HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-04 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session ~..1
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1990
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 ~~~u6~- 1. Approval of Minutes of September 4 and 18, 1990 Meetings
7:35 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
7:50 ,~~,~n.p 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 ~4~1+C_. 4. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1990, first reading, an
Sally rto ry,~,,,,~~ 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 /}~Q~-`~ 5. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1990, first reading, an
Sally L rton / 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 T990, 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 ~4 n~n~ 6. Action on Forest Service Participating Agreement
Ron Phillips
Bill Wood ..Action Reauested 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
~ll~~,~ the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, a 40 acre parcel located
~ north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of
'J 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 ~~Q 8. Request to amend the TOV's snow avalanche hazard map in the
KrestanlPritz ~ ~ Section 18c691of theVTownMofdUail Zoning Codel, pursuant to
g (Applicant:
Shelly Mello Town of Vail)
Action Requested 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 ~~~f 9. Appeal of DRB decision to deny approval of construction of a
Jill Kammerer~u~~ fence/trench to mitigate rockfall hazard at Booth Falls
Stan Berryman ~Z~~
Action Requested of Council: Council call up of the DRB
'~-t~ AFL 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 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-
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 DRB 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-
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
18.46.220 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.
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, commonly 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 8 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 thir (67,930)
square feet of GRFA.
1
r
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 Dutilex 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 Housina
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
(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 ~...~loyee 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
i
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
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 rec...,..,~endation 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).
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 (B1 Floor Area - 65.000 scr. 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
existino GRFA on site is 66.898 sct. 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 Accordinv to Town of Vail Files Prior to June 28, 1990
GRFA on Building Permit 63,847 sq. ft.
Additions to units (previously atit~rovedl 121 sQ. ft.
Total 63,968 sq. ft.
GRFA Allowed 65,000 sa. ft.
GRFA Available 1,032 sq. ft.
GRFA Check June 28. 1990
Unit tvt~e # of units SQ. 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 previously approved 121
EBISTING 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 scs. 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 35~
Site Coverage 64,216 sq. ft. 34,878 sq. ft. 82,566 sq.
or 35~ ft. or 45$
2
- Allowed by SDD ~xistina 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 tironerties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
heiahtt buffer zones, identity, character, visual
intecfrity 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
~n
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 ~arkina 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
Comt~rehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Design
Plans.
There are no specific Comprehensive Plan goals related
to the proposal. The Town of Vail Land 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
creoloaic 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 clan, building design and location and oven svace
tirovisions designed to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
` vegetation and overall aesthetic quality 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
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 otien space in
order to optimize and preserve natural features.
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 plan 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 rec..u~.4ends 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. Th~de~citj~o.f t,he~project shall be reduced from 65
units to 45 free market units
(die number
of~ree
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. Curren hy, 3~8~I8 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
.j
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
~2
- U~i~
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).
WITNESSETN:
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
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.
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
3anitorial 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.
4 ~f
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. MISCEL/~NFOIIS ,
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
S
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 gy
Forest Supervisor, White River NF
AVON/BEAVER CREEK RESORT ASSOCIATION
Date By
VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION
Date By
6 i
TOWN OF AVON
Date BY
TOWN OF VAIL
Date • BY
TOWN OF MINTURN
Date BY
EAGLE COUNTY
Date BY
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community 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-o.f-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
4
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$.
E. Retaining Walls:
Retaining walls are proposed to accommodate the
subdivision road. A variance is required for walls
which exceed the maximum height allowed of 6 ft. The
section of the code which relates to retaining wall
heights is found in Section 18.58.020.
3
'The maximum wall height proposed is 8'-8". Total
lineal wall length is 6179 feet. Below is a chart
showing the break down of wall height to length of
wall. These figures are as accurate as possible given
the level of design work required at preliminary plan.
Please keep in mind that these numbers may vary
slightly at final plat.
Heiaht Lenath of Wall
8'-2"' to 8'-8" 291 l.f.
6' to 8' 2663 l.f.
lower than 6' 3225 l.f.
Total 6179 l.f.
In some areas, the 8 ft. to 8'-8" high walls will be
terraced with a 10 ft. bench between each wall. The
maximum number of terraces proposed is three. These 3
terraced walls have a maximum combined height of 30 ft.
This situation is found at the eastern most switchback
on U.S. Forest Service property at the lower end of the
subdivision, the switchback adjacent to Lots 5 and 6,
and the intersection of the secondary road accessing
Lots 1-6. The applicant proposes to build the
retaining walls with a colored, split-face, concrete
block veneer using a geogrid support system.
Type Length Height of Number
Location of Wall of Wall Tiered wall of Tiers
Forest Service Fill 116 l.f. 19 ft. 2
Switchback
Forest Service Cut 236 l.f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Lots 5 & 6 Fill 130 l.f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Lots 5 & 6 Cut 79 l.f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Secondary Road Fill 135 l.f. 30 ft. 3
to Lots 1-6
In summary, a wall height variance is necessary for
2954 l.f. of wall above 6 ft., not to exceed 8'-8" or
47.8$ 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 revegetation 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. Drainaae:
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. Mark 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. Onen 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 Phasina:
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. Retaining Walls/S1oDe 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 project'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
it
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 drainages 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. Reveoetation:
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
I
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. Atmospheric 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 10 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 Imuact:
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
allowable GRFA to encourage development that is
more compact and less spread out on the site.
7. Architectural guidelines are submitted 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 8~ 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. Hvdroloctic 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 imprrved 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
(B) 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 exis~ing, 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 MANOR 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 Comoanv 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:zer. 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 recommends approval of the requested variances
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationshib of the reauested variance to
other existing or tiotential 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 .interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and.uniformitv.of treatment amonq
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without grant of sbecial urivileae.
Road Grade and Retaining Wa11 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 requested variance on light and
air,. distribution of uonulation. transeortation
and traffic facilities. public facilities and,
utilities, and public safety.
27
a) Road Grade:
The increase in road grade above the 8$ standard
to.8.8p~ 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 possible future road extension.
V. FINDINGS
The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the
followina findirias before grantina 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 emuhasize that additional fine tuning of
the road and wall heights may 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 MATERIAL
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.
11. 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
4
i
:
•
:r::-::~~~:.:.•l.:>,,::: PR/~DDLE•::CRE~K..DEVEL:OP:~IIENST T .
:.~..::..:.:.:...~....{.:::5 , : .A..:I~T~CS .r:...,...
.w.. .
W o
>~<>LO:;;SIZE`~ BUILDING ENVELOPE;;`::::"'SI.~ tCOVERAGE GR FA
:..RIG~~>~; RIG. R RI
O. •.::..:.::.REV' O EV ,,O G.~°;:;:;;:REV::::::>:> ORIG. REV.
-
LOT 3aa 1 a
<:......i 09.. <<<>'84409; 405 ~:~>:<€20221:::<'>`~?~'':`<€>5990: 10007 7487
.
.
.
!
L0T.2;.:;
..:::53304':.. 13632:: • 7995 , 4746'. • . 3932<~ .
•
•
3 >:::<:::861 9 . 4403 °<12922"' .>?<<<~>>~<>>:6059: 7574
LOT 4 _ ..:.:........:>::.1 64 :~~.::1
:::::::....:.::::.:85288:; .:`>`64258:::.::;;.:::;«.::;;:>;::::15806...'....:...........0 8 2790..:;;.:::.;:::.....:::::::..:. 5184:.:::..:.:::::,7530....:::::.:::.:6480.:
LOT cJ. „61082 54982 ' 22397 13700 ;..9162 •
.s 4797:: 8321 5996
LOT 6.:: ;
..:5782: 7228'. •
..::79228 ` .21895 118 .
84
•
LOT 7 .
50354: ::;:`:?::::48854; 14572 11924 , _.;<7553. 4028:;' 5785 5035
T ~ •
LO 8 , ~i 873:: ; ; '..::12271:: : ;;>'4781 ; . > °3886::::..:::.4861 ~ .
LOT 9 `
64752 12983 10675 9713 : ,.:;;..5204:; 6505 •
.
I:OT:<~ ~ :,32298` * ;..:::::.11593'. ~ ; 4844 3905:.. ....4882:'
LOT 11 ,
:...:71419: 14592 9937 ?:':;::::10713 ~ ; ,.5470:'. 6838
LOT::,12 .:.:..:::::.:96213' ~ ;:::?::20153: .:;:::::,14471 :•14432 .:;..::;;::6462:...:: ;:.::8078. ' °
LOT 8... ,
14 ~ 2 504 , 1a o
. 3. :.221253 22953 14612 42756: <>:>:1:1464 17519 33
:
:3820::......:4 25:•
L. 15 ..,:.251.81': • ;7538 ;;:6226. 3774
; 5
• No Change
• • ~ ' y;•: syn. ;.~.,3. :j;,: ri :r.•,
• • • p ~ • ~ ~ \ 1...~~.'.. ~ _~w~•Ce~}~'rr'. '~~A-7~?w~ _~.rt Jy .,•.•~~?'~,~~~•'1'.~ '~r.Y L~r1. -'X~._"•<~~;~~:'~'r.._'~~?ti"~r
• • • • P~8• • ~ • • • a N...~,. ~r ""ti• \ ~,~1 • : ~ ~L ~ • !'r:+~.~.~
~.::i.
jis'.•'s.'~i_?~~
~
~'~~:^^a 'rGt r~-= ~'..7+-~
• - -
.
~ • • • ? _ ? • 3y r T,~g,~G.8~.0 _ •
: r` y~ T u7' {(J1Y
1~ ~ P
~ i
i ~ I ~ - ! 1 ~ ~ ~ ~
t : ~ Imo- ~ 1S a\ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ` , i d
' • a \
v • ~ W
, 8S
t.,..
. ' _
1~i...1. 1 t I. I ~ ~ i - ~ i 'i~"C"~ t ..i~..~, t. I I 0 .1
. ~ ' I - ' ..~....-1 . ~ - i. r.. 1 i . ' 1 I ~ ~ I h r~ I - 1~~
~ ~ . . - - - -B~(C
.
. _ . , ~ 6550
1
_ . - - .6 ~?o
ST G . CCE i°f~ FL~S
. ~1 ~l3 E ~1 Ss D /
~ _ _ ~ :aszo
~ ~ 8S/D
Q O O O
~ 9 ~
•
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. ins 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 Qf 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 development objectives of the Town, and the more
. tangible issue of provision of legal and physical access.
II. EVALIIATION OF REQUEST
Criteria ~1. Suitability of Existing Zoning
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.$ 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
municipal ob-j ectives? '
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.
• ~
~JAROQA~L ~"1 . \
DAD `
3 ~ -
1:~ r J
M ~?.t . ~4x
To~e~L
1
1
~
~ ~
~ 1
Mw.
I '
~ -fOASo1~- _
ice-\1
~ ~ . (tt-
~ ~ ~
t ! ~ .
~l~ -tip ~T~ Gu,~~~:,_~~~, ~
~
~ ~~i ~ ~
v
q
t
• ~ `
•
• 111= `
J
111.! .
~ a
1 OP~OI L.~~ ~
I
1 l
I l
11
~1
1
~M~~.
ul ~
~ i
t
l I
I ~
F
. ~
1 1
~ I
Cif .
~ ~
~z
i ~ r
. ~I~-`-tl~J
't
F 4
4•
f'
) ,eta}?y~ n f' x~ '
, ,kT i' T ~ i ~ ~ /.t S%•~ ;r Ij F~ lr~
t l' ~ Ix, ~
( o +rI + (b;j~ ,~iir~,~~1/'~:;~P ~/t,'I, J,..,'j. )toi I J 1,/ `fit ~ lIf N
t ! ~8 i r ~i f l~! I I},rl,~Ir r .b 1 , ~n ~r„ fr t c r' 1}, r~it r + ~I'hr r r 1 - 1
,I- ti#;, t r~~fy~~!'' .1., l . / '~M 7r'• I'1.~ /i. '!tf ~ ~ i ! t ~ ~~,ytt/~// t (r t~ ; e / M • t /
4 ~r jdjY~t-t 7i 1 :tl(7'• 6 „~~~}1M1~.J ~t~N{rf~'J~'T+'I,~.:{fi_ "+~1."? 1~ j{t~r, y :3. f.
t.,',~ Jt`a Its J:?.j"k.H~ ti,~.. ~ 1~ i~ f ~ (J .1 f ~r~.
s ~ ,
t /
t. ? v~ ~~1x 'r~i^`J~~i +'Vt n ~ ~I ~ ,c s ~ ri, ~ ~ht ~ ; ' ~ j ~ ~ , i
A a, ~ t1t ~ ~ `c)!'tdL~h ~ i ri y~ f r.~. f ~ -Yt~e'~i! } fit, r .t r t~~ yh
[ t~r~ R2~, 4. ~ `7~-J1'kt 4`9•I~j.ft ~ .'~`j fa
w 1 b~ ~ V ' • i r + \ S + ! ~ A ~ a Y- d * S~, I± r 11
f 1'.,. t~ ~
~ t' ~ #11~ ~ ' I ` a Y' t, ~\?ff'~ ,ir t J T1', •n .y 4#
if
' a 4 4 f y Y' I~ F r3 r ~P ? rY .e ~ 4
iil lilll c
' ,~7~.)`}ri'~}~;'" Y -;f 4~R.5:'t~ r' /r Si ~r~^ ti ' 1triea.
r~ S • f s~}. P?~-`~X.;'4, t L C . ti# -k ~ ~ d ' trr~;+A
u . 'Z
r • .
t:-
,
t, d
r•
• z
a
'1,
4.
F s 1
•,1 t<
• 1 T... /
4
! t. r 4
a Z,
L . S
. C,.. ~ ~g,.
~ S s
x .
F i
X..-
~L•"
A 4 r ~k
Z
r .t
t
• I : \ ~ r , • Syr i~ ?J
` f 3
! t ' (i ~ k~j'r.. ~j ? ~tt ~ ~1!. r~j~.yY -,x' I •--,t, . tYt.cY f - .
~2: } iA - r else ~d• }'H' ~F~ ~~d~ f:,~": ~ l.~s~• r -»i'1~ t
l ~ 't r Y b ~ ~ t { . ~ -fir
r - ,
7 F+
e: . ~ ~
r`~•
~ ; i
1.. .'.i..i t
•y
. Y,.
.
~
.
~r°
,
•4
.
D.
.1
. • . .
.~w- i
- •t ti .r
. -
'FS.`sG4 a°r.as, w , : ''ti d.. r k. ~ J . „ ' t rt s.>7'.~: r
6 I'~RI'(.!"'' :.,4# r. , ~ r.,? , e . ta. t ~ . Y~c t t. `I FF, ` J '
* - r t i l:•~q`.. ..«1;.~ts-.Ya..3':':a. 5 _ , - .
M+~p~'t_'2y. =-^~-+-(,'~T:1`w.`F"r; P:~'..~".. 1;• 4T ~.3r.7 rr..4,.T~.:L:.,-.ar t.?.r~.. n t •rot~r-.,~~;~L t ~\~ri:. t, t \ w`,. it~..r , •.,a.,.,
^.Ai.'t'?" .1 r J.Yf ~ 1~ F ;1,- t. '~~r.. t i:t v.S i `Te~.~.; ..4 .'\"4"Y"t'S.« rw.v~• r,~w.w~~.-.,~.
t. .5--~gys~ aayy;,L,li;~7..!-. ~.h t:~',,.. ,t;jyt'-.. : ~ ~ e~ • ~.r, . r; : t a y - 1 '+t.' r' • r-., ;
S_. k.:,::t ,fir T•41+i. ? . ~..tl.•, . ,{'i- r.tu: ~i aF' 1.. ".t.~. ..{:'l:•'i'r ^ 3-~' , r
. ~r_ 7 .Gl.. C`!-"~- 1... .Ar C`te'•6 ~•I . d...t i< ht :1 i'i t, ~v. ~'...1" t 'r : •.,..~i
;t'" s'•yt,;- ; tif. i~,. c' L.-st~ :.:7:1''° { r ti .t`~'i`t .j{-.,F•~',,.{, r: 'K"A ;S ;;-'t • a .1=,' .x.
a ~•k'~,±;},,, ,•V$~it~.,, j' ,,C C: :T :,~?r" +r,,;..rrr.a.:"}'`f~t :fit E-S• :i. ;i• :'t,,.rr ia,. 7c.,. ~e•", ~ - i, „y u't,?:r_,.:t
,Jjw, C. • •s..s,.,f 1}y!'-,,~ -..7;3(~' ty~~. ~ R... 'rT :'Tir .0. . rr• 'S` ',r,~ , ! r ~ ~~1.~. ~rS1..;. yf.. 'igs~!:'.^,~t`'S;~,~d -3 ti~'~' ..•rY~r.. 4•+~• ~ , _
r~.'•.. n1•'.'`w' .Cf "~.Z"~fy:. 'cr. ~,r"LR «t .y~l r._;.,, 1~-,~ ~~,~`:11, ti-.:}-pr ~!v~.a:; `~+-~~fr~i~ :''r'~:::K~ 1 '~~J"'t ~~~:~;~-'•~'i~t ~..~.5 •a.,y q-7,~ ~'y~k. .'~.r~~~:.
~r ~.7 ~s.- '~,e 7C ~"''~y j,i~~ i. x4i'Y~9r~~`i~ T ~ @;.";k ,(S"' r,~ 7t a ~ 5 ~..w'~-~ ~ 'r` 5t , ~1 1 s
~w ',(,•<~,*4 .k~° ~~f~.f r~~ ,N+. Y~,~y._~f`a;d 'tr.R~1,~~}T •x^4~`Y7~~t`~7~}~ati'~ ti, ' t~~,~'~*.[°~3Sr`,~' r,~?
g ~Sl~~~,( ~~e' ~~~r1Y'~;t~y?-,,F-•d'}~t ,,,~j,~.. +Ct 'e11. t ~.+.,-nY~~Dl.1w-'tr %.-'~.3 '~f1~` ~J'• ~J 4~
. ~ .t ~:~~N .i. r'i . `,t`I_`~ {jt 1. 9~ `t ~:-a. i~h.
'~..>..,r`"'1~~•:~s,•t ~i;~i, ; fir'^~ r,.t. 'CF's i.`"{' - ~•E•.~:`fi :~i,?1~,:~,
r. 1` ~'.~•~,x"4 +.,•y. •R° ~ ?j -'-~~~4;'~~,'~~
~'~'`f,~`~ '~~t','il~~~v" '="~"~ilrlf~ f.s~-;',~r ,;}'ter .~i=-Mty~ ~~'y`,r~~
~ J~ ~ ° ,,.~,~,`?q~ ~.'.~,~jj~,~,"'~ r' -}?~it~~~~1~t,;~'t
? ~ ~ f~;`' a; a+..\ ~ •ti !4 ~f ~K j 41 I~ '~.,y,,~~'~y w ,d'~a1,.. ~ kJl~.;'p' f?' V^~;. f p C'~^.."-~`~t~ ~~•3d
~ ~ ~ ,~rT„ t`: 1i~. k;l•~• 1t°.a y- ".}`!.t`~lh ..r't~, y. ..'t4V t..s 3~~ ~=d• .tsri'~ r+r~,•+~w•~4~.
':T' ;,•t ' rf- ~ o-'. i 1 1•..r ~",,.a'. +i-a ~ Y<- -r 3 ,D ;
a ;k Jr t._ r~ l:.fj.~ ~ Gtifi ' ~ ~ l".2j,~ ..t .~J'•} ~.~~~'tiq.- \,..t„) ~f./;'~"'F~~~~;"~ µ dy~~ .y ~t j,'qt
t ~~:~~i:.r 11: ?~..~t~,:~ ar .-~i~~..~ '4i• .i~ .r'~~~Y~~r~'["`~'ti:l.^.'YJ ae l~,~xii~'t' ~},_,~~t:.
~yt, •ira } ~i,~} ) ~ rle * ,r +~•rr r • 3'" ~`Sf y.~a} t t =))~1, iy„r•d; ~'f;•, y ~ r k t~ ~ ;
T:. .~,~~j; F1 Zy L y R! R .1.~ { v~'K",I. ~ r. I aT'~. ~.'r.
~^7.~+ r s?7r I9~'yy-r v - ft rf4t1-~' ~f ~~'dys~F~ • ..t~,~!1~' 7`'drdr~'•. .~'f _ '?:,r~t.r
'irr~ ~"v tp~ ~"^~11.~,r...e'y'+ ?"``'"~F i y~'~. ?tra ~wA i1+'r" r't'!~"}:1Z'~}~1'->+'~,~~• rw~~T• Ji.~+~l..,! ,t • 4'~~{e!'' {r~~ y~µ s* ~ s
-.~1 •~a, r' x+.~ rf ~j,...$' r. fS ytc ,°~~'('~.p''..i~ -f Z+~{y ,~~"~s de tC':' g' ex,~.1r. ~G T" '~F-tk -•"~S,r... :t'g~-~
. ~,~'s~T~~Z+~'..~Y'i!.9s ^'?J;r.ee Ai R~S'.*~ r~ ly:,*~, '~.A ~ ~ li° l~ ~a`i 4q4 c).7~ ~ ~t^'~`'~'+f''T IS tF~ r~' ;r • ~ F- :.,y k.~`1^"i~
t.: ~ , ,;•t. :.{'i:u,q?4 ~ -'-rt t k~: •.r ~ ; f~ i , ar e ~ Y ~ r ~,,Y.
r ;Ji:nfy • .'ty,^.;#.'}r~'.3 LX•'~.,+ 1~'t,~;,~iC+ ,T ~h, ~SY,,3 (if.~
• .iG~~ ~/+t~F r;t~.*..Sc''r+-.r4^l..i..:Krt-,~..t~'y
~~••~j.6~•L'~'~~{~"~i~y.? r«+.,,,t a', .e~q~.'
.
s
•
It
~i ~
<<~~
r
•
v Ro.,o
~~J,T~`
~ rS "~T1o~
~~.J~
.r~~ _
1 - 70 p. G. W. FtNCE (S` BorDedl ,
REt ~~NING Npt'=~ V IGOAY
PpOPRS~ ~ ~ _
d
' ._,~--`r.~ ~ .i-~.~^~~ POSED 570 SIGN ~ O,S~ ~~d
PRO O G
i J Fop
~ SYSS£µ.
r O ,r~~T
per ~ '°O,C..-------'-' 1 , 5 R. .~?ANN01' `
~xrot' mod .
r - tom,, p„o,,,o,s~d E.c,~+•` ~ ~ S ~ , ~ ~ r
~
G NO P SO CNt R~DN ,
~d .7" e
r yQi 11 .
' ~ ACCESS RAMP
y - 70
~ I
IS OR OP INLCT _
~DO r F~ `~OryT POLE
1rV ~NTERST~tE i~GN~
~ ~ Br
y~yt~e 640 0 80202
Colorado o.B' 5~DE`w~
Ue~ver,
q
. v.~~Qyy ~Ll ~ .
.
M
~f
~ 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
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 owned, 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
letter 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
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 c...,..,.on areas, retaining walls, and landscaping.
The pwner 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~nnanently
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
sy
1
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
r
~ ~ ~ 1T ~r ~:;~r 1~~~
s 1 J ~ ~ ~"a i
_
~ -
i.
'e..
~yy~
.-~kea.A~ '1 3C„'Y~ Lf~
. ~ -
. `.w ~ t$ , ~ e~~ - ~ ~L~Y .t `TMN~~1"~ ~ ~.~'~J.ti
i ~`'r• A.~ `a'^' _ .
_ I ~
ING
n/
'M • * F~f J ~
_ ~ ^
r~~
_ i~ l ti i
1
1 L` 1 a~~ ~a?' -t
° 4-'
fir.:.
~ ~ S ~ 1 . ~a wM-. Ms.
f
1 b~ ~
_
, _ ,
- _ ~
. F r J..
A!;' M ~ . .
~ ~
y.
ar s
_ r. - ~
4
. ~ fi
_ , _ y
-"Y"om
-
e, * ' u . ,tf, ~ , t1M
~ ~
1 ~ ~
~ v _
M - - it
:i . ~ ^ j
c - - _
~a
.
w
G
??. , ?. ?,
}- y
_ ?_
w ,,1?
~F;.
.
' Spraddle Creek
9/27/90 `
. Z
4
,:,rKcS,r."
3 ^
1
..~d._.,..p~y~~..~.L Sfri~..
^ •"1!
Z- ~ w a
t
a.
~ _
~ ~,,,,ti~
J f
~w.~
~
' ~
~ R... ~ . .
x. ~
~
t
r
ws.r~~„ ;
rjiYy:,
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 4.270
400 LF at 6.00%
500 LF at 7.OOo
2300 LF at 8.OOo
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.
,fit' + _ -
. .
l~'' ~
r ~ ~
i gg,, _ ¢
~ 3
t ~ _ -~y~. ~v ~ ` 3 ~F - fit- _ r
rte.
L
~
+ • , _ = r~ ~ 'ate' ' -
~ fi ~ ~ 4
f ~ ~
y ~ ~ ~
f . ~ \ jj
r ~ ! ~
~ ~ _ ~ _
/ .
Cs r
i
771.
t
L
rw, p-
-??
l
Spraddle Creek
9/27/90
* µ
k ~t ,
. y,z r~r~~r
~ ~r
s ~
s.
~w,~
,
;s
r ~
~ r ~ `
t ~
r
~ •
s~ ~ f -
,y~3
!
~l
,~1
• 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 3.850
200 LF at 4.270
400 LF at 6.OOo
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 GJidth: 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.
•
_ ~ _
fix,
~
~ '
~
~ ~ l
_ e
a s_ w~ - - -c
i ~ y ~ ~ ~ c
- ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,
r it- M zf4 ~ }
t
~
3 - -
~ -
4
~ -
~ ~
i '
t r~
- ~
r s ,
~
_ = ~
~
~ - ~ ay-'~ _ } - - < a ~ ~ yam. ~e -
'Vi=a, - ~ - r;~~ ~ .~~v~ ~~-s. ~ - ~''St s Ar°-~. ~ - r
~ ~ ~ ~f. _
_ ~ -
~ _ _
~ a' - _ °
a ~ _ _ _ _
~ _ _ ~
~
. ~
_ _ _
~ _
- - - -
" ~
L
~T - - - - - - - _
~ _ ~ j - - - - -
n ~ -
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.)
T0: 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 #l, 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 Existina Desianation Proposed
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
specific 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).
" i
~
1 - v
~ ~ •
} ~
~Y.
~ .
~
i . ' !
•
~
•
• •
.
~
~ ~ i~
_
~E H'~.p
- -
~
~ ~Z~ ~ ::::RECREATION _ • : - -
AREA - ~ ~
~ ' ~ ~ .
P?.
' ~ ~ ~
„E w-
s- ~f.. • - .'i..• r~~y~`~•1 y. ';,1~'~~~.fr7(J~y`_..~4 •T ~,.~~y'`.'
} P^~
{
V 1
D'
e LaNE t
~r )
1
~ ~
b ~
s
~ 1,
n
i
l~~ LZ
4ry~,
04 p~
1C ~ ~
~ w.
wATK ~
/ ~ lj ~ a ~ ~ 1~~ _ 150
~ a scA~E
J .
V ~
~
g15°
' EAapWg AVALANCHE
~ ` ~ ~Al~ M E
~ e. L CC. RvNp'~T ZoN
k~~ ` f SNpW HAZARp ZpNES
, MpoERATE
d~
~ ~ .
.1 ~ ~
i V
°
}
c~ BLUE ZC?<E 30U:~DARY <nE LANE
\
h A' ~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~
•
O., ~ ~ d ~
,,y ~ 4 C r
1 ~ ~
1
t
1 `.Y..,~
LO.... ~
xED ONE 80UI3DARY ` 22
~ZS SPUDY
4M
~~i~~~~~'A~"? ti
x ~ d
T , ~ _ ~ p
rJ_7 ~ WATER ~
1
? gCALEt ?"-150
~
:ry,`:
~ ~ 4
/r
1::5° 1
~I
4~ ~ ' ~ VAIL MEADOWS AVALANCHE
~ ~ ~ ~
~ . R.UN OUT Z~~
c ~ gHOWiNG HIGH & NE
} paERATE HAZAR~.~--
1 M
,,,n,u ~ -
~
r „ b C
Tti•,.~
' UPPER EAGLE VALLEY •
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
816 FOREST ROAD • vAll, COLORADO 81657 ~.""~"ii ~~1 ~ '
(303)~76~7~60 t. '
September 1T, 1990
Ms. Shelly Mello, Planzyer
Town of Vail
?5 South F..~..Lage Road
Vail, Ool~d,:o 8165?
Re: Lot 22, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1
Dear Ms. Mello:
The Di.~ l~ ict has ...„_.,.lly L inf ~...,..3 by Mr. RI~I„+ L that the water
tank 1.~..ated above Lot 22, Vail Meadows Filing No..,1 is . ~,,.iired to have a
r...;tective structure above. it to ~,.tect the tank 1+..., avalanche da.y~rs aryl
reduce the hazard to _sua+~ aYiirig p+..r~+ ry. Mr. 8ortte presented to the District
a . L ~ ~3 by Hyriro-Z`riad, dated Jiaye, 1990, which ref ~,.aed a r+ ~ pious
~:.r~~~ ; r- ~r~-- ~1 by Hydro-Triad, in April, ~9T7, The District has acquired the
,1977 - ~r..~~ r, acid based t.~.~.. the earlier re.,~..... ~.3ations to ......~truct a
- splitting structure.. as a~ defense mechanism, has . ~ lamed an engineering firm to
evaluate both to and design a r~..tective al+aictvre that would be adequate
to sustain the se~L_,. avalane.Y~es that could be expected in the high hazard
~....e.
The 1990 ..:t.~.~ l Hydro.-17riad ref,,:. .:...ces the 1977 . ~r~~. l that co¢~clt~ded
°If the tank 't... ~ maintained at 80Ac: full during the avalanche hazard period arx3
- equi~,r:.~ with a sheer ring tie to the foundation, the tank would nct fail or be
to significant additive el._.. ~.,.t to the avalanche, as it would effect the
+,~idential lots slang Snowshoe Iane." 'The tank is maintained at 80AS full or
b~~ter chuing a.,....~1 ~r~~atfoa~ of .the water system throughout the winter
mlonths. The sheer ring tie to the fa~ar]ation, however, has not L installed.
Haled t.~~.. initial evahsation by the District's .:...yineers, they have ~„a.u..hxled
that the. at. ring tie would not. be adequate and are therefore s.~...,.:.:.ding with
further evaluation and design of the splitting structure.
If you have any further questions . ~~,,:..c3ing this matter, please feel f.
to ....r..Lact me at 476-?480.
Sin,.. ,:.ly,
J... _ y Heryder
Di..:.. L.._ of i~tater Cr ~ atia~s
JH:sk
oc: Fid~muyd H. II+~.~ , Jr.
Kent Rose
P~~ect File
IA ~ + DKTRICTf - ARROWHEAD METRO WATER ~ AVON METRO WATER ~ BEAVER CREEK METRO WATER A BERRY CREEK METRO WATER CLEAN
EAGLE•VAIL ARETRO WATER• EDWARDS METRO WATER• LAKE CREEK MEADOWS WATERA UGPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SANITATION
VAlL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER ~ VAIL WATER AND SANITATION
QUANTITATIYE,ANALY$IS.OF RUNOUT DISTANCE,
ENERGY AND AYALANCHE-ZONING IMPLICATIONS
VAIL MEADOWS AVALANCHE, PAIL, COLORADO
RDC~o SEP 1 ~
R• ~ -
QIIA2QTITATiv~ ANALYSIS OF RtTNOIIT DISTANCE, ENERGY
AND AVALANCHE-ZONINQ IMPLICATIONS
oAIL MEADOWS AVALANCHE, VAIL, COLORADO
Prepared For
.The Town o! Vafl
Prepared By
Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
September, 1990
1 Introduct~,on 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 re-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 used, methods which have been
6uperceded by~recent research (McClung and Lied, ,1984; McClung
and Lied,. 1987; Mears, .1988.; McClung, Mears, and Schaerer, 1988;
Mears, 1989ei; Mears, 1989b; Mears din 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
application 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
coefficients 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.
~~iethods used ~,n ~,g,].vsis
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 (Begs 16', 17', 18'). This is the direction the
avalanche would advance in if it were not deflected. The 5
`degree 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 "Xg" (see Appendicfes A, B,
and C, for definitions) , were then measured from the profile.
These two angle and elope 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, 19~80j .was then fit to the synthetic profile, and forced,
- by successive iterations to stop at Alpha 22.0°. The PCM
avalannche-dynamics coefficents~.thus determined by iteration
were: M/D = 755m; mu = 0.2 (assumed fn iterations).
g.. 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
ap roxfmately 40°; a momentum-correction factor (equal to [cos
20g]~ =..0.88j~ 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 = j2Pq/1oo]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.
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, Ltd. This figure shows the
revised Red/Slue 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 air-photo internretat~i
During the summer of 1973 and 1976, at least 10 man-days field
time was spent within the Vail Meadows avalanche path to
.familiarize 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 boundarieB'of Lot 22 showed no obvious evidence of
_ avalanche impact, but most trees were less than 100 years old in
this area. As discussed in Appendfx "A," however, lack of an
avalanche for a even ~ 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 of U.S. Foest Service photos taken in 1939,
1950, 1962, 19.74, 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
clear evidence that a,Iarge 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 range of the "100-year" avalanche. This
conclusion is substantiated by the statistical/dynamics analysis
described in Section 2.
4 ~cussion and limitation of analysis
. The avalanche which was determined ns discussed in this report ie
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.
~~he.design event is assumed to consist of dry-flowing snow at
"this location. This avalanche, in accordance with numerous
observations obtained by the~author~throughout North America,
will be dispersed upward to a height of at least 3m (10 feet), ae
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. This 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, size 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-snow events. This additional height requirement
H, will be the sum of three components
H ~ hs + ha + k(V2/2q), where
h8 =_snowpack depth, ha avalanche flow height, k =
orientation/energy dissipation factor, V is avalanche velocity
and q'is gravitational acceleration.
'Wet-spow avalar~ch~.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. here 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 horiiontal surfaces. This means that wet-
. snow avalanches could constitute the design case for certain
exposed ,structure, orientations.. An additional complicating
effect of wet-snow .ayalanches,is often associated with the impact
of abundant solid 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
floes mould 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
~,,eg y„ltop~ y,jbot~ ~ ~ ~1 ~g Xlco-off Xlco-ord1
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
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*
(Bottom of Track)
16' 8800 8730 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°; XS 1555m.
Regression Eq.: Alpha -3.0 + 0.79 Beta + 0.0036 XB.
Alpha 22.0° (95~ C.I. = 22.0° to 22.9°)
TABLE 2: TERRAIN PROFILE USED IN PCM APPLICATION
,ggq yltopl ysbot~ ~,y ~ Lfm) mac. ylco-off„ ~lco-oral
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 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
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(top~ ylbot~
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 jEnd of Blue Zone] at 8630 ft)
REFERENCES
McClung, D.M., and Lied, K., 1984. Statistical Avalanche Zoning.
Proceedings, International Snow Science Workshop, pp. 95-98.
McClung, D.M., and Lied, K., 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 McClunq, 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.
Schweizerische Bauzeitunq, 73(12):- 159-162, (15): 212-217, (17):
246-249, (19j: 280-285.
. ~ ArrrjrlDlX A
1. ~ .
AVALANCHE RUNOUT DISTANCES AND DYNAMICS
CURRENT METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
by ART MEARS
Reprinted with permission of the American Association of Avalanche Professionals
1
1
THE
t "DESIGN AVALANCHE" The two before-and-after photographs (Figures 1 and 2), illustrate
'the effect of a "100-year-avalanche" in the Deadman Gulch path,
Colorado Front Range. Figure 1, taken is 1975, shows the results
1 of repeated small avalanches over a period of decades. Most slides
had been chaniielized down the gully oa the left side of the fan,
whereas an occasional larger slide had overtopped the gully and
runout on the steep alluvial fan. Figure 2 was taken in May, 1984
after a 'major dry-snow/powder avalanche. This event far
exceeded previous path boundaries and destroyed many acres of
lodgepole pine forest that had colonized the runout zone since the
last major avalanche 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
fIoodplan planning, extent of the design avalanche is often
informatioa required in planning mountaia areas. This is
particularly true when fixed facilities of "high risk" (buildings,
parking areas, public facilities, etc.), are planned near potential
runout zones.
l
1
~ 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 iato~ avalanche terrain. Avalanches, in contrast to
floods, for example, affect only a very small part of the U.S.
population. Therefore avalanches, unlike floods, arc not
consider.cd to be'aatonal 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 U.S. must rely primarily on
research conducted is other countries and on analogies with other
similar geophysical processes is order to define the design event.
This article discusses the problems and methods used to estimate
design avalanche size and discusses is general terms some of the
approaches used in engineering analysis. Methods available
include (a) .direct observations and avalanche history, (b)
statistical runout=distance models, and (c) physical (mathematical)
models of avalanche motidn.= Each method has important
advantages and limitations, as briefly discussed.
~.0
8 !
U
.6
o;
a
• o
~ .4
2
o .
0 20 40 60 80 100
Observation Period
Figure 3 (Years)?
The Probablllty of Obserrtaa the "100-year" Avalanche
s
. t
- of the areas.
Although the statistical methods do provide a rations! and
objective basis for predicting design-avalanche stopping position,
' they do not predict avalanche lateral extent or ~~elocity. Lateral
"extent must be determined subjectively, based oar knowledge of
• 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 oC
avalanche defense structures. For such calculations, we must turn
` to physical models, as discussed next.
PHYSICAL
(MATHEMATICAL)
1 AVALANCHE MODELS Physical models have been used to predict avalanche velocity and
runout distance since the 1950's particularly in Central Europe
i and to a lesser extent in North America and Japan. In some areas
they arc 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 in all geophysical analysts.
Early models treated avalanche motion as a modified fluid or as
a center-of•mass moving a'loag the path profile. More recent
models arc less 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
1 physical or mathematical models tend to be must more complicated
~ ~ than 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.
All 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
path terrain and avalanche material properties;
' b. The terrain (steepness, roughness, curvature, length,
channelizatioa,ete.)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 sad material
' properties, and computes velocity, stopping position, and
possibly vertical and lateral extent.
i
i
.
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 in the mountain
range of interest:. Although the 100-year event is by definition
a rare event in any particular path, many such events occur
throughout,an.entire mountain range. My personal observations
in many anotintain areas indicate that I00•year avalanches occur
`somewhere iti each mountain range every few years because
uniqu_c snowpack and 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 .10-13 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 the 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 Wcstein Fiords of Norway by the Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute (the "NGI Method"), where a long history oC many
avalanche paths is available in populated area. This method is
diagrammed in~Figure ~ where an avalanche pro!'ile is shown and ,
three observations are recorded: I) The alpha angle is
measured from the crown location to the tip of tlu runout; 2) the
point: where the local profile slope becomes 10°is identified; and
3) the beta angle is measured Crom the 10'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
simply by measuring the beta angle and applying a simple
statistical relationship which has been derived from the data:
oL~ X~r+ Xr (1) .
where values for X~ and X2 result from analysis of the data.
i
a
APPENDIX B
Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1989, pp. 283-287
_ REGIONAL COMPARISONS OF AVALANCHE-PROFILE
AND RUNOUT DATA
ARTxvR I. M>+Aas
222 E. Gothic Avenue
_ Gunnison, Colorado 81230, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT
Statistical comparison of avalanche-path-profile data from four widely sepazated mountain
ranges (coastal Alaska, California Sierra Nevada, Colorado Rocky Mountains, and western
'Norway) are compared and presented in tabulaz form. Only unusual (approx. ]04-yr return
period) avalanches were compazed: Inspection of the data leads to the following conclusions:
(1) The avalanche paths in Norway and Alaska aze larger and steeper than those sampled
in Colorado and California;
(2) The best regression equation for predicting the ~ angle developed from Norway data
predicts.a which is too large in. Colorado, the Sierra Nevada, and coastal Alaska;
(3) The extreme avalanche runout 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 Siena
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 azeas.
INTRODUCTION
The maximum runout distance expected in an might occur where runout data are not available. Data
avalanche path during exceptional conditions (the "design from only .one mountain azea (western Norway) have
avalanche") is an important parameter in.planning, land- been used in previous statistical models, but no attempt
use, engineering, and structural 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 has Norway, the Colorado Rocky Mountains, the California
shifted to models based on analysis of terrain variables Sierra Nevada, and coastal azeas ofsouth-central Alaska
(Bovis and Meazs,1976; Lied and Bakkeh~i 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
i~ ~ statistical models have used observed extreme-avalanche to determine if it has an important influence oa runout
' ~ runout data from a given mountain area to predict, distance.
through selection and 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 into thret broad categories: (1) weather and snowpack Although the weather and snowpack conditions during
X1989, Regents of the University of Colorado A. I. MFr?tes /283
r
the use oC physical models maybe somewhat subjective because +
the stopping position (and velocities) depend upon selection of
• friction terms even though we may have no cce;~r knowledge oC
• 1 ~ whether we are using the proper terms, the proper values Cor these
i .terms, or even the proper model!
Although use of a physical model may be very appealing to some,
-:(terrain, friction, and material properties arc plugged in and the
computer spits ;out, velocity and' runout extent!), the assumptions
used .in the models are largely unsupported at the present time.
The;ef'ore, because of the problems discussed above in obtaining
ground truth is major avalanches, the physical models should not, .
in. my opinion, be used as the only method to predict avalanche
~ runout distance:. However, because the physical models are
• essential 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 thebeginningofthisarticle,avalanches,although
they are special to us, are also analogous to many other
geophysical processcs..Floods are a particularly useful analogy
and as mentioned, delineation of the "I00•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 in our field.
Drawing a flood boundary is similar to drawing an avalanche
• runout-zone boundary and often proceeds as Collows:
a. The flood discharae• or volume of wa:cr flowing past
a point per second, is calculated by st~dving the flood
history of the region, a statistical method.
b. The .flood boundaries are calculated by using the
discharge (calculated•in 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 knout distance is determined from the historical
record when the record is IonQ and ~~nfinuous, by
• vegetation damage or the geological record when this is
~ unmistakable, and f rom statistical models derived from the
~ mountain region of interest. The stopping position is not
j calculated from a physical mode}.
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 Sierra (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 minimizes 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-yr" avalanches are averaged within each group). in X, (or 1~. 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 Xe or h~ does be less.
appear to affect the runout ratio, which, therefore,
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from the data (S) The observed differences in avalanche runout
and analysis presented here. `strongly suggests that statistical runout-distance equations
(1) Terrain steepness and lengths, as represented in the developed is mountain areas do act necessarily apply to
data sets collected in this analysis, are greater in western other areas.
Norway anti coastal Alaska iltaa in Colorado or the Sierra
Nevada.
(2) Regression equations dtrived from western Norway ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
data tend to over predict ~-angles (under predict runout
- distances)' in Colorado, the Siena Nevada, and coastal I want to thank Norman Wilson, Daniel Whitmore, and Larry
Alaska. lrieywood (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 Fesler (Alaska Mountain Safety Center) both guided me to ex-
Colorado and the Sierra Nevada than in Norway or treme avalanche tunouts 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 the National Research Council of Canada and Karstein Lied
P of the Norwegian t,,eotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway.
Sierra Nevada are correlated with the longer runout
ratios.
REFERENCES CITED
Bakkehmi, S., Domaas, U., and Lied, K., 1983: Calculation of 1987: Statistical and geometrical defurition 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 107-119.
avalanche runout from terrain variables in Colorado. Aro- Perla, R., Cheng, T. T., and McClung, D. M., 1980: Atwo-
tic and Alpine Research, 8: 115-120. parameter model of snow-avalanche motion. Journal oJGla-
Lied, K. and Bakkehpi, S., 1980: Empirical calculations of ciology, 26(94): 197-207.
snow-avalanche run-0ut distance. Journal of Glaciology, Voellmy, A., 1955: (Ibex die Zerstorungskraft von Lawmen.
26(94): 165-177. SchweizeriscleBauzeitung, 73(12): 159-162, (15):212-217,
Lied, K. and Toppe, R., am press: Calculation of maximum snow (17)i 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. ProcYtdings of tlu International Snow Science Work-
shop, Aspen, 95-98. Ms submitted Augusl 1988
A. I. MFruts /287
much stronger in Norway than in the U.S. data. How- The measures of avalanche runout given in Table 2 sug-
ever, the difference between ~ and a differs significantly Best that although a can be predicted from S in all four
~ - amongthe four regions. This difference between {S and a regions, unique statistical relationships must be developed
can also be represented by the runout 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 dis- press). Predicted a angles (from equation 1) 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 puled for each path by subtracting the value obtained
.from equation (1) from the measured value. Therefore,
a = 0.964 - 1.7° (1) . a value. of uro would be a perfect fit for a given path,
~a negative value indicates the predicted alpha is too large,
j which was shown to be the most reliable relationship for and a positive value indicates the predicted alpha is too
Testa 1
Profile and runout distance comparisons, coastal Alaska, i
~ Sierra Nevada, Colorado, western Norwa}r
Coastal - Sierra ~y~t~ NORWAY ,e ~ r
Alaska Nevada Colorado Norway
j Parameter (N= 52) (N= 90) ~ (N=130) (N=113)
: ,
a min 18.9 14.0 1S.S 18.0
med 25.3 19.8 22.2 27.3 '40 0 40
avg 25.4 20.1 22.1 28.2
s std 3.2 3.6 3.2 S.8 -
max 34.2 35.9 30.7 44.0
* d min 23.0 16.5 18.8 21.7 ALASKA
1( med 29.5 25.9 27.3 30.1 „
avg .29.6 "•-26.3 27.5 31.3 e , ,
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 5.2 4.8 S.1 N/A
~ ~ :td 3.1 2.7 3.a COLORADO
' max 9.S 9.0 10.2 ,s
H min 320 104 128 16 „
med 72S 357 S49
avg 765 429 343 860b , ` e ~
std 245 237 226 260b -moo _8 _a ~ 20
max 1400 1145 1134
• dX min 80 107 76
med 280 29S 290
avg 302 354 334 230b
std l6S 222 184 150b SIERRA s
• max 790 1433 1200 t6 «
X, min 520 160 183 e
~ med 1390 724 934 , , ~ " a
j avg 1318 822 999 1430b :~~o_},; .8 - .4 - Zo
std 4S3 461 304 S40b I
max 2380 2240 2730
RR min 0.07 O.1S 0.07
med 0.20 0.42 0.33
avg 0.25 0.49 0.41 0.1'm flavAE 2 Frequency distributions of the residuals resulting from
std 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.11 applies;ion of the Norway ..o..ssion equation a = 0.96 -1.7°
( max 0.66 1.35 1.37 (Lied and Toppe, is press) to observed avalanche runouts in
'Data are given in degrees and meters. four mountain regions. Typical numbers of data poinu are
dCalculated from Lied and Toppe (in press). shown.
t
A. I. Ivi~?tts / 285
f
t
96
Correlation coefficients (R) were calculated
for n with respect to B, 8 (212 paths) and d AvAUrlcl~ PATH ''i~~ s
(131 paths). The results gave: 0.919, 0.386 and ~ ~
-O.III, respectively. This suggests that the y~llxl i j
best o~~e parameter model is a f(B) and this vas i~ ~ ~
confirmed by regression analysis. i/ 1
~ IOCAI SIOM i~ i Hp MO
M examinatia: of residual plots foc linear Y . ANGIL 10" i~ / ~
regression of a with 8 showed that the predictive /
'equation provides biased ewtiswtes. This ~i ~
~uggeatr a tra~:aformation on tlu respanae ~ ~ O
variable a. Power law regression gave a gonA ~ n _ - J '~AM
unblased relationship fos 212 avalanche paths: - x-'--- X------
a ~ 0.73081.06 (4) ~ ex I x 6
0
with RZ ~ 0.861 and S ~ 0.0764, the latter pi ure l:
Definitions of an lea and len th
quantity being tl~e standard ercor. For 8 S 8
comparison the linear zegression save RZ x.0.845 scales for an avalanche path.
and S ~ 2.52•.
Mother transformation explored vas T. For Regression analyses shored that ~ and ~
this case the regression equation is: are statistically independent of B, BXsnd d to a
' good approximation (R2 - 0).
0.08795 + 2.57 (S)
with R2 ~ 0.853 and S ~ 0.218. this equation STATISTICAL AVALANCHE RUNOUT
' removes some of the bias in estimates over a
linear regression model but it is not as good in Civen the B point as a reference,
that respect as equation (4 Equation (S) is calculation of extreme runout depends on a
' introduced because it appears more useful in predictian.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 best fitting upper envelope on
A number of multiple regression equations the distribution of B (ordinate) versus a
were derived in an attempt to improve the (abciaea, fig. 2). Upper envelopes were
' predictive schemes by addition of 8 as a second determined by calculating confidence limits for
variable. However, it vas 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 d as a predictor variable does The best fit to the upper limit on the B - a
.t improve the predictive equations but this hoe distribution throughout the ranges of B and a was
. very limited application and therefore d is not - found from confidence limits of equation (S). By
I introduced here, in favor of simplicity. standard methods and using some approximations
for the large number of data points, an estimate
Mothez possibility for estiasting zunont of the confidence limit for minimum value of a is
when distances associated with the angles are given by:
known for the avalanche paths, is the calculation
of horizontal reach (0X) from the B point. Using T .0.08796 + [2.57 - (0.218)t p ] (8)
equations (1) to (3) (fig. 1) it is easily shown (1 100)
Lhat:
Ii 0X tan8 - tans (6) where t(1- p ) is a value of the t distribution
i XB tans - Land 100
for 210 degrees of freedom, Equation (8) states
~i _ tans] that PX of avalanches have a values greater than
end dX ~ tan6 (7) aP for SO < P < 100. For exanple, for a 99S
H., (tans - land) upper confidence limit, to n, is 2.326 (taken
t ~ - APPII~IDIX c
-
t STATISTICAL AVALANCHE ZONING '
D.M. McClungland K. Lied2
Abstract.--Run out for the extreme event on an avalanche j•
path is calculated from confidence limits on a regression
analysis of..path topographic parameters. This results is
redefinition of the traditions! zoning problem by dividing it i~
into an estimation of runout distance by an engineering i
deciston on the choice of confidence limit to the estimate,
and a dynamic problem with boundary conditions defined by the i.
chosen limit. '
~ 2N7KUUUC'CIUN Tenet Ic)q ycnre vac menenred to the field and a
f number of other parameters for the paths were
I The traditional method of avalanche zoning determined. The papers by Lied and Bakkeh6l
involves the joint solution of the avalanche ~ (1980) and Bakkehoi, Domnas and Lied (1983) have ;
suaout and dynamics 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 ~j
anlm owns including: friction coefficients, consist of angles pictured in figure 1 and
constituttve laws and properties of flowing snow. defined by the following equations: !a
?here gape in knowledge are significant; clearly
j the problem is far from a solution. tans XO JO ~a
~dx ~ ~ (1) ii
The avalanche zoning problem may be tt'
redefined by separation into two parts: tang ~ 1 ~XO ~aY.~dx - ~ (2) I..
(1) estlmatia+ of Chc cunout distance [ur thu Xg 0X dx Xg '
extreme event on a path based on a regression
equation involving topographic parameters snd a land - 1 JeX (~~dx ~ 08 (3)
selected confidence limit and (2) estimation of 0X 0 dx 0X
speeds along the incline between the start A fourth parameter is the starting zone angle,
position and tunout position. The latter which is defined by tang, the average slope in
position.ia defined by choice of a confidence
.limit based upon an engineering decision. In the first 100 m of the avalanche starting zone.
For simplicity the origin of geometry is chosen
this paper part 1 of the problem is introduced in
at the extreme tip of the runout (a point) and
the simplest a+anner to illustrate the method;
further details will be provided in a forthcoming the g point (Ot1, ~eX) is ebosen ~s that for which i~`~
the slope ai+gie first equals 10 proceeding
paper' downalope from the avalanche start position.
.
ANALYSIS OF TOPOGRAPSIC PARAI~a~nS The 8 point is chosen as a reference
position from which sunout is marked so that land
is the average slope in the runout zone. Using i
The data set used !n the present annlyais
consists of estimates for 212 avalanche paths the 8 point as • zero reference •esns that runout
'Eros the siaritioe climate regime of ilestern can be segardtng ss taking positive, zero or
Norway. lEztrese ronout for tisx scales of at negative values if the avalanche stop position is ~
below, at oz above the 8 point, respectively.
!Paper presented at the International Snow Fora regreastan analyasa approach, extremk 'i
Selena Workshop, Aspen, Colorado, October 24-27, ruaout is based on a psedict~ton.of the ¦iniaum 1+
2984. value. of n, given values of the potential
1 D.M. lteClung, Research Officer, National 'predictor variables (g, B, and d). Use of 6 as a
ieseareh Council Canada, Vancouver, B.C. predictor variable is lisited to uses where the
3K. Lied, Group Leader, Avalanche Section, sunout zone is known to be at a constant angle,
ibzwagian Ceoteehniul Institute, Oslo, Norway. such as a flat valley floor. For the present
1 - data set, 131 paths have kaotim d angles.
1
t
i t
. 98
• 1tEFF.ItSNCES
Sakkehai, S., V. Dooaas and 1C. Lied. 1983.
Calculation of snow avalanche runout.
Meals of Glaciology (4): 24-29.
Lied, K. and S. Bakkehbi. 1980. Empirical
calculations of snow-avalanche sunout based
on topographic paras~eters. Journal of
Glaciology 26(94): 197-207.
ACKN01iLEDCF.MEtiT
The pioneering work and ideas of
• S. Bakkeh6l are gratefully ackn wledged in
relatioa to this problem. This paper is a
eontributian of the Division of Building
Research. National Research Council Canada, and
is published vith the approval of the Director of
the Division.
J
. _ 97
.For the present data set, there are two
disadvantages to equation (9) as a predictive
s;• equation: (i) calculations with actual examples
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ show that the accuracy is not as good throughout
the ranges of 6 and a ae compared to
SO° ~ ~ a equation (8); (2) values of H8 and Xgg were not
~ s~eaeured for the present data set ana it is
i ° uaknor+n whether 07( is proportional to H8g or Xgg as
~5• i~
o° ° e a model. as equation (9) would imply. In spite
e o of~these disadvantages, a rough estimate of
e ~ e°do°~ ° sunout can be given once a value of t P' is
~0° ~ /o d e~~
e e ° o e ° (1`100)
B o e~~//~ ° e deters~iaed by an engineering decision. t
i
35' ~ ~ eooooe
y~~ e ° e DISCgSSION
30° / ~e a e°oe° Prediction of extreme avalanche runout i
4 distance hss been presented for tvo types of i
~ e o,°~ o b 8 aodels expressed by equations (8) and (9). ~
2S' / b° 8.ither of these nay be used to prepare a
/ ° p~ statistical sap of confidence limits for '
/ e e~b calculation of runout. Choice of a limit depends
Y0. ° upon an engineering decision, and this places the
zoning problem in the same language that other
problems concerned with risk and safety are
1S' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ phrased in modern practice.
15' ZO' 2S° 30° 35° ~0° 45° 50°
a Two advantages of the approach presented
are: (1) it eliminates the necessity for solving
Figure 2.-Plot of 6 versus a f or 212 avalanche avalanche dynamics equations to determine runout
paths from western Noway. 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 (S). 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
regression line sham. boundary conditions for the dynamics problem is ;
defined by choice of a confidence limit).
Kultiple plotted points at the same location
on the graph are denoted with extra bare luny unanswered questions need to be
attached to the circle. e.g. ~ represents 3 investigated, with regard to the present approach i
data points. to snout. For example, field experience
strongly indicates that starting sons rise should
have an influence. Also, the effect of climate
mrgin of safety desired, coupled to knowledge of regime needs to be quantified. ii
local climate records and avalanche return j
periods. Ia many instances a 90X confidence The one parameter model is useful because i~
limit mdy be adequate foe estimating the extreme eztre~ee avalanches reach slope angles Haar 10°.
r~mout distance. A solution of the dynamics problem requires as
upderstanding of its dependence on the relevant
Another possibility for estimation of length scales and the effect of parameters such ,
-extreme sunout distancee~onsi~~s of extrapolation as avalanche sass; this may emerge from a ;j
to the upper limits of - or - given scan values solution of the' zuaout problem. Until these t}
Xg Hg questions are answered and until a good physical ~
and standard deviations. Since these quantities wodel for flowing.anow is developed. solution of li
are statistically iadependeat of the predictor the runout and dynamics problems together. as is
~aluee, the assumption that they are Gaussian aow~non in practice, asounts to nothing more than
isr3ables •uggasts the aadel: a curve fitting exercise'by adjustment of ~I
~~X~P ~ 0.276 + 0.197 ~t(1_ p (g) friction coefficients. ,
8 100 i
end a similar expression for (R~~p may be ~
derived. B
INTRODUCTION
The first Brugg High Impact Wire Rope Net Systems for prevention and/or protection against snow ava-
lanches and rockfall were installed in Switzerland during the early part of 1950.
Since 1955 and the ten years that ensued, the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research was
actively involved in observing these systems and~their effectiveness on location. All damage that occurred
during that period was recorded and Bragg""was informed accordingly, which enabled Bragg to upgrade their
product and achieve a design that has proven itself in operation. Since 1968, no serious problems were
reported regarding our avalanche prevention and rockfatl protection systems.
Numerous impact tests have been performed on Brugg's protective system against rockfall. Some tests were
executed on site; in which cases heavy rocks were pushed down the slope~into the nets manually. More tests
were performed in our factory testing station using concrete blocks.
With regard to the test performed at Brugg's factory, a patented braking device was incorporated which _
enables confrol of the brake forces and stopping distances under extreme load conditions. The braking
device allows us to Calculate the resulted braking force,and the stopping distance. These braking devices are
now used in all systems which pertain to protection against rockfall since 1975.
During the year 1988, numerous high impact collision type tests using trucks and other vehicles were per-
formed with the Bragg Anti:Attack Wire Rope Fence System. Some of these tests are outlined in the follow-
ing pages.
Our many years of experience in testing, engineering and fabrication of wire rope safety net systems has
produced a product with outstanding quality and high pertormance.
. r.,
. v
_ 't ~ fir, ' . ~ ~ _
- e - u - • ~ ~ ~ .'oi-
.
y
.
~~v ~ ~
'
.
j~ -
.al`:~
_
.
_
'A
~ 1100'
Ib' Ib' ~ 16'
_I 1-
BREAKING ELEMENT ITOP AND BOTTOMI
I rr~~ I ~ I I I 5/B'm W
I V I U I I I
I WIRE ROPE NET I I I I
~ ~ 8' x 8' SQR. MESH ~ I I I
I I I I I
I I I
i
i 1 1 ` I ~ I ` ~
V V V~ 1 - ~ V V V y
~f/\ COLUMNS WF 8 x 48# CHA1N lINK FENCE MAX. 5/8'# ROPE WITH BREAKING
MATERIAL TO BE SUPPLIED ELEMENT tTYP.I ALL BAYS TC
B
STALLED BY CDNTRACTDR. AND BOTTOM.
p~ ~rifi/~ .
ELEVAT I 0 N
N.T.S.
k
t
~ ~ ~otunN Wf e x aef
5' OVERLAP MIN.
4
i
~
WIRE ROPE NET
i
CHAIN LINK FENCE MATERIAL TO BE ~
SUPPLIED BY TOWN Of VAIL AN ~
INSTALLED BY CONTRAC R `
1 I
APPROX.S'-0' I
~ ~~yr F
eon U~~~~
BREAK-AWAY ~
` _.ASSEMBIY ~ 314' MAX.
CONCRETE STRENGTH .C ; 4.' ,C, ~ o
i
Of 3,00(1 PSI MIN. ~\/....4 '.'r
1
-
~4 .
~
TOWN OF VAIL
CONTACT: Sabrina Toombs 479-2120 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Caroline Fisher 479-2115 October 2, 1990
TOWN OF VAIL WINTER PARKING PASSES
F TO GO ON SALE NOVEMBER 5, 1990
Locals are Encouraged to Now Redeem
' Summer Parking Discount Coupons
Parking passes and coupons for the 1990-91 winter
~ season will be available beginning November 5, 1990, the
f
~ Town of Vail announced today. As in previous years, the
~4~` passes and coupons will be sold at the Town of Vail
c
Finance Department, located in the lower level of the
_ ~ ~
Vail Municipal Building.
w
This summer's Locals' Parking Incentive Program
5'
""g P`
- ,f a coupons, good toward discounts on winter parking passes
~ ~ and coupons, may now be redeemed at the Town of Vail
-
Finance Department. A voucher will be issued to
individuals holding 25 or more summer coupons and can be
applied to the purchase of their winter parking
k pass/coupons. Locals holding 25 or more summer parking
r
coupons are encouraged to redeem their coupons as soon as
' possible in order to be eligible for the November 6, 1990
drawing fora season ski pass and other prizes.
~
i
7~ SOli-i-H FRONTAGE ROAU
VAIL, COLORADO 87657
7-ELEPHONE 303-479-2100
TOWN OF VAIL
Winter Parking Passes and Coupons
1990-91 Season
GOLD PASS
* $750/season plus $25 deposit
* Valid any time in both Vail Village and Lionshead parking
structures
BLUE PASS
* $400/season plus $25 deposit
* Valid any time in Lionshead parking structure
* Valid in Vail Village all day Monday through Thursday and
after 3:00 PM Friday through Sunday
PARKING COUPONS
* $3 each; good for only one entry and exit
* Valid in Vail Village at all times on levels 4 and 5
* Need driver's license with Vail address or proof of
employment at Vail business
* Up to 100 coupons per person may be purchased, in any
desired quantity
FORD PARK
* Free Monday through Thursday on first-come basis
* $5 per day Friday through Sunday, for those individuals
not holding parking pass or coupon
* Blue Pass and coupons valid Friday through Sunday
SUMMER PARKING INCENTIVE COUPON DISCOUNTS
Those who participated in the summer Parking Incentive
Program may redeem their coupons for discounts toward their
winter parking pass/coupon purchase. 25 coupons = $25
discount; 50 coupons = $50 discount; 75 coupons = $100
discount. Those holding 25 coupons or more must redeem their
coupons by November 6, 1990 for eligibility in the drawing
for a season ski pass and other prizes.
.
TOWN OF VAIL ONTACT: Sabrina Toombs 479-2120 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Caroline Fisher 479-2115 October 2, 1990
DISCOUNTED DOG LICENSES NOW ON SALE
.r ~ AT TOWN OF VAIL OFFICE
~ Y Discounted dog licenses are now on sale at the Town
-f
of Vail Finance Department, located downstairs in the
~ Vail Municipal Building. All dog owners who live within
the Town of Vail limits are required to license their
F
dogs, if over six months old, annually.
.
'.,~,y
Through December 31, 1990, Town of Vail dog
~ T,
licensing fees will remain $5.00 for spayed and neutered
K
dogs and $10.00 for all other dogs. After December 31st,
:v the licensing fee will be $10.00 for spayed and neutered
~
dogs and $20.00 for all other dogs. The fee for
F' replacement of a lost tag is $5.00.
` E ti Each dog must wear a Town of Vail tag, verifying
;a
~ ~ licensing, as well as a tag verifying vaccination for
~
~ rabies. The Town will not issue tags from current dog
:..collars and vaccination papers must be presented at time
of licensing.
~ For more information, please contact the Town of
Vail Finance Department at 479-2120.
~M1 30
f.
ti~
75 SOUTH fROV'I'AGE ROAD
VAIL, COLORAllO 8]657
TELEPH0IE 303-479-2100