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?