 85/D ~ O ~ p ~ p ~ 9 ~ O . To:_ Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department - DATE: October 26, 1987 SUBJECT: A request to apply Hillside Residential zoning to a 27 acre parcel of land commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek Applicant: George W. Gillett, Jr. I. ln~ REQUEST On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted a comprehensive Land Use Plan. In the plan, parcels of land in and adjacent to the Town of Vail were designated for certain potential uses if they could meet certain criteria, standards and policies of the Land Use Plan and other planning documents previously adopted by the Town of Vail. The Spraddle Creek parcel is a 27 acre parcel of land that was annexed by the Town of. Vail some time ago. It has never received any Town of Vail zoning designation. Through the Land Use Plan, the Spraddle Creek parcel was given a ,land use designation of Hillside Residential. - Upon completion of the Land Use Plan, a zone district - entitled Hillside Residential was written to correspond _ with the criteria outlined in the Land Use Plan. The maximum allowable density for the Hillside Residential zone district is 2 dwelling units per buildable acre. The Land Use Plan also states that any development proposal will require an in-depth analysis to assure sensitivity to..constraints, provision of adequate access, minimization of visibility from the valley floor, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposal for the Spraddle .Creek parcel is~for zoning only and does not deal with a development proposal or subdivision plan. A review of the zoning request is limited to whether the request is compatible with surrounding land uses, meets the devel~r,+.ent objectives of the Town, and the more tangible issue of provision of legal and physical access. II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Criteria #1. Suitability of Existing Zoninq This parcel of land has never previously had a Town of , Vail zone district designation. Under the jurisdiction of Eagle County, this land was zoned Resource. The Eagle County Resource zone district allows one dwelling unit per - 35 acres and is generally intended as the agriculture zone district and to preserve natural open space features. During the Land Use Plan work sessions, much discussion was centered on the land use designation that should be given to the Spraddle Creek area. It was generally agreed at that time by the Land Use committee and the participa- ting public that as a property adjacent to the Town of Vail, some level of development was warranted. At the same time, this parcel was recognized as being very en- vironmentally sensitive and valuable to the Town of Vail as open space. The land use designation was proposed as a~ use that should give development potential to the property, yet maintain and understand the environ-mental sensitivity of the parcel. Criteria #2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municival objectives? As an implementation of the Land Use Plan, this applica- tion_is consistent with municipal objectives. However, it is recognized that this parcel of land is highly visible and environmentally sensitive. While the zoning of the property meets and is consistent with municipal objectives, any development plan and subdivision proposal will need to be reviewed very carefully to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the development objectives of - the Hillside Residential land use designation and of the - Town of Vail. While we currently have indication that there is legal and physical access and there will continue to be legal and physical access in the future,-this issue will need to be discussed and clarified at the subdivision stage. Criteria #3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? The Community Development Department feels that the rezoning itself does allow for the growth for an orderly and viable community. We feel that the Hillside ~ - Residential designation while allowing the developer development potential for his property, will assure envi- ronmentally sensitive development of the property. At this point, there is not enough information to comment on any development of the site at all. Avery thorough review will be necessary to ensure that all proposed development does meet this criteria for orderly and viable growth. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the proposed zoning of Hillside . Residential for this parcel is for approval. The a Community Development Department feels that this meets the intent of the Land Use Plan and the development objectives of the Town of Vail. QdARQQ41L ~ \ ' D Ap { 1 I-~i / ~~t ~ C ~ M,~? , Mix Toe~o, L. . ._.a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ I M,~. r ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i ~I~~ vJ~~~ -~~l,-~~ GUp,E':r-:~I~ ~ ~j1~ ~I v ~ L ( . t '~~j_ t . 1 l~ ~,r. ~J'~11J 1!.~ '•Y\ /V f t 1 ~,1a~ r + ~ La ' ~~,e,;.l 4,11 • . ~1 _ 1.---_ Lam"' ` ~ 1 ~-tea r_' 1,.1?- ~ r,. r 1 • i r x ~ ~ 4 ~ 4e, if'. r t 0 ~j' I r.' +N-!• G.l r r .I , I 'r,.,t ~~1 4; 1 ,t ~ lr I .r t ~ rr~t~ ,.:f ,{r - `I F ,.yg'tt't' f= ..f,1'' .~11r: T• ,rjr:~!•~ j/'~~ ~'1y "ll;~ 1/•~,~-+"•;~,,r 1 !~'rY//'l'/i''r •~,ril,(t.t'.,`;; N r1.4? ~tt ~ fi; ~ s. S'!~ ? r' • ~t ~ •itr ~ r~F .I f:s~~' ~.~(~,IJ/~~1~ 1 ~ '/'t!,~ !r I,j ,•~P ~rr:~ I.~. c', rr~j, •r~l /r r• M e •i ~ 1 q ,s ~ ~~y 1 S! jr . FX ~e' ~ f@ ? -1 § s Yr . ` P h ~~r '/-t~,~+Pw~ a, ij ; -.:;r~l.y~ ry~~ i'~rld, .;r )7•,4~.~. ; ~ r~r ~7~~ ~ ~ -f~ t '''~.r - i . 4e;. 'l ~ ~S ~a t ;S[ISG~ rs'1t ~ S.y ~ /t+2 ~1K:, T~s- r ~`P,yl Z'~. .5` Gtarry,` i.r i _4 ~ T ~ rrfi '.s. c~ ~ +a.+}p'9~`m' '~,€".s ;-~:~.~~'."--~n~- ~Yr {~'~~~~!(E~fr.. r• M1 1 tf ~3 ~We~Yrw _ 4 M v~' ~~ir a~e~ ~ ,,.tl,~rr~'~ t . -j ~ 'R'\k. k-• ~ ` ~i~1 (c5'°~r.4 ~ f w ~ 1~,5 ,I'll ~t~ J K. IJ r`y y~• v, i, p a <5~ r ' 4 ? tL. , x a f ~I; Y r 1 y ~C' `F- s1. a- x .-t I ~1 I _ ~ n Y ~ ' t ,t~• s; i~ 3• r ~rtF 4..• j r,~ «fi_; E . ~J"'r. } I a+ 1 t ~x, 11 r. it ea-j ~ t i4 ~ ~ T '~y' ? - ~ ~ ~ . • L. it r i r r • ,1 ~ r. + r r r ~ r' t 4 tit ~4~~ v nr7'~yl.•y~Y • .J~ y . . .x.4v t, .~y - • •i •tL/.. or1..."~»S~•t1 SY,n. .FF.S , - tel.. - .'.:r• ~r - ;+Z- ':T?:TF ^ • r,. a ~u. :•~e,- .,~..5-.r'~t~• ~..r:. ..tri~~..., r'...•.c a ;+z.- ~:n.:' tt ,s+,:'it„?'1. %.~1 s ~tirs:}-~*rrf ~~`r".tS. •i'• ~a4vw. .M~"t~::; j ~'~:'+'~'`d:. .r~+.~. p~;~"•eP,4 ~'M.}•C... „•..r ,~A *."'.••'ti'^ - c,'!~•, :~':s`.r• 'r.5 .P'; ~t' '~~T!^`.-2 a•r •.r• :•n.'.'~tt 'CJ .,F. e~'!, S"n;~i'~,:v.,`~%r+F3iv~.t! . ;r, ! ,s:' :'^".i F'' µYC r~''~ i r . s , e[ ' ~ t y •;i.,. s t S.•{':~ •e~ Y s•.,t .s. ~ T : a n,- ror.. .r_^?t .!C?r I::~t ~ 4:f',' ~•a ...t,. `.:r. 1 •.i ti :,l..,M1 : '1~; ~.v1,} _ 1- ..rte r,rn "0~.~1~F. ,i^•ct!... .~tlt.,,~..b~.r'~'~~~~j• 1 1~ y.~* 1~ - s. •w7'-rr°r . ^4.=?~''r'a ~P..! --•1..~; y..;y:... . s .7 ti' .'L r ~d 'k Jr ! 4 i, , r- '.•r.•,.r. ~ e~~ }ry,P, ! r~ F.. 1 1. k.'rY a1 :~"r. a'i3~~ 4 ' y '.s S J,~ ~Wt, r? T~„Z.!' -.-y~'q~,, r ~ 45~ >.tr••".:>'~ "h' - Vt,~, , itl.tl ~ 5.._ -7,~ " k 1 t. it^, Pq...'4• :r {'4F:r :r • 'S.:. +?i - «,;tii ,~+?~t • j`~ ~'~t.~ .rC~;'~,r.. ~-~5'. s:. - _ a.ti' .t1~~K~ti;~•t' .°'r:: r'~'' :b^;'.~-rL S~~.ar. tom? ~:•t~ v.' ~..:R V' dr ~,f~,.. ~ S r ~ .r.i ~ )~[,-.3,. Y,~. ~'~:,•ti~.. n9= ~'3y~_ L'~. y `k•,_r.~' ~ r• d7 iwik' 4 r...- .li f C if a ? \ , "v4'~nF~ ~ ~ r~:•.'t:•'t ~~i x .~P : ,tF ay' f,.- z. { 1'1 w~-- > s^ p~, i ' s . 'y M' ra y• ,p • ~3 i.j r^9y~l:.~ T~~+•'f ~4~ ° ~ ~r ry? Sg '~w. rqi. ` , ~-t.. ~Y;~R w_: a ~ •i~. .~yy~~ r a 4 4 r?~±Es Sy ~ p v r "fir- gYy~?.y EQi .'ye"?' ; ~ .'•".f rI . A'LM_-. t1t'~`i ~ '+4r`'~:t4~,.. - S4 Yr.;~~ w ~ ~~~cl{v' { ~+T~a.~is ~ ~:i ~ •c ~ r r_, n,.` i~ 'mod z•: !~:"~'~»i.'~i' .t~;iY' 3.~~~~ ~e° t,•< ~t~i~6• ~ ~ '~r1~F' J}~t'P"3/t~` " .df,^si(~L;~( ,t_L.'-~#"..},.'.~~.'?*` '~t'~t:~`:.''jiC'ti~s~'~•.YZ y!„x t. %j~ , tr-. it r'`"~5, 3- ::~.~ev.:+. f 'Y ~"'`'t; ~y'T~~j~; t ~!.tiptW..,r~,., .;~~0' ~ T3 }y»\+"''+:^5",Fi~;.' c '~;~",''~',~'•.5t? t,~ ~.4r•,~;~~,..•,,r. ~k~a ~ ~.'L'• r_ ',y~'`•a~;'.a+r.~./,'. 1..7 . "'k:~ s '-4 dq~~ ~i /d ~ rt ",y.~ b~ 'tc ? r •~~'-»e ~ r ..C ea~ o•: .S .r ~ \ ~p i 1 L_ t~, s' 'h^~I. •.iv':r..~F~~~'~ Vic' "''tF`..ro~ `'6~•$~'k;v~T+G ;~.~*~;i~•';ti ! ~~s ..iK ~•~}~f - ~c'~'~ ~~~'•yr f ~rY,1~+1~7~ ~x.~. ~`~'rC~ 4~. ~ r' ~,."~y~+~~y.~+P~ '!~!J',~j~/~S<, A~ ~F~'~.+~~a.{~,~'L .Fx~'~^~'~~i•`y~-Fr ~r3,'~,,r1~iS '~3!:.,'~~lFi~~~?,•°•f,"~'r~.',i~J~,.,r4~;+R:. ~`~C~x ~ ~ •~'»T,r, r;~i''.:,. Fr "1 _ ~ ~ Ali dI" ' ."'"'~;5 ...~i`1~~o-}~~F~~y.~~,}v~~}•~ ~I~i '4'r.',dJ, .'~•!-~..`e^'r ~,.1<~IGZ"..... ~i~a~r`\i~ ~n- ' ~ . w_ k~ ,~a>t~b~hl~' 'r".'~(1, :d.'. ~ ~ -:4'• ;..4 iG~f~~ .~'1 r f Y^}A..~'°'~t~{ ~yS'/"-,•~+L i~ .4 1, f4:~'f~~,~y,:.;ip~t+P. S, v*~,~•~'(~F ,~1•.i~'S~.' ' x' ~~CT~~' ~i'+~, t\ ~~pCj; ;y~ ~~71 T t~ #x.s~~~^,dii"{~••t~~ .lr_ ''•F+.T ~,~,'Nli~.~'~'/Y'ft~ 1 ~tAi~l` 1'.T. ~Y~sn A~, 4N'"" ~ ~ ~ ~ • ' . A 'S.r~, y~ ;jf'• ~a~~~:$ ~ YY F'#t/ .ll~!~ w:. ~7 ",fir !~,y. ',r,,; •4.. t t- yy 7~+ ,•a~ ..:y~ r~F,~• ~~.~•^i'~`•. ~r "'~.)4 t f .X~~t~ C ri`.~ ~ ; . t.. ..r° .'?s•. 9 i~, ,T"s'S'kK 1.r?k , y .1".-1 `gr`~."' M ~,.r.r 1}~ ~t P'• ~ ))vhf' ~~.ri.. s~,k~• °4~ •'~i ~.9r"'1:;tW -'s-~' u"t {w" rt H j"Y •~~.....~r`,a S4f a'r ~{`rk'.1 `{9., r4 f•io-' nKt."~SS. 4,'~ w Y ~t`~~ 7'W s It~~~~~'7~~M'1~~"FH~~ii:33+~`.N`Y'lk. l~Ri,t. ~ ~a;G';:h;~GLq.s'~aK'c-•+ , r, 'S./y•':,it:~_. .,~•~~'.~~/•iw r.1~. .S fir.,, ti~r,l`..e~i~." ~:4'S\k ~li\+`.?• . o~. i.,~. s,r%r~• \ ~'~r.... :4J ti~~ tt ~ ` , 1` ~ - ^y Y u ~ . + ~ ' ~7 ` 1 t,° 1\ \ '`rl ~Q } G. w. FENCE t3' Borpeal / D/~Qj / PPOP?SEO RE TA~N~Ni aa~-•~ ~'~^•~~y` ~ ~ ? ~CN¢ tREf UNE ~ G~EK kO D 2c~',~~ ;r~~-Tar ~ ------._..v . ` 2-. ~ ~ 9t,E T _ 1 , j~~i Jt?..qd~? - PPO ~ G'POLC. ~~pD ~••~O ~Oj Ld/ - I ~ ~ ~ ~.E.L~/J7~'• E4/{, PROPOSfO STO S~6N ~ / ~ ~ V~ O / ` I~QI ~ I• O Fl ii f ~ D I r\~ t\ \ F. f L,~~•I NI,~~,P1~ If~61C.• i~ ~ R. 9ELL S~STEw ~j ~ ~vANNQLE _ ~ ~ 25:/ Toper r- _ v r \ ~ ~ _ /uoKrr, ~ b '~:h ~ I : ~ O 20 1. h' I ~ t F,f: . ~ I - /V. Ff~ ~d • ~ T: Gbh e ~ 5~~~rl~al/e G : ; ~ I y~J, NO PEDE St R~GN ~ I I 1, ~ ' , ! s~cN ! \ 1' 70 ACCESS RAMP ! i Tpw COLORADO tNC. ~ . 1575 Larimer ~ Suite 600 , ~ Denver, Colorado 80202 ~ • ~u`j/QO ~ DROP INLET ~ • D.GcQ~t~ LIDNT POLE _ INTERSTATE SIGNO t 111 4.8• SIDEweLN 1 , \ !A Q~~ ~ ~~~1(~ • • 1 ~ * r'~' .n . ~ r i'fr.• S° t;~ t + .t~Y _3,j d e. ' .a'~ er 1- ~ ~ 4 1 i} ' p ' r' ~ ni r } _ v + ° ~ t j w ~ ~ r r f L 7 .a { . xi . u "Y y 4 1 { 2 E ~..s t -y~X :AC ~ •i . r ;E x F,~ ~r e ; r, Ik'r f _ ,e, ~ i J * y ' 2 t ; . - ~ f . ~ ~ ° r Z f ~iir ~ k' .a ~ ref is ~ t ~ . .•,ry < r a _ dY 2 r f T { q ' . - ' ~ Spraddle Creek : ~ - " t 4, • . ~ ~ ~ 9/27/90 ~ w,: ~ . ~ ~r~ {t .R~ t ~ .re . a~ ' ~ i a 5~~~l. ti s~rrr~~w5#~a f.. 9'#d` i..'~i+t ~:•7.!.q~4~ r'Ri+ M ~*.i. r;'`~ t ''1 e, - . ~ , S e _ i A ' _ _ _ ~ _ ~ 3 y ~ .:_f M. ~ ~ '1: v• ~ ~ 'r e. ~ f a (i e ' rt + Y' r t 1w ; _ ~ 4 e ,ti . is t. ~ r - 5 - e ~ ! i ° d _ ° r ~ r r , ' r a„ _ , ~ ~ r zF ` ~ ~ ~r,.f t Rte" f tie a•,:..• 1. h { t.. li 1 s' Y "r J' i r 7" = i y{ r rrr a f. ~~~se, 'e• -s: O ~ , . . 't ~ ,5,w` K yt ~ . r ° . / aw, 1 F. t+-J r t 4 d•xr~~. J ~ r s # . Y t. °r`~.e. = r ~ r "r P ~ e -r .4 t ~ it .t:. Y Ll f F~ .a a ~ 9<r acv t 1 e t < i F" Zx ~ r ~ I !l °~Yi L, f ~ t.. ,r ~ ~ L~ k r - 3 } F,. r., x'~~~~~ °~a ~ x~~. rc t r r.'ax* at { c r. r~ _r - a`~/, * 1 t _ + t Y _ r 1 F' ~ ti t+ l ^x k; .'y 4 ~.i-~ t ~ 1, d i ~i~ ~e 4 r ~ ~ .P~... L 11-, ? r.. rY, t! 1 A u`~ ~f .1 ~Ti.F a i~ t Y Y~ ~ ~~~dt~ N»T'_<~ iY `W ~ ~h ~ ~ ~C 5 -,.i` . F ~t ':1 i. 'LL ) t t ' ~'1 r f Diu ~ r ~'bt i3 ~ Z}Y ~ F'~'~, t,~tRF i - ~ t,~ < t31,~R ~ Y x r,~ .'y c,,, T-.) r,t r l ~ ~ 1 - ~ ~``.9~ j~ - r{ s~ ~ , r3 n r r .,p,.y - t a t ~V t r r _ - ~n ff `I t i 2 ~r ~ s h ~ F - r {w.>s,~+` ,t t ~ s ¢ k ' x i - .rr .Fy r e . tt ~ ' 'e .v. v r ~ ,i. ' ~q{rc s n .y ,"r~4 ~ t. ~',+f-,,, r Sr _.'F7 f~. ~i~,~ : .Ma irk n ur .I,,r i a., ~yy P;. .y, +nc!. h~ - 7 M ~ V ~ a... r ~ d - , f`s,4: r r r ~ a 5a R. ^P'n ~3 7 • ~ ~ ~ .f i h i. ~ d'' i." I. P s x '~1 1 ~f~ x t •_f ?.rf t r a.•. < r a F ~ ~ k ~ 'S' f ~ s S h y ~ ~s` i 1 ~ 4 r ~ t Imo. :r ~c. t :e r} Zz.^ a,fr .4: r s.. t ,t. ~ f ^ R -a .,y. ~ xp t ..',:yy. F {',~~i' ~ ~ ~ - ' c r _ ' •r~t ~r!tarC~f ~:~w` ..F: S 1"~, ty,~> `:v'r'^r i~~ 4FP°'k tiu .Ft~ r yM n. ~ trt ~ f l~ :j " 3.' ':r`^ j'« J %t x.-Ra* 4aa`.s 1 ~ , _ i, A ~ r~ r # ~ r ? 4' 1',y j t,.. a E- r^' i 1 J sk x~. a "x- .g .#rx ri. rx: r Cs1 A 4~ t t ~ 't '':1. '^rn ~ ~~^.S ``^.Y. •i .7 "f t~'-sQ'. .r f~ t 1;~ F ''L a. i1 i~. ~'-F, !YCr7. t .t~. >+f .FV i 'l. a R r f1r~ '-tom ! L6 t~^ 7 Y y. ~S r _ ,.n"~. ~~i i t. W''!~. £ ~ r +`."~:t4 iy it ~d~. .~i: ,r., t,: ti e w r ~ y{ t ~?s 4 ' ~i .7 s f t • ~ a ~ € _ Ys S t { ~ ` _t ~ C. i ; ~ s. ,,''i _r L :..wr c'- ~ a t. ~:r t tr rx a - t ' t '•.t I. ir. ~ - s l~ a `•a - 1 < .,r `t +a• t- f r ~'~t 1 r ~ a,. t M 1 ~t _tt S ~4 ' _ ~ 2 y lF 7. 1 i 4 c"~ ttY `i ~_•2K 7 'Y"~ ~~"ir' f> a,.•~.. of r -~1~'..F ~fq'~i't`:7' tt r s.,h{.. ~ r L _ ~ t +ly .t K'r~+ ~1` r 'r MJ+.:1` t'• r r 1 a - 9• ' -r < ~ ri , ~ h . r - c d~ 5 R. t 1 ..X'.', .if. •1~ ~ I Y y ~ x;43` "Y1Y l~s • ; , `2 y, , j, -,eL~~ta c A, ,s, ti L .~w r a{lF 1 . ~~1- 1, ~?~•~1t% ~ '•a~. ~ , 1 ` ~k ' i; Yip ~ ~ .y c t l a ~ t - ' h y. ~ ' ' ~ ~~'°.~..3'-+R y -~~~~utc~ fem. ,1' mow.. _ Spraddle Creek History 1984 Spraddle Creek Parcel annexed into the Town of Vail 1986 Town of Vail adopts the Land Use Plan which designates Spraddle Creek as Hillside Residential . 1987 Town of Vail zones Spraddle Creek as Hillside Residential 10/30/89 George N. Gillett submits an application for a major subdivision at Spraddle Creek 9/24/90 Unanimous approval to the Spraddle Creek Preliminary Plan by the PEC 10/2/90 Site visit and evening meeting by Vail Town Council at request of applicant Spraddle Creek Fact Sheet . Subdivision Size: 40 acres Number of Lots: 14 Number of Acres in Lots: 26.65 Number of Acres in Road Right-of-Way: 5.26 Number of Acres in Open Space: 7.65 Density: .35 units per acre 2.8 acres per unit Length of Roads: 6900 Lineal .Feet Average Road Grade: 7.88$ 250 LF at 3.85$ 200 LF at 4.27$ 400 LF at 6.00 500 LF at 7.00 2300 LF at 8.00 2600 LF at 8.59 650 LF at 8.8~ Width of Right-of-Way: 50 Feet Road Width: 22 Feet Plus 2' Curb and Gutter and 2' Shoulder Retaining Walls Height Length 8'1" to 8'8" 291 LF 6' to 8' 2663 LF Less than 6' 3225 LF Samples of retaining wall materials are in the council chambers. Landscaping All disturbed areas to be revegetated at approximate number and types of trees and shrubs and grasses as currently exist per acre - with mostly native species. Please see the attached photos which indicate how plant materials can reduce the visual impact of the retaining walls. Y ,r ^`R tt~ 1 r~ti aJJ.. ~ ~ n' ~ , ~ ! ~ JiiM`iJ~ r 1^:~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ Y t ` ~ J ,taY1 ..;~C,. R~ ; ~uSV-r?.r~~?'ti? _'tk~7~~~ j. ~'Yr ~ ~^t:, 'F~"`'ba~+x.~q !'~+4"~- Vii..: ~~y~'~~T ! . c aY c ~ w' 'p ~ "~1~ R r ~ .`1~ i+. c .~~?:~x. ~'~'?~`3r-i=*.~.±+? ~~4~. Y' !~i;~, :yam' i ~ ~ , `tom ` w ~ t ,l,~'T~,_l a- 'i. ',H, ~ emt~% t~ t~-~ y ~ ur , ~ k a1,~ y~j~'7n,~ y, tit . ` _ . ~ . ~ ' ` f f ~ ~ ` yt y v .,~4 ~ ••S ~ ,ic ,,_11.pIF~°":,t ":~'Y~s~" '~~3t/ ~,r* •F~, ~~Y.t, ~"~r~. ,+~(jjj~~~~~^^^~~~ ~.t L .-iF ,'`='w,.y~..'~ .iw-n'~t ~ . ~ ~ sr_ ti Syr o f .~l ~ F !y * ~ , ~ `H1 , ~S4 <t+ ~ ,~t~ f Y l~ 1 r ,r ~ ""`VVY M .d. T s~ 6. ~ ~3'r .M "r ~ : ~l7 +X t' ~f fit ~ ''6 SYy,~k• ~s , ~ • l + ~w~_,M ."r .y~~ / +y,~ f T.,<.rk~~l~i~~~~'~ ~~!#''~~~AI,,~~~Uw.,trt a t, ',-,~w-I.r ~.i~• t h*'•.' i;':~' ,i . I ~ ~ ~aG': ~r T . _<ara lv~ y 1 ' Sir. ;l~,R' z i~[~ F~. `3. a"~w w t~<t' ~ ~ < 2; ` l.~'eq„ i is 94~ tYY :+G~°' i~'' ^t^ L~+. _ r e, 3" C 'Y .r~:;. ,My~,x ~'tt , r ,j; ~ a x ,~ti ~ Y !r_ ~ i ,~y..~_ .r"..ter'; ..'.1~. -1•b~t ~ h \ ~s^C~. ~~~aC ! t ryy~~ ~b ~~•T'~~1 ~ ^ 1 .k YK ~yr~ C 'F~,~da•~~M&_y } ti,~t s~{J~ ~'^.fiyi~ ~ • s_~ { ~ F ~~~Md ~~~~y ....~~Yx.; ~ .a ,.?FtS~•~~5~''" ~ y..."~'.t ~ _ ti i~: jf a.~.~b• ~ ' ~~ti ~ i/' ~ ~ •.a. .al~,:~~~: :T Y~ 'G~ r H~ +'Y'{'.3s;. YyrZ ~'tl~ •;.,~~t" 'r'h ~ , . ; ' r. ~w ys.~~a tre..!t~, '~bti! ~ ~ ~~s ~t..~t. ~~j.~~ 1 ~~~yt_ yyr - .4 \~3 i ~ ' "C ~w S'.i` ~YwN?'"!~y~,~" '1Yt c~ ~Y~, s,F 1`~~\r~ t t • j . +ya'.'.s a,. c xi.' ~~~~'.~~`y~~•: 4~1~a "Y' ~t~ ~e c~j~ try, Ky,, r ~r~' ~ a ~Ls„~ k ,w ~ • + d ^~f~M~M~~_^•i iAH1 4 y,,~ 'l Fop 3~ ~}y - `°F~~ ~t; jj.~}' ' A ~ • J 3' +11. Y y~y.~ n f I,#s11 ~"~w,~~Y `Y_ ~ it ~ A.. { `t 4 "f :''L'k K ? ~ r+ll~~ ~ ~MI~~`; y~~,~ ry 1 yrr7,. ~ ~~"+r ~ . '~'s.14.... w ~d1 i^'~' ,~.,agk ai H` .a. ~"ra',.a~~,`~'~y ~ ~t+~'?y~~ ~ , ~k ~'S~'~ F j Y'r tt-?e a j' ~ r '~'.4f~~ ~ Ltarw~ ~ (rY.. ",y "d~1' r Y~ 1~ ~ 7 ~ :~"~'^T' r'.y tiy~i' y} ~ ~r j ''e'~ i~,, . ~~~Cr`~~ ~i,-~ ~ •~~y'~':S"a ~;~Li.Iy ;5• ~-~;'~.y •i. ~tk4 •A c',::~~ ` ~ - Ya ~•~y~c ,v. ~re +4t r 4! •cr sj, y,,x,k*~.. ;~-t r..wd?,. ~ y~ ~''r+~3.~. ik , '~"1~~ ~ L i r i,5 ~ F.' y~ c ^i ti ~ .gag Zi s~~~~~j,. ' ~t ~y" t.. J j +y .4't" `ea Y"w f ~ ~ ~~k. w Jf~~f~ a ~."~.y~ 'Y ~'~~sJ ,t +r~~ .rty i%` ~ , y ' '"'+ry< ~.I'q. i~ ,k' J .wY ..v r+.~ ~ a r •,.c Y~ ..rY' :p1:~ ~ 's '~~,i;,. ~P ~,'k. ~ ~ c ~ y a a Y* R~ ~ L ~ 4r wr .(i »~1i~ Y a<,¢ r r»~~ i ' r y,~. ~yw.~C+Y ~y~~ tF j"`Y~ ~ 1• jai. .,p i - v~.+i+3~,,. K ~j_' , • Y~ ,e:: t r ~ 1 i~ ~ 5 , ' : ~r 7' a r .yr. ra s,.. A :'rte ' y . `t - , _ ~ # ~.t"~ z~~~iQ.sF~M ~ ~ ~ f a''"•"#-. ~i ~ ~ ~ t T~ . F ~y. .tl* ~ T" ,z~ ~ ~ i~ t.. l~'. Vii. +~~M: l.if' ~•,aic A'~~t ~.y- :,Y _ ~'[M~ a~'T~ w-a-:e. ~ ~-rA;' - . ' +Y~ . -lk.ki- z p+'t x~ :~+~~x --'a's $4 s.. t e~` R ~~-m.~;~+ a y y~ ~7 ~ r.-. » - ' s 3t, y". ~`'.-+.s~y'~ - - 7~ . .;..-.1- ~a - :s~~~- L F-: ..>~...t rte`"` "s„*'-~ ~.x -h 4 ti.. : s-. z.. ?r~,~,ys ~-dr ~~~4a .,i _'S.~+t• ~r 'ty.:'C. r* _r e.~ . , ,a - -r ..x. - > _ ,.>v,. -s- r +v,~1~.r~,,,, ?'~-_i:.~~. `Y .s r h', a ~'~9G ~ b _'"'°"~,5 ~ :a!` e Yom,: x - - ~ . ;r ....F . q ~ ~J`... 4s.F3e ''~„~i ~ ,r k'.Ye=" 3.ta`.~ .2"" :T' Y ..T l.~t ~ ~ - i .F7 ..S'_ :fie ~fi`.„•,~y• i. ~q~~~~'~.`" .,~'6- ,z-:b .~i.~~ ~ .'t~ t'- ,~,a -t'~.~~. - o `:7 .C ~ - P , l~. cs' ~ ''Ik;1}~a y,. f"'"3 "0r> ~a ~ y -S - : a~,..~r., t ~ t. •s 3~'• t~' ~ r. , +~_.M ri-_ r".` ^r.':;t,f .t+ ~ - ~ E _ ,4•. - :~i a.~4r6 .*o 1:'4s '%--cam r-}3>«-: .~-.:k s T . . y - 4'• .;c':. R. i ' `ems, a7f}I,~~ y.~, ~ ~y '~i'" .J n 1~:'~'v q 'i4 ~ v~3~ '~1 ~ 1: k.w';;. ae•,.,.1 4 p-e'•• 1q`1r~.: y,C 5 ,v,~ a .+C. r.~b e, ._a: , ~ _ it-- .z.,, s*~'.- ~:s:~. 'x w. ~1 .3..{ .-FAC ~ .aFi t. ,:3~!M:fti- .'v.. ,.'~+;r. r, _a~^,. sr T_...il~A "E wi! ..+Fs a.• '~.k ~~r.•. r~~~.. `y w.; a't. x.- ''~5, 'i~ -r.. "a.;.'gi.2 `k~'~., . ~E., ~ g': - .wa+~.. 's ^~t , r~~-~~'4"y!? 3[ ,r- :4 ~ 'y~;~ t ,~}5c~' a:+!i. ~-''~~-r'_-~.,.^ ~ ;•~E"~" r f~ 'r`h - t' 'w` .;e . z. Yr E. - ' ~ `.x '.:~u..,~.f: ~ 5 ~,5. .1. 3g_,_ - af rt«.~. .j`- r•^f- eL^y?~ .c..t~i". _ _ ~+f'~ ..f*':.. rte. ! - ~~"'Lf ~ ~ y. s ~'s „I. _.t~ "a`- --t9~'~.s_. :5rs r`~!"~ .x~ ;y'~' ~+r,f - '~~y~.fr~.. ~1f ~ ~ ~ _ < ' - ~.*irP,~k • •r,14'~ •-q• r '~1e-. ~~'~,~°s~ a`J.. ~ r v.. _>$~.t~°~'.w~aF~;~~':1 ` '~~F- a. c x~~ y ,q ?j _ .i~t{1E`r_~ :;,,'ll` ~1~r ~ ~r 'r". ~~+~,-~-r- . r,~ .ti" ~ i r:s ` + t; ~ t1j~ ~ ~ , , ~ ;*~r~•~~, i_ g'~' • K ~ }VJy • ~ k . ws ~ . h : A ~ ~ ~ ~Sn'~• ~t ?i u ~..t' v~. ?r - _ L s. F~ . yy~ a d~ + Y a" ~ ~ µy n~ i x - "tT ,~s~r f ~k ~ i ~i'~.~ '`µ~4' a~ t h - _ `A~,. .,i' ~ -is "[ytf.. ,~i: a '~•~:.r 3 ~R'•'r h'w r,: J: rr,~ 'v Z ' ` 'wr ,ar ~t sit` a ;,r ~~~1r ~ t ~T ~y' ~ t6I~';~L T~`~~ L~Ii~'R+~y. •~L.~ r'~r#*t .~«.T~ • a ~~~sy a~'w`rr"'~~~~~?!`~ ~ t r~ ~ C" ~r.~~ ~ S', a I r~~ - ham' , 4 fir T ~ I ~,j~ ~I. 1 1~. T ? r' At' r-. is ;ty61.~ :trJ~'f~•~: x,~ t;• 7V •.~i{~'.`'~d~is-•~„y~• •r' ~~'yT~~",' 4 ~j: 'T~6 ~ ~ ~'~l`~ ~~K?i • {c.ye'~,`.'C.I. • ~,~i` a~+: 1 • ' t R • i. L.. H fb f! ~ AG. ~a ~ z S -lK. + ~ - j ; +~v,. .-.,#.'c is r, 4?-." :~k.. 2^•~- ...h ~-i,~.~t~~ • +~a :f~, , T w, ?Tr t ~ - . ' Y ~',TJ l Z ~ i.~,*.[- ~ ~ , s rZ ~ Yt 't14r ~ 4v . a " 4' { T,* ~ - t"' r .~P 1- a . f r C - r ~ . ^r" ~ ~ ~ t, o~,+. ,r# -~r~~ h. - ~ f . - ~'L s ~ .;.~~~z FS 'C !~r`~~*±` v: a.xf~ ' ' ~.t ~~rL . ~fi ~ r ~ -.tom:' r~~`it ^1 rr' ' ~ f.A~`'s -'~i 1, ~ A ~ h' s { a:. i ~ i. - ,l f ~ . sr - < f j . F,:' ' ! e ~ d ,sf ' ~ j ; x`~~ .':s r !~,7;'" F,~~'t t:?~;~j''::.~ ' k` ~ ! 'i . f ~ - F.• .f. ~'1 ~ -.A°~ rf s S';,i j,, ~ .r r~ i~.A. _f : z • , J a • *>T.•] - s~ jj~ ? t • ~ ,'k ~ 1 ~ Y r,..f-•7h ~.r ,.i'~ ~1. .~~,~+r~L~~~«"' . ~"i . fa 1* 'i k~ ' f r r : J ' r, ~ - 'JAS •z- .r - Y r ~~i A, ~.+'n ,x_ '.'R' . ~1 J .,ie~ ~ t a ' , . _ t ~ 'J,s` ~ ~ . , ~ f- '~J; N 1 ~ f y}~r ; ,±',tt - ,T,, . ,•A, ;~y~„ ,~~.r"/t. ...r'. :v a'; St+s~r. .r, - }t ,y :IFS, ~ '.c~- ~ { t+7,fj,4r 1~~i~• - .r .f~ {r~, rq ~ ~ -y ~f#`R''~. a_ z i r _r'~"raf. ty~~ V t I!.. '.1I.'1 •~~t~`'~~r~ !1. ~`.t 'v?~" .i', c1 r~-"1' / = .1F ~ -''r,.r',1. s„^~, ~ ~r,N• ~l `9'.!:' zt- ,N }y+lP •r ,~~~d~1)~.`~'~^~~~ ~rh' >a. ~ f1 +'1 +n•,p~ +{`~f e. 4 ~ - + a -sy ~ f{ II , I t/i} :i j l - 4 _ X ~n y _ . 4Y}'+, J~,~~> .;rt>"~~,!` ~js .ri1~' }fir r+~:1~..- ' ipT J` ` t'j.f+ {{w n ~S` ~a:• '.l = ~ r +#^7` :`b., ~ f r ~ r'l'~a ~ -(r,~ ~ ~ -`f s~', z r~'R~ ~~f Pi.'~'r,;•, >r~.'~t-'``"k s - ,.c ?(k _i-~,. '.'~a. 1'* • _ . . , i ~ 'J. ' N • - *r _ ' •r ~ - j..s f s fit` 1 i" ; - ~ _ - ri 'Mfh'. ~ •r,,. ~y . ~z~~ `t-,~+' AS - ki S'~ :ft' F...~ -Rt`4~?i'1~~ srsr~e~~#-'i,'r-p'[~.-'a:-... TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 24, 1990 RE: A request to amend the Snow Avalanche Hazard Map in the general vicinity of Vail Meadows, Filing #1, pursuant to Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail At a public hearing, on September 24, 1990 the PEC voted unanimously to recommend to the Town Council approval of the requested amendment to the Town of Vail's avalanche map for the Vail Meadows Snow Avalanche Path according to "Quantitative Analysis of Runout Distance, Energy and Avalanche Zoning Implications, Vail Meadows Avalanche, Vail Colorado" (Set. 1990) by Art Mears. At this meeting, a number of property owners from the Vail Meadows subdivision were present and raised questions regarding the following: 1. What determines the Blue/Red zone designations and what caused the change to the red hazard zone in the 1990 study? 2. When does the development of a new structure negatively or positively impact the existing structures further down the runout zone? 3. How and when is Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District proposing to mitigate their water tank at the top of the chute? This work was required by a previous study. The staff was unable to answer these questions related to avalanche hazards. The PEC felt that the recent report by Art Mears (see memo), a recognized expert in the field, which changes the designation of the hazard zones satisfactorily met the amendment requirements. The PEC voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendment to the Town Council. According to Section 18.69.030, the Master Hazard plans may be altered to conform with new information or existing conditions. The study (dated September 1990) by Art Mears which the Town requested that he perform is based on new information and takes into consideration existing buildings. One issue that remains unresolved is the status of the water tank which is located to the east of the subdivision in the Red Avalanche area. Mitigation which was required several years ago has not yet been installed. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District is currently investigating mitigation methods for the tank but has not yet installed any mitigation. Art Mears will be present at the October 2, 1990 Town Council meeting to answer questions which may be raised. (Some information including an overlay comparison of the existing and proposed zone designations was unavailable at the time of distribution of the packets and will be distributed at the time of the meeting.) TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 24, 1990 RE: A request to amend the Town of Vail's Snow Avalanche hazard map in the general vicinity of Vail Meadows, Filing #1, pursuant to Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail A. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is requesting to amend the Snow Avalanche Hazard Map for the Vail Meadows avalanche path. The amendment is a result of the reevaluation of the runout 'distances and the hazard zonation of the area completed by Art Mears. The proposed changes will affect the following lots in Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1 as specified: Lot Existing Designation Protiosed 21 Blue Blue (decreased area) 22 Red Blue 23 Red/Blue Blue (increased area) 24 Blue Blue (increased area) 25 Blue Blue 26 Blue Blue (decreased area) 28 Blue Blue 29 Blue Blue 30 Blue Blue (increased area) B. BACKGROUND The existing hazard zonation map by Art Mears and McDowell, Scott and Cox for this area was adopted in 1976 (See Exhibit A.). This study used Swiss procedures and equations derived in the 1950 and 1960's. The results produced by these procedures are somewhat subjective, particularly within the 8 to 10 degree slopes of the Vail Meadows runout zone, because they depend upon friction coefficients which are not known, but must be assumed. Recently, an application for development was submitted for Lot 22, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. Because the entire lot is currently designated red hazard, it was necessary for the applicant to provide a site specific study which satisfactorily showed that the designation of the area of the lot to be built should be amended to a blue hazard zone. . The change of designation is required because the Town of Vail Hazard Regulations do not allow development to occur in .red hazard avalanche zones. The applicant submitted a site specif,ie study completed by Hydro-Triad, which again used the Swiss method discussed above. This study changed the zones for both the red and blue hazard areas (Exhibit B). The zones moved approximately 150 ft. uphill to the east. This change would enable the owner of Lot 22 to develop an area of the property with proper mitigation. Because of the differences between the two studies, both of which used the Swiss methodology, the Town elected to have a third study completed which utilized the current "state-of- the-art"methods now in use throughout North America and Europe. This study, by Art Mears, changes both the red hazard zone and blue zone for this avalanche path. The red zone boundary moves further up the slope to the east while area of the blue zone will increase as shown on Exhibit C. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the proposed amendment. As per Section 18.69.030, the master hazard plans may be altered to conform with new information or existing conditions. Staff feels that the change should be made as per "Quantitative Analysis of Runout Distance, Energy and Avalanche zoning Implications Vail Meadows Avalanche, Vail, Colorado" by Art Mears (September 1990). ~ K ~ ' : ~ . ~ e?/•i. .Zap ~ ~ J / / ~ ~ i . ~ ~ r 1 ~ • • ' ~ - ~ ~Z~ ~ ::::RECREATION . . , ~ AREA . . . • .r k•..y .'aa~;';~, ~.~.r -<a~% _ yam. ~ 'j.'•'. ~ . t'~. } P--, 1 ~'C V 0~ ..r e ~E ~pNE t J~ ~ . l `h a r ' n ~ i / ~ ~ ~ s 1' L2~ 4M t, F 4~ f~ - ~ / ~ W. -7 , + wAT KR J. ~ ' t ? SCALE` 1??: t50? ~ . ~ ~ y ~ t ~ 7 ~ 51.5° ` ~ EAOOWS A~ALANONE ~ ~ , vA1L ~ E ~ ~ e. ~ ~ ~ R~No~-~ zoN & ~ INS H~~H ~ ~ SHOW HAZA~O ZONES 1 pERpTE Mo l Ott' nG ,A ~ r l~M _b '~r'~lV .a ~ ~fp ~ , , ~ ~ V r ( 1 CO BLU3 ZC?.E 30U:iDARY /n J~~i ~ ~ ~ - ~ I LANE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .z v , O 1 ~ l _ , t l~ xED c^~ONE BOUNDARY ~ ~ (,-0,., _ ~iIS STUDY ~ 22 S-7 1HATER ~ ~ ' ~ TANK oQ. ~,~`c\ ~ tt~. ' _ _ .k~.. ~ c SCALE ~ I _ _ 1 ~ ~ ~ ::s _ .V~~ ~ ~ - -v,.~ t., i':5° f r~ t$ -~r,~~~ 1 ~ ~ ' ~ VAIL MEADOWS AVALANCHE x. ~ R.UNOUT ZONE., ~ 1 SNOWING HIGH "`a ~ / ZONES RATE HAZARD MODE r ~cln~ bit' L ' UPPER EAGLE VALLEY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS 846 FOREST ROAD •VAIL. COLORAD081657 r""~"11 ~ ' (303) 4767480 i September 1T, 1990 Ms. Shelly Mello, Plaru>ler Tala>t of Vail ?5 South F.....L~~: Road Vail , Ool..~ a,:o 8165? Re: Lot 22, Vail Me+aidows Filing No. 1 II:~+ Ms. Mello: The Di~l+ict has ....,~,,.tly L inf..__~3 by I~r. R..'L~.l Borne that the water tank 1....lated above Lot. 22, Vail Meadows Filir>g No. 1 is _ ",aired to have a ~tective structure above it to . ~ ~ feet the tank' ~r..,... avalanche d~.~... s and _ ..,:,xee the I------ ,1 to su.....u>Ic13ng r...rtrty. Mr. Borne" ~,..:.~ented to the District a ~ ~.r... ~ , r~ era- ~1 by hydro-Triad, dated June, 1990, which ref .:...red a r- ~ pious ter... r era- ~1 by I~Iydro-ZSriad in April . .1977. The District has soquired the 19?? . ~i.... t, ,and ba4ed upcm `the earlier _ ~.....~...~.Batiens to ......~truct a splitting structure as a d,efet>Ise mect>Ianism, has retair>red an engineerir>rg firm to evaluate both ~ L~ and "design a ~.tective structure that would be adequate to sustain the severe avalaru~.hes that could be expected in the high hazard zo~~e. The 1990 . ~r~~. ~ Hydro-T~iad ref,~_ ~..~,oes the 197? .:.r l that ~..a....luded °If the tank tl:..~.maintained at 80~..full during the avalanche hazard period and equirrtl with a sheer ring tie to the foundation, the tank would not fail or be a significant additive el._~.~ :~,,,t to the avalanche, as it would effect the ..:..~idential lots slang Snowshoe Lane." The tank is maintained at 80A;full or ~„.~ater during I>kl~,a.al ..r~.~.tion of the water system throughout the winter months. The sheer ring tie to the ~fatiuxiatian, however, has not L:.:~1 installed. Based upon initial evaluation bY. the District's .:..yin~~.~, they have .........lulled thet the' sheer riryg tie would net be adequate and are therefore s.... ~ . - ° tng with fu.ll.er evaluatioaz and design of the splitting structure. If yolu have any further questions . ~„I~...ling this matter, please feel r. to ......tact me at 4?6-?480. Sir~.~_ ~Ily, ~ y~..,G~ Jerzy Bender DL L,.+ Of Water Cr atians JB:sk cc: F~a~a~d H. II.~~., Jr. Kent Rose Project File OAf1TIC1~ATIN6 DKTRICTrf - ARROWHEAD METRO WATER ~ AVON METRO WATER ~ BEAVER CREEK METRO WATER ~ BERRY CREEK METRO WATER CLEAN EAGLE~VAIL METRO WATER• EDWARDS METRO WAT£R• LAKE CREEK MEADOWS WATER• UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLDATEO SANITATION VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER ~ VAIL WATER AND SANITATION QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS.OF RUNOUT DISTANCE, ENERGY AND AVALANCHE-ZONING IMPLICATIONS YAIL MEADOWS AVALANCHE, YAIL, COLORADO RE~C'D SEP 1 ~ i;;~~ QIIANTITATIVE ANALY8I8 OF RIINOIIT DISTANCE, ENERGY AND AVALANCHE-ZONING IMPLICATIONB~ VAIL I+lEADOWS AVALANCHE, VAIL, COLORADO Prepared For ~ The Town o! Vail Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado September, 1990 ~~ntroduction and Purpose This re-evaluation of runout distances and hazard zonation in the Vail Meadows avalanche path, East Vail was requested by the Town of Vail. The~~e-evaluation was requested because a site specific _ study .recently completed by ,Hydro-Triad (1990) for the owner of Lot 22, at the west end of Snowshoe Lane, changed the hazard zonation which was previously. defined in 1976. However, the Hydro-Triad study apparently u6ed methods which have been superceded by recent research (McClung and Lied, 1984; McClung and Lied, .1987 ; Mears, 1988; McClung, Mears, and Schaerer, 1988; Mears, 1989a; Mears, 1989b; Mears [in prep.]). In particular, the avalanche-dynamics equations used in the Hydro-Triad study to define avalanche runout limits apparently follow Swiss procedures and equations derived in the 1950's and.1960's (e.g., Voellmy, 1955), as discussed in Mears (1976). The results produced by applicatipn of these equations are somewhat subjective, particularly within the 8°-to-10.° slopes of the Vail Meadows runout zone, because they depend heavily upon friction ~coefffcients which are not known but must be assumed. Limitations to the use of avalanche-dynamics equations are discussed in in appendices "A," "B," and "C." This study has quantified the dynamics and runout of the Vail Meadows avalanche in accordance with current "state-of-the-art" methods in regular use throughout North America and Europe. ~j~ethods used ~,n analvsis a. The Vail Meadows avalanche profile was subdivided into 18 -slope segments short enough such that each segment could be assumed to.have constant slope (Table 1). The profile was constructed from the 1:24,000 scale ~"Redcliff" quadrangle (above 9,200 feet elevation) and the 1:1,800 (1" 150') scale topographic map prepared by Hydro Triad (below 9,200 feet). b. The runout zone was defined as beginning at the 10°-profile point, at 8,800 feet elevation, as is consistent with current statistical methods, appendices "A," "B," and "C." c. Because the avalanche impacts a 75-foot high limestone knoll at the beginning of the runout zone, a "synthetic" profile was extended through the knoll toward the northeast at an angle of 5 degrees (Sege 16', 17', 18'). This is the direction the avalanche would :advance in if it were not deflected. The 5. Ldegree slope is the mean runout zone slope of a data base consisting of 112 design-magnitude avalanches sampled throughout Colorado. d.. The "Beta" angle and the length "X$" (see Appendicies A, B, and C, for definitions), were then measured from the profile. These two angle and slope parameters were found to be statistically significant in regression analysis of the Colorado database. e. The "Alpha" angle (McClung and Lied, 1984), the point at which the design avalanche stops, was then computed from the Colorado database regression equation.- The computed Alpha angle, down to-the 95~ confidence limit was 22.0°. f. The PCM avalanche-dynamics equation (Perla, Cheng, and McClung, 1980] was then fit to the synthetic profile, and forced, - by successive iterations to .stop at Alpha 22.0°. The PCM avalanche-dynamics coefficientB thus determined by iteration were: M/D = 755m; mu = 0.2 (assumed fn iterations). q. A second slope profile was then constructed of the actual avalanche path which is deflected to the north past the water tank-, and over Lot 22 and .Snowshoe Lane (Table 2). h. The PCM-model was then applied to the actual slope profile, using mu and M/D as discussed in step "f," above. Because this avalanche is -deflected to the north through a mean angle of np roximately 40°, a momentum-correction factor (equal to [cos 20~].Z ='.0.88).was applied to reduce velocity below 8,800 feet elevation. The runout distance and velocity decay in the runout was then computed using the coefficients determined by the statistical/iteration method. Segment velocities on the actual .profile are given in Table 3. i. The Red/Blue hazard zone boundary was defined by determining the point on the profile at which the velocity decreased to 24.2 m/s, the point at which the kinetic..-energy density (stagnation pressure) decreased to 3,000 kg/m2 (615 psi)., assuming a dispersed mean flow density of 100 kg/m3. The relationship used for this determination was simply V j2Pg/100]o.s~ where P 3,000 kg/m3, and g 9.8 m/s2. - This point, which marks the bottom of the Red Zone, occurred at the bottom of segment 16, about 200 feet above Lot 22. j. The terminal position of the design-avalanche runout zone (.lower end of the Blue Zone), was computed to be at 8,630 feet elevation, where the avalanche will just touch two buildings but will not possess energy sufficient to produce any damage. Two other-buildings on the north side of Snowshoe Lane lie within the Blue Zone, but these buildings have previously been designed for avalanche loads. The results of the avalanche-zoning analysis, including the work discussed in Section 3, ie summarized on Figure 1, which was copied from the study., by Hydro-Triad, I,td. This figure shows the revised Red/Blue boundary (uphill from the hydro-Triad boundary) and the downhill avalanche limits (downhill from that shown in the Hydro-Triad study). _ ~ - 3 Field work and :~-tihoto internretatfoIl Dur-ing the summer of 1973 and 1976, at least 10 man-days field time was spent within the~Vail Meadows avalanche path to familia=3ze myself and researchers with the University of Colorado, Institute of~Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAARj with - the path terrain.. Starting zones and lateral boundaries of the 'track were determined, and destructive effects of past events were studied. In~particular, the return periods of major avalanches were estimated by extracting and studying cores from - numerous trees that had. suffered avalanche impact. The forest within the boundaries of Lot 22 showed ino obvious evidence of avalanche impact, but most trees were less than 100 years old in this area.. As discussed in Appendix "A," however, lack of an avalanche for a even a 100-year period does not provide - convincing evidence that the site is beyond the limits of the "100-year" avalanche. In addition to the field work described above, the direct history of avalanches .in the Vail Meadows path was extended by stereo- - photo inspection o$ U.S. Forest Service photos taken in 1939, .1950,. 1962, 1974, and 1984. The 1939 photos indicate that a large avalanche reached into the =unout zone early this century (perhaps before 1920)',' and-may have extended to the general vicinity of what was to become Snowshoe Lane. There also is clean evidence that a.large.avalanche ran at least to the 8,800 .foot level, probably impacting the limestone knoll/water tank area between 1950 and 1962. This avalanche extended the avalanche track ,laterally. Scars in the forest are quite fresh in the 1962 photos, indicating this last event may have occurred shortly before the Forest Service aerial photos were taken in August, 1962. This seems likely, because January, 1962 produced major avalanches at other Colorado locations. .The aerial-photo analysis-and the tree-cores studied both suggest that Lot 22, Snowshoe Lane, and possibly terrain north of Snowshoe. Lane'are within r°nge of the "100-year" avalanche. This conclusion is substantiated by the statistical/dynamics analysis described in Section 2. a Discussion and limitations of analysis The avalanche which was determined as discussed in this report fs the design-magnitude avalanche, which has an "order-of-magnitude" return period of 100-years. .Because this is an order-of- magnitude estimate,. the actual return may lie between 30 and 300 years (a constant annual probability lying between 0.3 and 3$j. -The.design.event is assumed to consist of dry-flowing snow at this location. This avalanche, in accordance with numerous observations obtained by the auttior throughout North America, will be dispersed upward to a height of at least 3m (10 feet), as it crosses Lot 22. The design velocity at Lot 22, which is the most severely exposed residential lot, will be approximately 19 ~ m/s (43 mph)at the top of the lot and 17 m/s (38 mph) at the - bottom. phis will produce an.energy-density range of 380 lbs/ft2 to 300 lbs/ft2`across..the lot. This should not be used in design, however,`because the energy-density figures do not consider structure shape, sizo and orientation. Because the avalanche .must pass through trees, the flow will contain tree trunks and other vegetative debris which will produce point loads on exposed surfaces. The required design height of surfaces reinforced for avalanche impact will usually be considerably more than the flow height in fast-moving dry-¢now events. This additional height requirement H, will be the sum of three components H hs + ha + k (V~/2q) , where he.a_snowpack depth, ha = avalanche flow height, k = orientation/energy dissipation factor, V is avalanche velocity and g is gravitational acceleration. Wet-snow avalanches have not. been specifically considered in the analytical portion of this study, because such avalanches did not produce the longest=running avalanches in the Colorado database used in the regression analysis. However, the terrain, because it .slopes toward Snowshoe Lane at 8° - 10°,•can convey deep, wet- snow~avalanches to Snowshoe Lane, where flow will stop at the lesser gradients of .the street. Such events have been observed at numerous similar locations throughout Colorado and other parts of .North America. There is no reason to believe they would not also occur_her_e„even though they will probably will not travel as far as the design-magnitude dry snow avalanches. However, it will be possible for wet .slides to produce static loads on exposed structures on Lot 22. which are in excess of those produced_by dry-flowing .avalanches. Depositional loads may be particularly large on horizontal surfaces. This means that wet- ,snow avalanches could constitute the design case for certain .exposed structure orientations. An additional complicating effect of wet-snow avalanches .is often associated with the impact of abundant sold and vegetative debris typically entrained by these dense, wet events. Therefore, substantial point loads may be produced against exposed. vertical surfaces, possibly up to a flow height of 15 feet. The Vail Meadows avalanche would definitely entrain debris before Lot 22 is reached because the flow would pass through the forest on the way to the lot. Wet-snow avalanches will probably not extend below Snowshoe Lane because the reduced gradient would stop the.low-velocity advance of wet-snow avalanches. ~ . ' TABLE l: PROFILE FOR DETERMINATION OF PCM COEFFICIENTS ,Seq y_ltopl, yrbot~, ~y ~ L(ml gpg yrco-orb ~crcc~-grdl 0 ' 3415m Om 1 11,200' 11080' 120' 170' 63 35.2 3378 52 2 11080 10960 120 100 48 50.2 3341 82 3 10960 10720 240 400 142 31.0 3268 204 4 10720 10400 320 570 199 29.3 3171 378 5 10400 9920 480 1200 394 21.8 3024 744 6 9920 9640 280 520 180 28.3 2939 902 7 9640 9200 440 1020 339 23.3 2805 1213 8 9200 9175 25 150 46 9.5 2797 1259 9 9175 9130 45 90 31 26.6 2784 1287 10 9130 9040 90~~340 107 14.8 2756 1390 ,il 9040 8950 90 200 67 24.2 2729 1451 12 8950 8875 75 90 36 39.8 2706 1479 13 $875 8850 25 60 20 22.6 2698 1497 14 8850 8825 25 80 26 17.4 2691 1521 15 8825 8800 25 110 34 12.8 2683 1555* (Bottom of Track) 16' 8800 8?30 70 800 245 5.0 2662 1799 17' 8730 8710 20 229 70 5.0 2656 1869 18' 8710 8706 4 46 14 5.0 2655 1883** * Beta 25.2°; XB 1555m. " Regression Eq.: Alpha -3.0 + 0.79 Beta + 0.0036 Xg. Alpha = 22.0° (95$ C.I. = 22.0° to 22.9°j TABLE 2: TERRAIN PROFILE USED IN PCM APPLICATION ,deg y_rtoo~ ylbot~ ~y ~ L(m) ~,g Arco-off ~(„rco-ord~ 0 (Starting point of avalanche profile) 3415m Om 1 11,200' 11080' 120' 170' 63 35.2 3378 52 2 11080 10960 120 100 48 50.2 3341 82 3 10960 10720 240 400 142 31.0 3268 204 4 10720 10400 320 570 199 29.3 3171 378 5 10400 9920 480 1200 394 21.8 3024 744 6 992 0 9640 280 520 180 28.3 2939 902 7 9640 9200 440 1020 339 23.3 2805 1213 8 9200 9175 25 150 46 9.5 2797 1259 9 9175 9130 45 90 31 26.6 2784 1287 10 9130 9040 90 340 107 14.8 2756 1390 11 9040 8950 90 200 67 24.2 2729 1451 12 8950 8875 75 90 36 39.8 2706 1479 13 8875 8850 25 60 20 22.6 2698 1497 14 8850 8825 25 80 26 17.4 2691 1521 15 8825 8800 25 110 34 12.8 2683 1555 (Correction for 40° deflection between 15 & 16) 16 8800 8735 65 400 124 9.2 2663 1677 17 8735 8700 35 260 80 7.7 2653 1756 18 8700 8670 30 180 56 9..5 2643 1811 19 8670 8665 5 60 18 4.8 2642 1829 20 8665 8635 30 205 63 8.3 2633 1892 ' TABLE 3: RESULTS OF PCM ACCELERATION ANALYSIS BY SEGMENT ~ Y/tom ylbott 1 O.Om/s 21.7m/s 2 21.7 31.3 3 29.6 37.4 4 37.4 42.2 5 41.8 38.8 6 38.8 42.1 7 41.9 40.6 8 39.4 36.7 9 36.7 37.4 10 36.6 33.5 11 33.5 34.8 12 34.8 37.8 13 36.1 36.2 14 36.1 35.6 15 35.5 34.2 (Lateral deflection correction) 16 30.1 24.2 (Bottom of Red Zone) 17 24.0 19.3 18 19.3 17.0 19 17.0 15.3 20 15.3 11.7 (Stops )End of Blue Zoned at 8630 ft) REFERENCES McClung, D.M., and Lied, R., 1984. Statistical Avalanche Zoning. Proceedings, International Snow Science Workshop, pp. 95-98. McClung, D.M., and Lied, X., 1987. Statistical and geometrical definition of snow avalanche runout. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 13:107-119. (Appendix C, attached). Mears, A., 1989. Regional comparisons of avalanche-profile and runout data. Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 283-287. (Appendix B, attached). Mears, A., 1989. Avalanche runout distances and dynamics, - current methods and limitation. Workbook material for the National Avalanche School, Lakewood, Colorado. (Appendix A) Mears, A. (in prep.). Snow-avalanche analysis for engineering and land-use planning. Colorado Geological Survey. Perla, R., Chenq, T.T., and McClung, D.M., 1980. A two-parameter model ~of snow-avalanche motion. Jour. or Glac, 26(94), 197-207. Voellmy, A., 1955. IIber die Zerstorungskraft von Lawinen. Schwefzerische Bauzeitung, 73(12): 159-162, (15j: 212-217, (17j: 246-249, (19j: 280-285. ` - ~ Arrr~1DIX A 1. ' AVALANCHE RUNOUT DISTANCES AND DYNAMICS CURRENT METHODS AND LIMITATIONS by ART MEARS Reprinted with permission of the American .lssociation of Avalanche Professionals 1 i t l THE ~ "DESIGN AVALANCHE" The two before-and-after photographs (Figures 1 and l), illustrate the effect of a "100-ycar•avalanehe" in the Deadman Gulch path, .Colorado Front Range. Figure I, takes in 1975, shows the results ~ of repeated small avalanches over a period of decades. Most slides had been ehannelize'd down the gully on the Ieft side of the fan, whereas an occasional larger slide had overtopped the gully and runout on the steep alluvial fan. Figure 2 was trai:en in May, 1984 ~ after a major drysnow/powder avalanche. This event far exceeded previous path boundaries and destroyed many acres of lodgepoie pine forest that had colonized the runout zone since the last major avalaache occurred at least 100 years earlier. This Deadman Gulch .sequence provides valuable before-and- • after documentation of the "design avalanche," in this case, an avalanche with a return period of approximately 100 years. Similar to the traditions already established in hydrology and floodplain planning, extent of the design avalanche is often ..information required in planning mountain areas. This is particularly true when fixed facilities of "high risk" (buildings, parking areas, public facilities, etc.), are planned near potential runout zones. i 1 i From National Avalanche Snhool xorkbook~.1989• Research on the characteristics and effects of the design avalanche has been an important topic for the pay! three decades in parts of Europe. Many European areas have had dense , ' mountain populations for decades or centuries with numerous activities and structures exposed to avalanches. However, similar research efforts have not taken place in the Un:teJ States which ` has:. only recently seen significant expansion of year-round - - population into avalanche terrain. Avalanches, in contrast to floods, for example, affect only a very small part of the U.S. population. Therefore avalanches, unlike floods, are not considered'to be "national problems" and very little tradition exists within the United States with respect to planning for unusual avalanches. Geologists and engineers cannot receive training in . the' methods available-for "design-avalanche" delineation and planning. The U.S. Government no longer sponsors research on avalanche-engineering problems. Consequently, the community _ of avalanche professionals in the US. must rely primarily on research conducted is other countries and on analogies with other similar geophysical processes in order to define the design event. This article discusses the problems and methods used to estimate design avalanche size and discusses in general terms some of the approaches used in engineering analysis. Methods available include (a) .direct observations and avalanche history, (b) statistical runotit-distance models. and (c) physical (mathematical) models of avalanche motidn.= Each method has important advantages and limitations, as briefly discussed. 1.0 ~ -g N ~ -6 o, oa .4 2 o: 0 20 4o bo 80 goo Observation Period Figure 3 (Years) The Probability of Obserring the "100-year" Avalanche s t • ' - oC the areas. Although the statistical methods do provide a rational and objective basis for predicting design-avalanche stopping position, they do not predict avalanche lateral extent or velocity. Lateral extent must be determined subjectively, based o:~ knowledge of I avalanche behavior in the area or the locations of topographic barriers.= Velocity, however, should be calculated rather than estimated because it~ is very important in engineered design of avalanche defense structures. For such calculations, we must turn ( to physical models, as discussed next. i PHYSICAL (MATHEMATICAL) i AVALANCHE MODELS Physical models have been used to predict avalanche velocity and runout distance since the 1950's particularly in Central Europe ~ 'and to a lessor extent_in Nocth America and Japan. In some areas .they are used" in development of avalanche-zoning plans and in • design of structural defenses. Because estimates of potential velocities and forces.are critical in engineered design of structural defenses they must be determined by some objective criteria as j is traditional is all geophysical analyses. Early models treated avalanche motion as a modified fluid or as a center-of•mass moving a'loag the path profile. More recent models are Icss restrictive, allowing predicted avalanche stopping positions to be specified in 2 or 3 dimensions, thereby adding height and width to the length dimension of earlier models. These ! physical or aiafhematical models lead to be must more complicated i ~ thap the simple statistical models discussed in the previous section because they must carefully represent avalanche terrain and ' internal material properties and consider the interaction of all these factors in calculations of velocity and runout distance. A11 physical models work essentially as diagrammed in Figure S. a. The physical model is written so that velocities and runout distances arc computed given information about t path terrain and avalanche material properties; b. The terrain (steepness, roughness, curvature, length, channclizatioa,etc.)aremeasured and used by the physical - model; ' c. Avalanche material properties (turbulence, viscosity, 1 particle sizes, densities, etc.) are assumed, based on the experience of the user. and are also stored in the model; i d. The model is run, uses the values of terrain and material ' properties, and computes velocity, stopping position, and possibly vertical and lateral extent. i { ~ f T . In my opinion, the most promising methods for determining avalanche runout use statistical models. The data sets used in statistical ~ models consist entirely • of rare events with . approximately 100-year return periods obtained ;n the mountain range of interest. Although the 100-year event is by definition a rare event iii any. particular path, many such events occur throughout an:ezttire mountain range. My personal observations in many,mountain areas indicate that 100-year avalanches occur somewhere in each mountain range every few years because uniquc•snowpacknnd snow-loading conditions develop at least in some isolated areas in all but very dry winters. Nature is always in the process ;of running a great experiment on all natural phenomena, including avalanches. The statistical method simply .uses the existing data already provided by nature's big experiment. Research on statistical runout-distance models conducted during • the past ;10-1,5 years has observed examples of extreme avalanche runout distances, and has related these measured distances to other features of the avalanche path.that could also be measured. Only rare events were included in data collection. In order to be included.in fhe data set,avalanches had to have reached populated areas; previously untouched by slides for a century or more or had to destroy portions of forests at least a century old. Avalanches of all sizes, shapes and orientations were used in the data sets collected in Norway and North America. The statistical models have been applied most successfully within the Western Fiords of Norway by the Norwegian Geotechnical . Institute (the "NGI Method"), where a long history of many avalanche paths is available in populated areas. This method is diagrammed in~Figu~e ~ where an avalanche pro!'~fe is shown and three observations are recorded: 1) The alpha angle is measured from the crown location to the tip of t1u runout; 2) the point where the local profile slope becomes 10°is identified; and • ~ 3) the beta angle is measured from the !0'point to the crown location. Statistical analysis of more than 200 extreme avalanche events in . Western Norway has shown that the alpha angle can be predicted dimply by measuring the beta angle and applying a simple statistical relationship which has been derived from the data: where values for Xt and X2 result from analysis of the data. a Arrr~1DIX B Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1989, pp. 283-287 _ REGIONAL COMPARISONS OF AVALANCHE-PROFILE AND ~RUNOUT DATA ARrHVR I. M>rARs 222 E. Gothic Avenue - Gunnison, Colorado 81230, U.S.A. ABSTRACT Statistical comparison of avalanche-path-profile data from four widely separated mountain ranges (coastal Alaska, California. Sierra Nevada, Colorado Rocky Mountains, and western Norway) are compared and presented in tabulaz form. Only unusual (approx. 100-yr return ' period) avalanches were compared: Inspection of the data leads to the following conclusions: ' (1) The avalanche~paths in Norway and Alaska are lazger and steeper than those sampled in Colorado and California; (2) The best regression equation for predicting the ~ angle developed from Norway data predicis.ar which is too large in. Colorado, the Siena Nevada, and coastal Alaska; . (3) The extreme avalanche tunout distances, as defined by the dimensionless "Runout Ratio," a measure of runout distance with respect to path size, are significantly lazger in California and Colorado; (4) Larger runout ratios are associated with shorter path lengths in the Colorado and Sierra Nevada data; (S) The observed differences between runout distances suggests that statistical runout equations developed in one mountain azea should not be applied to other areas. INTRODUCTION The maximum runout distance expected in an might occur where runout data are not available. Data avalanche path during etc,,.,, ~:onal conditions (the "design from only one mountain area (western Norway) have avalanche's is an important pazameter~in planning, land- been used in previous statistical models, but no attempt use, enginaring, and structure] design inavalanche-prone has been made to compaze data from widely sepazated areas. At first, the prediction of runout distance involved mountain regions. a physically based modeling approach (Voellmy, 19SS; This study compazes avalanche profiles from western Perla et al., 1980). More recently, the emphasis bas Norway, the Colorado Rocky Mountains, the California shifted to models.. based on analysis of terrain variables Siena Nevada, and coastal areas ofsouth-central Alaska (Bovis and Meazs, 1976; Lied and Bakkehtli et al., 1983; ~.to determine if terrain and runout distances differ sig- . _ McClung and Lied, 1987; Lied and Toppe, in press). The nificantly. In addition, avalanche-path length is analyzed f statistical models have used observed extreme-avalanche to determine if it has an important influence on runout runout data from a given mountain area to predict, distance. through selection aced analysis of terrain variables, what VARIABLES CONTROLLING RUNOUT DISTANCE ~ The variables that control maximum runout distance conditions, (2) return period (probability), and (3) terrain. fall imo thra broad cat.~,-.:es: (1) weather and snowpack Although the weather and snowpack conditions during X1989, Regents of the University of Colorado A. I. MF~AC /283 • the use of physical models may be somewhat subjective because , the stopping position (and velocities) depend upon selection of ' friction terms even though we may have no 4~e;~r knowledge of whether we a're using the proper terms, the proper values Cor these 'terms, or even the proper model! Although use of a physical model.may be very appealing to some, (terrain, friction, and mateial properties are plugged in and the computer spits out velocity and runout extent!), the assumptions used, in. the models are largely unsupported at the present time. 't`herefore, because of the problems discussed above in obtaining .ground truth in ma jor avalanches, the physical models should not, . is my opinion, be used as the only method to predict avalanche ~ runout distance. However, because the physical models are es"sent,aI in~ predicting velocity, they must often be used in practice in spite of their limitations. COMBINATIONS OF TECHNIQUES TO CALCULATE RUNOUT AND VELOCITY As mentioned in the beginning of this,article, avalanches, although they .arc special to us, are also analogous to many other .geophysical processes.. FIoods are a particularly useful analogy and as mentioned, delineation of the ".100-year" flood has received . the attention'of many scientists and engineers worldwide for most of this century. Avalanche-engineering specialists should look closely at procedures used in analysis of similar geophysical . processes because so little research is being conducted is our field. Drawing a flood boundary is similar to drawing an avalanche runout-zone boundary and often proceeds as follows: a. The flood discharge• or volume of wa:cr flowing past ~a. point per second, is calculated by studying the flood history of the region, a statistical method. b. The flood boundaries are calculated by using the discharge (calculated is step "a"), in a physical model that ~ considers the stream bed roughness, slope, and cross- . sectional shape. Although avalanches only resemble floods superficially, the runout-distance and velocity calculation procedures can be quite similar,to those used in flood studies. A recommended two-step procedure could be as follows: a. The runout distance is determined from the historical record when the record is long and continuous. by vegetation damage or the geological record when this is ~ ~ uamisfakable,andfromstatisticalmodelsdcrivedfromthe ~ mountain region of interest. The stopping position is not ~ calculated from a physical model. ! b. Avalanche velocity is calculated by using a physical model, however that model is forced to stop at the position 1 a ~ . . relations were obtained for both Colorado (r, _ -0.93, cannot be assumed independent of terrain in Colorado Z = -2.78) and the Siena (r, _ -0.93, Z = -2.64). Such or the Sierra. Although path length effects on RR have a grouping of data is required because it atinirnizes the not appeared in Norway or Alaska data, the Colorado effect of random errors in return period (e.g., "SO-yr" and and Sierra data represent an "order-of-magnitude" range "200-yf" avalanches see averaged within each group). is Xa (or Fn. Norway and Alaska data both vary less in On the basis of the correlation analysis discussed size, therefore length effects on runout are expected to above, path length (as represented by X, or 1~ does be less. appear to affect the runout ratio, which, therefore, CONCLUSIONS _ The following conclusions maybe drawn from the data (S) The observed differences in avalanche runout and analysis presented hero strongly suggests that statistical runout~istance equations (l) Terrain steepness and lengths, as represented in the developed in mountain areas do not necessarily apply to data sets collected in this analysis, are greater in western other areas. Norway and coastal Alaska Than in Colorado or the Sierra Nevada. (2) R,.a...sion equations derived from western Norway ACKNOWLEDGMENTS data tend to over predict oc-angles (under predict runout distances) in Colorado, the Sierra Nevada, and coastal I want to thank Nonaart Wilson, Daniel Whitmore, and Larry Alaska. Heywood (Alpine Meadows Ski Area) for assistance in the col- (3) Extreme avalanche runout distances, as expressed lection of data from the Sierra. David Hamre and Douglas by the runout ratio (RR), are significantly greater in Tesler (Alaska Mountain Safety Cenur) both guided me to ex- Colorado and the Siena Nevada than in Norway or ~ tieme avalanche runouts in Alaska. Many of the ideas discussed coastal Alaska. here were stimulated through discussions with David McClung 4 The shorter avalanche aths in Colorado and the of thrNational Research Council of Canada and Karstein Lied P of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway. Sierra Nevada are correlated with the longer runout ratios. REFERENCES CITED Bakkeh~i, S., Domaas, U.. and Lied, K., 1983: Calculation of ,1987: Statistical and geometrical definition of snow ava- snow avalanche runout. Annals of Glaciology, 4: 24-29. lanche runout. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 13: Bovis, M. and Mears, A., 1976: Statistical prediction of snow ]07-119. avalanche runout from terrain variables in Colorado. Ara Perla, R., Cheng, T. T., and McClung, D. M., 1980: Atwo- tic and Alpine Reseoreh, 8: 115-120. parameter model of snow-avalanche motion. Journal of Gla- Lied. K. and Bakkehmi, S., .1980: Empirical calculations of ciology. 26(94): 197-207. snow-avalanche run-out distance. Journal of Glaciology, Voellmy, A., 1955: 1Jber die Zerstorungskraft von Lawinen. 26(94): 165-177. Schweizerische Bauzettung, 73(12): 159-162, (15): 212-217, Lied, K. and Toppe, R., in Calculation of maximum snow (17): 246-249, (19): 280-285. :avalanche runout distance by use of digital terrain models. Journal of Glaciology. McClung, D. M. and Lied, K.,1984: Statistical avalanche zon- ing. Pea.. ~.:,:ngs of the International Snow Science Work- shop, Aspen, 95-98. Ms submitted August 1988 ' s ~ A. I. Mss /287 much stronger in Norway than in the U.S. data. How- The measwes of avalanche runout given in Table 2 sug• . ever, the difference between i4 and a differs significantly gent that although ~ can be predicted from ~ in all four - among the four legions. This difference between ~ and a regions, unique statistical relationships must be developed can also be ..r.~aented by the ruaout ratio (RR) (Table 2). for each area, as discussed in the following sections. _ APPLICATION OF NORWAY RUNOUT EQUATION Regression equations developed from western Norway western Norway avalanche paths (Lied and Toppe, in data tend to systematically underestimate the runout ties- press). Predicted a angles (from equation I) were then - lances in Colorado, .the Sierra Nevada,. and coastal compared with the measured a angles in the three North Alaska. The alpha angles in these three mountain areas American mountain ranges, and the "residual" was com- - -were calculated by the equation pufed for each path by subtracting the value obtained from equation (I) from the measured value. Therefore, a = 0.96J4 - 1.7° (1j . a value of uro would be a perfect fit for a given path, a negative value indicates the predicted alpha is too large, which was shown to be the most reliable relationship for and a positive value indicates the predicted alpha is too Tess 1 Profile and runout distance comparisons, coastal Alaska, ~ f Sierra Nevada, Colorado, western Norway Coastal Sierra Western NORWAY n r Alaska Nevada Colorado Norway Parameter (N= 52) (N~ 90) (N=130) (N=113) ~ , a min 18.9 14.0 15.5 18.0 med 25.3 19.8 22.2 27.3 -ao 0 4° avg 25.4 20.1 Z2.1 28.2 std 3.2 3.6 3.2 S.8 - max 34.2 35.9 30.7 44.0 t ~ m;n 23.0 16.s 18.8 21.7 ALASKA Jj med 29.5 25.9 27.3 30.1 „ avg 29.6 '•26.3 27.5 31.3 • , , std 3.3 4.1 3.6 3.8 , , , -max 38.2 40.7 37.7 52.3 .go ~ -4 0 2° a{ min 0.0 0.0 -2.9 - med S.8 3.2 S.4 avg S.2 4.8 S.1 N/A ~ :td 3.1 2.7 3.a COLORADO max 9.S 9.0 10.2 w H min 320 104 128 „ med 725 357 S49 avg 765 429 S43 860b , std 245 237 226 260b _~o .g -s 0 2° _ max 1400 1145 1134 dX min 80 107 76 med 280 29S 290 avg 302 354 334 230b std 165 222 184 150b SIERRA s max 790 1433 1200 'a « X, min 320 160 183 • • • med 1390 724 934 _ y avg 1318 822 999 1430b .moo •8 - -4 ~ 0 2° std 4S3 461 S04 S40b I max 2380 2240 2730 RR min 0.07 0.1 S 0.07 med 0.20 0.42 0.33 avg 0.25 0.49 0.41 0.176 flotr~ 2 )FYequency distn'bu6ons of the residuals resulting from std 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.11 application of the Norway ..t,...,sion equation its 0.96 -1.7° 1 max 0.66 1.35 1.57 j (Lied and ?oppe, in press) to observed avalanche runouts in 'Data are given in degrees and meters. four mountain regions. Typical numbers of data points are dCalculated from Lied and Toppe (in press). shown. 1 A. I. NiE~xs / 285 t e 96 Correlation coefficients (R) were calculated for n with respect to B, 8 (212 paths) and d ~ 4 s (131 paths). The results gave: 0.919, 0.388 and AVAIANCME PATH ~ i ii -0.111, respectively. This suggests that the y~llxl ~ ~ i~ 1 best one parameter model !e a ~ f(6) and this was ~ ~ I ' confirmed by regression analysis. ~ ~i~ ( H H ~ IOCAI SIOPf i~ ~ A M examinatiat, of residual plots for linear Y. ANGll10" ~i' i I regression of a with 6 shoved that the predictive ~ ~ I equation provides biased eatiastes. This ~ I suggests a tranaforaation on the response ~ ~ / 0 variable a. Power law reRreaslon Rave a gonA ~~a, - ; ~nH unbiased relationship for 212 avalanche paths: - g I x a ~ 0.73061.06 (4) ~ ex x 6 0 with RZ ~ 0.861 and S ~ 0.0764', the latter quantity being tl~e standard ercor. For Figure ].--Definitions of angles and length coo?parison the linear regression gave @2 .0.845 scales for an avalanche path. and S ~ 2.52'. Mother transformation explored vas T. For Regression analyses shoved that ~ and ~ this case the regression equation ia: are statistically independent of 6, 9Xand d to a ' good approximation (R2 ~ 0). 0.08798 + 2.57 (S) with R2 ~ 0.853 and S ~ 0.218. this equation STATISTICAL AVALANCHE RUNOUT • ' res>oves some of the bias in estimates over a linear regression model but it is not as good in Civen the 6 point as a reference, that respect as equation (4). Equation (S) ie calculation of extreme runout depends on a ' introduced because it appears more useful in prediction of the minimum value of a expected for zoning applications, as Will be discussed below. a given model. The criterion used in this paper corresponds to the Dest fitting upper envelope on A number of aultiple regression equations the distribution of B (ordinate) versus a were derived in an attempt to improve the (abciasa, fig. 2). Upper envelopes were ' predictive schemes by addition of 8 as a second determined by calculating confidence limits for variable. Novever, it was not found possible to a ~ f(B) for linear regression, power law improve the predictive scheme enough to warrant regression [equation (4)J and the square root inclusion of 8. transformation of equation (S). ' Addition of b as a predictor variable does The best fit to the upper limit on the 6 - a .d improve the predictive equations but this has distribution throughout the ranges of 6 and a was very.Iimited application and therefore d ie not found from confidence limits of egwtion (S). By ' introduced here. in favor of simplicity. standard methods and using some approximations for the large number of data points, an estimte Mother possibility for estiaating runout of the confidence limit for minimum value of a !a when distances associated with the angles are given by: known for the avalanche paths, is the calculation of horizontal reach (0X) from the 6 point. Using a 0.08796 + [2.57 - (0.218)t p ~ (8) equations (1) to (3) (fig. 1) it is eu ily shown (1 100) that: 9 OX tang - tans where t p is a value of the t distribution XB tans - Land (b) (1 O1 0) for 210 degrees of freedom. Equation (8) states ~1 _ tana~ that PX of avalanches have a values greater than R and dX ~ tang (7) ap for. SO < P < 100. Por example, fora 99X 1•' H,. (tans - tend) upper confidence limit, t„ is 2.326 (taken ~ ArrrrlDlX C • ' ~ r STATISTICAL AVALANCIiE ZONING ' D.M. McClungland K. Lied2 Abstract. Run out for the extreme event on an avalanche path is calculated from confidence limits on a regression analysis of path topographic parameters. This results in ' redefinition of, the traditional zoning problem by dividing it i• into an estimation of runout distance by an engineering ~ decision on the choice of confidence limit to the estimate, and a dgnamic problem with boundary conditions defined by the i chosen limit. ~ f lcnxt lQQ cure wa s• ~ ~ 1NTHUUUC7 L )N y e one iced Gi the f leld and w number of other parameters for the paths were The traditional method of avalanche zoning dettzmined. The papers by Lied and Bakkehdi :W involves the joint solution of Lhe avalanche (1980) and Bakkehoi, Domaas and Lied (1983) have , runout and d}mamics problems by selecting provided detailed descriptions of the data set, appropriate friction coefficients for an including methods and accuracy. ~ avalanche dynamics model. The physical problem involves a complex transition of states with many The parameters used in the present analysis 'i tmknowns including: friction coefficients, consist of angles pictured in figure l and ' ' eonstituttve laws and properties of flowing snow. defined by the following equations: ~a ~ These gaps in knowledge are significant; clearly the problem is far f rom a solution. tans - XO jo ~dx - ~ (1) i~ The avalanche zoning problem may be tt redefined by separation into two parts: tang - 1 jX0 (~~dx - ~ (2) I.~ eetl~entiu+t of the; cunout distance fur thu Xg 6X dx Xg ' e~ctreee event on a path based on a regression equation involving topographic parameters and a rand - eX joX (d ~dx • ~ (3) .t'' selected confidence limit and (2) estimation of speeds along the incline between the start position and runout position. The latter A fourth parameter is the starting zone angle, which is defined by tan8, the average slope in position is defined by choice of a confidence ` limit based upon an engineering decision. 1n the first 100 m of the avalanche starting zone. J this paper part 1 of the problem is introduced in For simplicity the origin of geo+eetry is chosen at..the extreme tip of the runout (a point) and Lhe simplest stunner to illustrate the method; the B point (4H, 0X) is chosen as that for which 11 further details will be provided in a forthcoming "the elope angle first equals 10' proceeding paper' downslope from the avalanche start position. 1 is 111iALTSIS OP 1~OFOGRAPHIC FARAlz.a~S The 8 point is chosen as a reference position from which yunout is masked so that land ;4 The data_eet used to the present annlyais ie the average slope in the runout zone.- Using l± consists of estis~ates for 212 avalanche paths the'B point as • zero cefecence skans that runout ,.i Eros the oaritioe climate tagisk of Western can be regarding se taking positive, zero or Norway. Extrese runout for taste scales of at negative values if the avalanche stop position is ~ below, at or above the B point, respectively. l?apes presented at the International Snow For a regression analysis approach, extreme ~1 Seienee Workshop, Aspen, Colorado, October 26-27, - runout is based on a predicLlon of the ainimum value of a, given values of the potential 1 1984. 1 D.M. McClung, Research Officer, National predictor variables (g, 6, and d). Ilse of d as a i~eseareh Council Canada, Vancouver, B.C. --predictor variable is limited to cases where the 3X. Lied, Group Leader, Avalanche Section, runout zone is known to be at a constant angle, lbsvegiao Geotechnicai Institute, Oslo, Nor~ay. such as s flat valley floor. For the present data set, 131 paths have known d angles. 1 s r' t)~ 9 8 ~ ~ , i = ~ AEFF.Kk.NCES 3 9akkehbi. S., v. Donnas and K. Lied. 1983. • Calculation of anov avalanche sunout. M pals of Glaciology (4): 24-29. Lied, K. and S. Bakkehbi. 1980. Empirical t calculations of snow-avalanche sunout based on topographic pasaa~etera. Journal of Glaciology 26(94): 197-207. ACKNOIiI.EDGBMEtiT The pioneering work and ideas of • S. Bakkehbi are gratefully acknowledged in relation to this problem. This paper is a eantribution of the Division of Building Research. National itesearch Council Canada, and is published with the approval of the Director of the Diviaioa. r . 97 For the present data set, there are two - disadvantages to equation (9) as a predictive S;• equation: (1) calculations with actual examples ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ show that the accuracy is not as good throughout the ranges of 6 and a as compared to SO° ~ ~ a equation (8); (2) values of HB and Xsg were not ~ measured for the present data set ana it is i ° unknown whether elt is proportional Lo Rg or X as ~S• ~ oo° ° ° a model, as equation (9) would imply. In spite i ° o of these disadvantages, a sough estiatate of o~ °e„~ o runout can be given once a value oft _ P• is ~o° ~ ° e ° a~e ° ° ° e (1 too) ~ ~ 80 deteraiaed by an engineering decision. ' 1 3S° ~ ~ibg °eoo o e e e DISCUSSION 30° / s e ego Prediction of extreme avalanche tunout 4 distance has been presented for two types of i ~ eo° °b8 sadels expressed by equations (8) and (9). ~ 2g• / Either of these say be used to prepare a / ° p statistical map of confidence limits for / e o~b calculation of runout. Choice of a limit depends 20• a upon an engineering decision. and this places the j soning problem in the same language that other "`problems concerned with risk and safety are 1S' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ phrased in modern practice. lS' 20' 25' 30° 35° t0° 4S' SO' o Two advantages of the approach presented are; (1 it eliminates the necessity for solving Figure 2.-Plot of g versus a for 212 avalanche avalanche dynamics equations to determine runout paths from tiestern Norway. using an arbitrary choice of friction ~ coefficients, as is usually done; (2) the ~ Regression line for square root dynamics problem is reduced to prediction of ~ transformation on Equation (5). speeds along the incline between the start position and stop position, once a given Prediction for extreme runout (ayy) for the confidence limit is chosen (i.e. a set of I regression line shorn.boundary conditions for the dynamics problem is defined by choice of a confidence limit). I Kultiple plotted points at the same location on the graph are denoted with extra bars Many unanswered questions need to be attached to the circle, e.g. Zf represents 3 _ investigated with regard to the present approach { data points. to runout. For example, field experience strongly indicates that starting sore size should have an influence. Also, the effect of climate i~ margin of safety desired, coupled to knowledge of regime needs to be quantified. local eli~aate records and avalanche return j~ periods. In many instances a 90X confidence The one parameter aodel is useful because i. limit say be adequate for estimating the extreme eztre~ee avalanches reach slope angles near 10e. ruaout distance. A solution of the dynamics problem requires an understanding of its dependence on the relevant Mother possibility for estimation of length somas and the effect of parameters such extreme runout distancee~onaiAs~s of extrapolation as avalanche s~asa; this uy ewerge from a .j to the upper limits of - or - given assn values solution of the tuaout probles. Until these it XB Kg questions are answered and until a good physical ~ and •tsndard deviations. Since these quantities wcdel for flowing snow is developed, solution of are statistically independent of the predictor the runont and dynamics problems together, as is ~aluea, the assumption that they are Gaussian common in practice, amounts to nothing more than sariables •uggasts the swdel: a-curve fitting exercise•by ad~usts~ent of ~I {~x~p ~ 0.276 + 0.197 ~t(1- p (g) friction coefficients. ' 8 100 i . and a similar expression for (~x~P say be . derived. B WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 9/27/90 Page 1 of 4 TOPIC pUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS _ 8/8/89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for Marijke Brofos will be circulating petitions. (request: Lapin) annexation. 2/27 SATELLITE POST OFFICE (request: RON: Pursue station "in town" and/or increase Meeting to be set up with Ernie Chavez. Summer bus service Osterfoss) summer bus service? increased. 5/1 AMEND CODE, 12.04.240, STREET CUT STAN/LARRY/KRISTAN: Per Council direction, proceed. Recommended changes to be presented to Council October 16. PERMITS 6/12 UAIL GLO SIGN (request: Levine) RON/KRISTAN: Through DRB, or some other process, Kristan has written a letter to Vail Glo. They are still can the lettering color and lighting be modified? talking. 6/26 AIR QUALITY SUSAN: Issue of passive smoke and smoking in Ordinance being developed far Council review by 10/15/90. restaurants needs to be revisited by this fall. ' 6/26 TED KINDEL MEMORIAL TODD 0.: Track down ownership of land to the south PEC recommended Mill Creek area. Public Works will (request: Rose) of the Christiania. If this belongs to the TOV, coordinate placement. begin to formulate memorial plan, i.e., park bench, plaque, etc.? 1/17 BIKES/ROLLER BLADES AND SKATES/ KEN/LARRY: Should bicycles, roller blades, etc. be Researching appropriate ordinances for application in 1991. SKATEBOARDS prohibited from highly pedestrianized areas in the Village and Lionshead? 7/24 AG/OPEN SPACE AMENDMENT LARRY/KRISTAN: Legal research requested to make Research underway. Larry will report to Council. ORDINANCE AG/Open Space 35 acre minimum per unit. 7/27 UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN LARRY/STAN: Work with Holy Cross Electric to Scheduled to begin this fall. Memo drafted far Jim Gibson. EAST VAIL establish special improvement district(s) for Memo to be sent to property owners by staff. undergrounding utilities in East Uail. 8/7 JOHNSON/GATES MEETING RON: Schedule discussion w/Bud Gates and Linda Scheduled for Evening Meeting 10/16. Johnson prior to November general election. 8/28 FOREST SERVICE LAND USE STUDY RON: Staff updated boundary position statement to Letter will be written. Council for review. Can the Forest Service be encouraged to complete a fractional study, rather than waiting for the entire Gore Valley? 9/4 DRAIN IN FRONT OF CHAPEL STAN: Roadway breaking up/needs repair. Memo on the problem is forthcoming. Drain,is low, but (request: Lapin) pavement is intact. T WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 9/27/90 Page 2 of 4 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 9/4 BOARD OF REALTORS LETTER RON: Prepare letter to realtors re: deteriorating Will do. properties/aging condos - to ask for solutions to this perceived problem and their vested interest in maintaining inventory. 9/11 SALES TAK ON RETAIL FIREWOOD STEVE B.: Is sales tax currently charged on fire- Finance staff composed a memo an current firewood SALES wood sales? Would an additional tax, in taxation. The Environmental Health staff will study the conjunction with the fireplace, to deter use issue of an additional tax to deter firewood usage. of fireplaces within the TOV be appropriate? 9/I1 VESTED RIGHTS ORDINANCE LARRY: Schedule for evening meeting review. Community Development will meet with Larry. 9/11 RAISING FEES FOR PARKING FUND KRISTAN: Schedule for evening meeting review. Scheduled for Work Session 10/23/90. CONTRIBUTIONS 9/11 DISCREPANCY BETWEEN SHORT-TERM LARRY: Schedule for evening meeting. Amending ordinance will be presented to Council at RENTAL AND BED AND BREAKFAST Oct. 2 Evening Meeting. ORDINANCES 9/11 JOSIE HEATH/HANK BROWN DEBATE CAROLINE: Request debate be held in a mountain Being addressed. community = Vail would host? 9/11 AMENDMENT #1 ON GENERAL ELECTION LARRY: Provide resolution in opposition to this Will do. BALLOT initiative. 9/18 ACTUAL COST OF LEASED BUSES STEVE B.: What is the actual cost to the Town for Will report at Budget Session 9/27. (request: Levine) leasing buses the next 3 years as compared with an outright purchase? 9/20 VAIL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION RON: Response to attorney about Town buying land. Offer being considered and will be discussed with Council. 9/20 LIONS RIDGE FILING 4 RON: Homeowners Assn. would like Town to buy Ron contacted Jim Fritze about tax abatement if Town takes common area for back taxes and penalties. ownership. Tax liability only about $5,500. 9/20 RESTROOMS AT THE ATHLETIC FIELD RON/ROB: Discuss VMRD/TOV/VA contributions and Meeting scheduled w/Rob, Ron, and Jack Hunn for Mon., 10/1. financial arrangement for construction. 9/25 CHARGES FOR OUT-OF-DISTRICT DICK: Prepare updated figures based on actual cost FIRE RESPONSE of fire response for unincorporated areas served by Vail F.D. for ordinance amendment consideration. 1 WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 9/21/90 Page 3 of 4 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS , Consider some type of signing for unincorporated areas, noting boundary of TOV and provision of service costs. 9/25 CALL-UP PROCEDURES KRISTAN/LARRY: Correct any error regarding call-up of projects at both the preliminary plan stage and final plat acceptance. 9/25 VANDALISM EXPENSE REPORT STAN: Compile figures relating to Town expense (request: Steinberg) incurred from vandalism (i.e., traffic gate repairs, lights an streamwalk path, signs, toilets, etc.) far public release. 9/25 SYMPOSIUM SPEAKER - ELDON BECK KRISTAN: Check professional fees remaining in (request: Rose) Community Development to hire Eldon Beck to confer w/staff, PEC, and Council. Long-range plans, streetscape improvement plan, performing arts center location, West Meadow Drive Mall, Master Plan for LH - all possible subjects. 9/25 EMPLOYEE HOUSING (request: RON/STAFF: Schedule for agenda item soon. The Town Gibson) must take apro-active stance and be ready to address when "our" units will be available, as well as site, size, funding, benefits, etc. Berry Creek - Staff should begin the rezoning process required far a portion of Berry Creek to be used as employee housing. HOUSING TASK FORCE IMPORTANT DATES (presuming approval by task force of report content): October 10 Housing Task Force Meeting October 24 Public Hearing, evening meeting (also, United Nations Day!) 9/25 MILL LEVY INCREASE (request: LARRY/RON: What's the potential for building in a Steinberg) mill levy increase now -with Amendment #1 possibly passing in November - and in the event the amendment does not pass, not certifying said levy to the County? r w~. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 9/27/90 Page 4 of 4 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 9/25 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RON/STAN: Place on earliest agenda possible to COUNTY-WIDE discuss the following: Leadville bus service, vans, long-term commuter system, Parking & Transportation Advisory Committee role, Avon/BC transit, extending TOV service to Eagle-Vail, donating outdated TOV buses for the Minturn/ ~ Leadville route, etc. Engage assistance of James Johnson. BY PATRICIA PHILLIPS n~}.rv r s u lc t ri-,r.:. ' `iL'^~; critlca j . ~,;,~f - ~~:~~~=~r con itlon ~r- ~ When(KarlJPopper, • IflRGE lDEflS flND TRENDS MOPE TNRDU6N RNYTNMS the great philosopher of P ~ science, said that the scientificottitude NOT UNLIKE THE PflSSfl6ES Of DEYEIOPMENI TNflT t ~ _ means crrticiaing every- 1 thing, he pointed to ~ t' . c~`i~smas`hef°>re. NUMBH 8EIN6S EXPERIENCE. WITHOUT SUCCUMB- ' . , that enables civiliza- tion to advance. When Niet.,,schesaidinThe ING ENTIRELY TO THE SEDUCTIVE NOTIONS OF POPULflR - Twilight of the Gods ' ~ (1889), that the trained r „ ; ability to detect the spu- PSYCNOlO6Y~ I OBSERVE TNflT MOST PEOPtE MOPE ~ ~ rious rc~as the beginning ~ - of philosophy, he meant . " rc~asthefofundation f THROUGH fl SEQUENCE Of STfl6ES TNfl1 flRE flf- - . reason. These things are true in the realm of art f ECTEO BY THE DYNflMiCS OE fl6E, EXPERIENCE, - ~ as in those of philoso- phy orpolitics. The same forces,d°gma ~ flND .INFORMflTiON. 1NE NOVEL fflSCINRTIONS Of Q "and critical conscious- Hess, are locked in their .y;;_ po nnI`IhsfAge`f CN110N000, THE FURIOUS fRUSTRflTIONS Of flD0- Confusion, Kith its un- =N~:~~.':`,~ deniablep/easuresand LESCENCE, THE CNfllLEN61N6 flDYENTURES 0!: YOUN6 ru equally undeniable ' disorders, a special act °f""'`°l`1°ri"u,~- flOULTN000 - flS WEII RS THE MORE BflIflNCED~ ~ ~ quired of each of us. • PATRICIA PHILLIPS IS A WRITER AND CRITIC FOR ARTFORCV. SHE IS d CURRENTLY THE ASSISTANT CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN i ~ AT THE PARSONS SCHOOL OF DESIGN, ' NEWYORBCITY. ' On Vtcoa 8 . i. mellow moments shaped by the physical and psy- :The passions and issues raised over twenry• years ago chological processes of aging -are schematic pat- :still remain, but the disposition of reaction suggests 1 terns that still accommodate a good deal of individ- :anew generation. Because of the velocity of change, ,I. ual deviation. Consciousness gives these moments ~ the complexity of questions, and the dramatic ad- . meaning. justments in civic and cultural life, public art has Public art seems co be moving through its own become a large subject in need of sustained critical stages of growth. They may not correspond pre- scrutiny at all levels, both within and without its sur- ' cisely to those of human development, but there is prisinglysmallworld.Alchoughsomeofmythoughts a discernible evolution. In the 1960s and 1970s there :and observations concern the role of the critic and was a tremendous pitch of enthusiasm, novelty, and :writer in this dialogue, criticality -that is, critical production of public art. It was not a new phenome- :thinking- is not just the province of the arc or social non, of course. Depending on one's central under- :critic. Criticism itself is an ecumenical, public acciv- standing or definition of public arc, a historical re- iry from which no one should feel excluded, or view provides many predecessors at different times :exempt. and in contrasting cultures. But public art in the nvencieth century experienced more than a revival; 61VEN 1HE RICHNESS flND BREflDtH OF IDEflS tHflT in fact, it was more like a reincarnation. The genea- logicalconnections with public art in the preceding . PUBLIC flRt EMBRflCES, It IS SURPRISING tHflT SO century were never severed, but its conception, production, and forms in the latter half of the twen- :many arc, social, political, or even literary critics are Beth century often bear little resemblance to those :reluctant co take on the subject. There is a percep- of its forebears. :Lion of public art as a mutant, a difficult stepchild in T T V :the family of art and social history. Ac the same time, . PUBLIC flp I Hfl( CHflNG[D IN Vlp I UflLL 1 [?I[pY :there are serious philosophical and strategical ques- 11 J C Il ClCfl :bons about how public an should be approached. WflY: MOVIN6 FROM SflCRED flND CIVIC TO MORE A~ai~iea iy There a ed~ o~g feea~gs that thelendre secular sites, from patriotic to decidedly less salu- :field is artificial, some chimera which is not entitled ~ Cory themes, and from figures for commemoration ~ to exploration or examination by serious critics of and historical recollection to solely abstract and aes- :culture and society. These reservations -this thetic objects. Walter Lippmann sees this strange :apparent reluctance-createanambienceofconfu- "circulation of [symbol as] an entirely secular Sion and a resignation to relativity. The paucity of history."Z This "secularization" of public art has : ~cricical essays on public art published in arc maga- ~ made many lessons of history seem estranged and zines attests to an attitude of neglect or dismissal. ~ far less applicable. "Exemplary history has existed The fields of literature and fine arcs have evolved in the past, but the term now has a different :and imperceptibly shifted in tandem with rigorous meaning....This conception of history and of fate traditions of literary and aesthetic criticism. The re- has perished with the advent of modern individual- lation is symbiotic in the most productive sense: ist ideology...."' ~ creative production and critical analysis enhance Public art history is not without continued rele- :each other. The objectives of dialogue, illumina- TAreSrorrre vance (and I suspect chat its significance for many tion, agitation, and the exhilaration of new ideas oJLr'brrry, artists and critics will grow), but is will never provide :have fueled an ongoing, sometimes volatile sympo- Fn~dericAvgurte a set of guidelines or a manual of operations. It may :slum. There are, of course, stunning and awful Borrho/di, Librrry help co shape and substantiate certain ideological :examples of criticism, but public art simply suffers /s/ond, New YonF and philosophical ideas about public arc production, :from too little. Without more critical activity it is dif- Harbor,1884. but it does not instruct us what to do. ficult co construct an environment in which ques- Chance and necessity have changed the compo- cions of quality in the arc- or its criticism -can be sicion of public arc in the past twenty-five years. Al- :fruitfully explored. Without the vitality of inquisi- g though some of the frenzy surrounding the first :rive citizens, the critical and philosophical habitat of ' ~ stage of its reconstituted emergence in the late 1960s :public arc will remain a ghost town, a structure ~vith- ~ and early 1970s has quieted, public ari s second :out content. ~ stage has produced a more reasoned and, ac times, During a brief excursion into the universiq• li- searching inquiry on the one hand, and a somewhat brary where I work, I rummaged through the card ~ ~ disturbing obsession with criteria, management :catalogue, jumping between related and probably t ~ objectives, and methodsofdeploymenton the other. :unrelated subjects. With this essay in mind, I headed i A f 1 O Sp~ing/Summrr 199t) C co the category "PUBLIC." In this broad classifica- of humanity could be seen on the streets witnessing tion there were a number. of subsets including :the sign of a new year. Simultaneously, Iimagined "PUBLIC OPINION," "PUBLIC POLICY," and the millions of people gathered in front of televi- "PUBLIC RELATIONS." There was not a section sions in homes, hotels, and bars. Icwould be difficult for "PUBLIC LIFE" orsimply "PUBLIC:' This could to say which was the more "public" phenomenon; have been the result of neglect or oversight, but I :the vast, visible throng in Times Square or the huge, found the omission -not unlike ocher holes in the :invisible gathering of television observers. The consideration of public art-telling. It is difficult to :complicated reality is that they are both public. One embarkonacriticalinquiryintocontemporarypubtic is the centralized, more conventional symbol, and arc without first possessing an idea of what "public" :the other the fragmented, contemporary condition. means in the modern world and how "public life" is defined in parcicular communities or cultures. flLIHOUGHMO(I flRIISIS)IICLPIflpC IHEIRWORK Certainly, the texture of public life in the United J 6 States has altered during this century. And as we : IN CONSPlCUOUSEY PUBLIC SITES, TNERE MUS1 flE flN head into a new century, there are clear clues that the drama and rapidity of change will only acceler- :understanding of this phenomenological condition ace. Within a short span of Winery years, the actions of contemporary public life. "Public" remains an and ideas of public life have shifted from overc, :idea central to the human condition and to the de- observablebehaviors tofarmorequiet,hidden-from- velopment of cultures, but its actual complexity sight affairs. Atone time, the important delineation :seems to be gaining on present theory and produc- be~weenpublic and private was arranged geographi- tion. Its dispersal and irregular texture are not signs tally and spatially. The activities of public and civic of decay or dissolution. Public arc need not assume life occurred primarily in the streets, plazas, and :the mission to save or restore public life. It has a re- j parks of towns and cities. These traditionally open sponsibiliry to exhume characteristics of art and life sites formed a legible urban matrix that shaped the in a parcicularplace. In his essay on the Eiffel Tower, movements and, to a large extent, the expectations :Roland Barthes describes the object's ability to of diverse groups of people. "Public" was attached :decipher the surrounding panorama of Paris. Public to location; it had actual physical evidence in one's :art can both discover and endow meaning. apprehension of the world. Public art is a social and political event. But the makins of public arc is also a phi]osophical and 1HE INNfltE, NECESSBRY DIflIECtIC BETWEEN aesthetic process,like all art. It involves questions of intention, form, context, meaning, and symbol. But PUBLIC flND PRIVfl1E S111L EXIStS, 8Ut THE PLflCE because it is neither one °or the other, but both, it requires a synthetic approach to criticism. The of enactment has been physically compressed and individual who chooses to write about it must look many of the ideas have been psychologically inter- co aro outstanding written traditions: social criti- nalized. The ability co differentiate, and yet nurture cism and arc criticism. There are illustrations, mod- the contours of both the public and private selves, is els, and standards in each area, but an original ex- part of the human condition. Buc this dialectical dis- aminacion of both the social and aesthetic dimen- position is far more complex -and possibly excit- :sions of public arc requires a unique intellectual Aboru: Sign on ing -than it was ac one time. The transformations ~ fusion of ideas and theories. Badery ParkCrry caused by technology and information systems do A central question of all criticism is its relation co laovr, Nrm York, not signal the demise of public life, but are clear :the canon. Does the critic crust and invest her phi- NY,•Beloan: Crnrtr signs that its forms and features are now different. losophv to canonical traditions? Are there certain ojrke Un;vasc, Radical change requires intellectual and psycho- :fixed, unquestionable ideas co which art must corre- BruaeNaaman, logical agility. The sensation of loss, the comforcs of spond and criticism must respond? And if the canon ~ Univasiry oJNerm nostalgia, the apotheosis of things past seem like the is rejected as a guiding principle, what strategies can ~ Marco atAlbrrr- best antidotes to ease the confusion of the present replace its zeal? Is it possible to believe in a non- gaerquc, 1988. and escape the consideration of the future. Buc the canonical criticism without endorsing another au- notion of public -the characteristics of public life thoriry -that of absolute relativity? ~ ~ - is dynamic. "Public" is a concept in movement. These are fundamental critical questions, but ~ Last New Year's Eve, I celebrated the annual :they have particular resonance in the exploration of passage with friends. Just before midnight someone public arc because so much is ac stake. Thomas turned on the television to watch the lighted apple A1cE~illey's comments on the critical process that ~ descend in New Fork's Times Square. Over an acre :began this essay illuminate the perpetual struggle I 1, between the dogmatist and the skeptic. Another :controversy, more criticism, and more voices. contemporary cricIC of architecture and design, Artists and administrators ofpublic art have seen Herbert ~•Iuschamp, describes the critical process as :tremendous accomplishments. Agreat deal ofpublic an internal dialogue between "conviction and arc is being produced, and more and more artists are doubt."' In his thrilling, provocative book, Al! That :being given opportunities co work on challenging Is Solid ,llelts Into Air, Marshall Berman examines :projects, in exciting spaces and situations. Federal, historically, philosophically, and psychologically the :state, and independent private organizations have experience of modemiry. He sees modern life as a :established well-oiled mechanisms so chat public "maelstrom," and finds enormous promise in the an can make a permanent or temporary appearance wild slate of confusion and conflict. "If we think of in all kinds of communities. But this second stage is modernism as a struggle co make ourselves ac home also a time for skepticism. Those involved in public in a constantly changing world, we will realize chat an should do all they can co encourage questioning no mode of modernism can ever be definitive."s A :and criticality in their own chinking, and in the situation of inner contradiction is a consequence of :communities which accept and experience the art. being fully alive, open, and critical in the twentieth There has been an understandable preoccupa- century. Public art can be that site where the human ~ lion \vith how co get things done in order to increase condition of the public and private selves, and the the possibilities for public an. But now is the time to critical balance of public proclamations and private ~ think more about the purpose of all this activity. puzzlings, have a connection. Whe? Is there a shared belief that public an im- . p T T T T ` Tp u pro\•es the quality of public life? Is it simply good WHILE I DO NDI BELICIE IRB! II (J IOE MI))IDtI :entertainment? Is it the lure to forward private de- T velopment? Is is the symbol of particular agencies' Of PUBLIC RRt TO SAVE OR SIMPLY t0 CHEERI I I IS about publ c arc nl the first place?~Is [here a genuene in a unique position to explore contemporaneity. It :need for it out there? is not public because of its location, the number of people \\•ho encounter it,or the number who under- WNILE I BELIEVE IN 1HE IMPORtRNCE Of 1HE stand ic; it is not even public because of the breadth of its message or content. Public an is stimulated by CRI I ICBL PROCESS, (DO NOt BELIEVE 1HR1 CRf11CS a philosophical sensitivity to life in the modern age. There are no formal guidelines or ideologic pre- :hold the answer. They can, however, encourage the scriptions other than an intenctoembrace the "mael- public's own critical capacities. Good criticism is not Strom" of uncertainty, and the persistence of the an esoteric, involute exploration. The criticism of dialectic that forms both individuals and communi- :public art that attempts co reach a wide audience ties. may bring a richness to many people's thinking The role of any critic is to challenge authority and :about the relation of a creative work to concempo- coscimulatedialogue.PhilosopherNelsonGoodman rary life, but it may also be a useful field of experi- and others believe that criticism must be sustained mentacion for the critical process itself. In The Com- Above: Vices a>1d by a radical conscience. To engage in the criticism :pang of Critres, Michael Walzer argues fora "con- verues, Brnce ofpublic art is not only an act of intellectual synthe- neeted" social critic who addresses a broad, plural- Nouman, sis, but also a commitment to the public potential of istic constituency, who is mainstream without being Unruenity of the written word. Like the characteristics of public conformist.' Public arc is not only a rich subject, but CotrfornioarSan life that are formed and founded in the individual :one which offersanopponuniryforoursharedpublic Diego, 1988; psyche, the critical process begins at a most private :life -whatever form it may take - co become a far Beloav: Wa!! of level. But criticism chat does not reach out to a broad :more critical and "connected" life. ~ Rapat, 21 artists, audience remains only interesting personal opinion ~ Chicago, lL,1971. or reflection. To achieve resonance, co become the N o T E s ~ kind of communicative arc that great criticism can 1. Thomas \IcE.•illey, 'Forum.- Arrforrsr (April 192N) 71.2. \Yalrer Lippman. be, it must stimulate individual consciousness and Prb/ir Opi~ios INew York: The Free Press, 19651 111.3. Tzveran Todorov, TM public debate on both aesthetic and social issues. ; Corgrert,Jlwrrritn/New York: Harper 6: RowPubiishcrs,Inc.,19N1)z51.1. ;e The critical process requires both conviction and Flerbcn ~Iuschamp. rnnrenation and on rnarx description in h1A program in ~ passion; its form and meaning must possess an au- ~ criticism atPanonsScnoolor[ksign. s.nlarshallBerman,A/~r.Sat/rso/;,l.l/dts hto Arr/New' \brk: Penguin Books,1914K). 6. Michael \Yalur, T,irCompanr of thorny that acknowledges life's uncertainty. The ca~.l \ew Y«k 9uic Books, 19811) idea develupea on zo. zr, 121n. 11z-+7. last thing that a critic should hope for is to have the :lag-sz, z1tl,333-z3N.8. Roland Barthel. "7'he EiRcl Towcr from Banhes tl ~ final word. A critical essay should stimulate response, Rena«. editor susan Sontag, l~ew Y«>~: wn and \vanh, 198z). 1 14 Spring/Summtr 199t?