Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-15 Town Council MinutesMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984 7:30 p.m. egular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 15, 1984 a 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor Paul.Johnston, Mayor Pro-Tem Chuck Anderson Colleen Kline Kent Rose Gail Wahrlich ABSENT: Hermann Staufer OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town'"Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the reading of Ordinance #17, Series of 1984, an emergency ordinance setting forth provisions for the protection of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail from geologic hazards. Mayor Slifer introduced,ithe ordinance. Town Manager Caplan stated that at the request the Town Council two weeks ago, the Town Attorney had drafted a revised finance relating to technical studies that need to be done for building permits issued in certain areas of the city designated on the map adopted by the Town Council in 1977. The purpose of the emegency ordinance was to allow that any building permit applications which come in between now and the time a permanent ordinance is in effect would be able to have the appropriate conditions and requirements placed on them so that the properties would be constructed in a safe manner. Some members of the Council :and the staff had talked about a variety of alternatives to deal with the issue and were handed out to the Council this afternoon. Mr. Caplan stated that the staff and Council realized there was some sensitivity to the emergency nature of the ordinance and pointed out that according to the town zoning code, the Town zoning administrator does have the authority at this time to require certain technical studies outlined in the ordinance if he feels conditions warrant the same. With proper direction by the Town Council to the staff, many of the concerns addressed in the ordinance can be dealt with in that way. That would leave the opportunity for an individual who doesn't agree with the staff concerns to appeal that decision to the Planning Com- mission and the Council. Mr. Caplan stated that the staff would like to open up the option of a couple of alternatives for the Council to consider including the adoption of an emergency ordinance as drafted with the intention of bringing back a permanent ordinance on June 15th, or the adoption of the finance in a first reading form with some direction.to the staff which could ve in the interim until the ordinance takes effect and accomplish the same aspect, or the adoption of this in resolution form or some lessor form. Because of the seriousness of the issue, Mr. Caplan stated he felt the Council should address it as formally as possible. Peter Patten was then called on to outline the changes made to the ordinance to its emergency form. PATTEN: Yes, before Larry Eskwith left and the day.after the last meeting, he dropped off to me the draft of the emergency ordinance. The composition of the emergency ordinance is, there are two basic things you should know. No. 1 is that the language changes that were discussed at the last meeting and basically agreed to by everybody were incorporated into.the.emergency ordinance and those are, I don't think we need to go through those, but we can if you'd like and to point those out again. Secondly, Larry did leave out two sections of the original ordinance in the emergency ordinance and those two sections are on page 2, if you've got your old ordinance it's the only way you're going to be able to find it. On page 2, the bottom of page 2 in Section 1, the Section speaking to small interior modification or small additions that someone may wish to do in terms of:making the Community Development Department make a determination whether or not a study would be required on a case by case basis according to the impact of that, that whole paragraph has been left out of the emergency ordinance as well as on page 6 of the old ordinance, the section dealing with not conforming legal existing on conforming structures in terms of their expansion enlargement, the placement and abandonment of those two sections have been left out and I don't really know why. I did not have time to discuss that with Larry before he VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 2 left, he just left the ordinance and was out of town, so I really haven't figured out what his reasoning was in leaving the two sections out, but that is the form in which the emergency ordinance comes to you tonight. SLIFER: I think that with so many people here tonight, if you do want to make some comments, please come up to the microphone and state your name and then your remarks. Anyone from the Council like to say anything? KLINE: Well, I'd like to know if the fact that the two sections were left out, are we making any assumptions about that or what are we going to do about that, or do we work from the old ordinance or do we work from this, does anybody know what that means? Is it significant or not? PATTEN: In that the emergency ordinance calls for a 60 day moritorium, unless the with this ordinance is in place, he may have simply felt that those smaller issues in terms of existing non- conforming structures that nothing would happen with those or thay we may not run into those problems. I just really don't know what the answer to that is. CAPLAN: In essence, I think the emergency ordinance is slightly weaker so it depends on what approach you want to take. The ordinance two weeks ago was more comprehensive. PATTEN: Yes, and following up on that, if the Council wishes to add those in, it certainly can adopt ordinance #17 as an emergency ordinance adding those two sections in. KLINE: Well, we didn't discuss deleting them and so I just wanted to make sure that whatever we were doing, we were doing delibertly and not accidently. ANDERSON: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to suggest, I think there are two issues tonight and since I know there are alot of things people would like to dis- cuss, I would suggest that since our meeting that we directed Rich to prepare this emergency ordinance we have found that administratively we can handle the problem by giving the staff the direction to re- quest they essentially follow these guidelines in approving projects in those designated zones, that we solve the first issue of the emergency ordinance by giving the staff d}rection to do that, there- fore not requiring an emergency ordinance, then we can get into discussion of Ordinance #17 as a normal ordinance this evening and the potential of passing that on first reading. SLIFER: So, Chuck, what you're saying is you would propose that in the discussion the ordinance..could be adopted as a regular ordinance requiring two hearings. ANDERSON: Yes, and we would have a month. in between then because it would come up on the June 19th.meeting and.I think that the emergency factor then is resolved because then Peter in the normal course of business can protect the town from its liabilities which we have to be concerned about. SLIFER: We may have a quorum on the 5th so it could be June 5th. KLINE: Does that mean then that wexre suggesting that it be changed from an emergency ordinance that Section 5 on page.6 be deleted? Which . is the one that makes it a 60 day ordinance? Or not? ANDERSON: Yes, Colleen, I that I. was saying is that of the two issues tonight I think that perhaps it's easy to deal with whether we necessarily do this emergency ordinance and In my opinion is that it isn't since we can handle it at staff level, then we can get into discussion as a regular ordinance. KLINE: OK. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 3 0 PER: OK, any other questions? JOHNSTON: The other alternative that we might consider is treating it by resolution rather than by ordinance at all. An idea that I have as far as title of a resolution would be a resolution setting forth the provisions for the protection of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail from natural phenomena which might prove to be hazardous to the health, safety and welfare, by directing the Community Development staff to require site specific studies and providing details in relation thereto. CAPLAN: I think that if it's a zoning related matter that the Town Attorney would say it has to be done by ordinance rather than by resolution. JOHNSTON: But if the zoning ordinances are in place, why is a resolution directing the staff not adequate? Why do we need another ordinance saying the same thing? CAPLAN: Well, it would make it part of code which .would insure that the prospective developers would have better access to the information and make it easier to defend in court in case the regulations or • conditions be challenged. But, other than that, I don't know. PATTEN: I would supplement.that by saying that the process by which we can.kequire these studies simply within our application forms where you come to the bottom line and it says"other information the zoning administrator may require along with this application". That type of form and requirements really spells out specifically in any certain ordinance that we could really lean back on, in other words, we are given through a number of ordinances we are given the power to design our forms, design our requirements and that's going to be an administrative type of decision that we follow. So maybe in ordinance form may put more strength behind that. CAPLAN: You could have the second reading on June 19th and give the 'Town Attorney plenty of time to review it appropriately and also the other issues that might come up as long as simultaneously with first reading the staff is directed to follow these proceedings. SLIFER: Any other comments? Okay, if not, why don't we just open it up for discussion. *ERSON: My name is Jay Peterson, I represent Lion's Ridge Associates, Ltd. and with me tonight is John Slevin, one of the partners of Lions Ridge Associates and also Ron Todd, who was the land planner for the parcel here which is Lion's Ridge Filing #3. Part of the problem that we have with the ordinance, and I will let Ron go through what we went through about five years ago now, and probably you would realize why I'm having Ron do the presentation tonight, that he went through a procedure that this map. This map was adopted in 1977, showing this area to be a hazard area. It is marked R-1 or R-2. I am not sure what it means, but, I don't know the difference of the two designations. We were well aware of that problem at the time, and went through not only further studies, went through mitigation and to by the Engineer. That happened, the last report was in 1981. And yet when we went through that because there was no official map, because there was no official hazzard ordinance dealing with that there was no way to take it off the map. So the map stands the way it is. And tonight you were thinking of passing an ordinance which actually adopts every single map, every single study that the Town has and all those maps show potential areas that have been mitigated specific site studies have been done and and are still on the map. Now this Ordinance does statethat you can come before the Town Council and have those things removed from the map. But unless we do that tonight and then you give the direction to the staff all of a sudden we are in a hazzard ordinance on the official map adopted by official ordinance and that seems to be a little unfair to us. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 4 • Yet we have already done all those things and we should not be on that map now. We shouldn't have been on that map now for three years.. And yet you are adopting that map as the official map. Along with every other study. I will let Ron go through exactly what we did and all these documents are on file with the Town, you can have copies of anything. I guess that is one of the problems I have with the ordinance. That is why Paul's suggestion and I think you can do that by direction with the Town's staff. I know it is on you application form Peter, as far as you can require any other thing. I think it is also in an ordinance. That is where it comes from on the application that you can require further documen- tation of which you feel is needed and during this interim period I think that is sufficient. Everybody is concerned and the Town Council has really bent over backwards I feel giving the people understanding their problems with the stigma of being in a hazard area it does do something to peoples property value. As long as we have these procedures during the next 30 t0 60 days when people generally come in for building permits. I think that is the;iroute we should probably go. Rather than making official all of these things that are really not official at this time. That map is now . seven years old. A lot of things have happened since then. Our is only three years old. So I think everybody is protected during this interim period. It will give the staff time to at least update those maps and all their studies with the studies that have been done since on specific pieces of property. I believe that is a fair way to go about it. I turn it over to Ron to let him briefly go through what we did so you. RON TODD: For the record my name is Ron Todd. I was involved in the land planning design of the lionsridge Filing 3. I thought it might be appropriate since this is my first time back in six months since my retirement a filibuster might be appropriate. (everybody laughs). Actually I will give a very brief history of the property because I think it is important to understand the process of the developers of that property which they did go through. The land originally was in the Eagle County unincorporated portion of our valley. And it had originally had soils tests done by Chen and Associates in 1972. Which at that time basically gave a clear picture that the slopes appeared to be quite stable against the building and for the most part felt that there was no problem in that area. Later in 1977 the property did change hands and at that time there was an additional study done again by Chen and • Associates where they made mention of the fact that they felt conditions favorable to rockfall was present but did not elaborate on how extreme a condition they considered it to be. This raised sort of a red flag with the County though because it was even mentioned and so there were follow up studies done again. Two more studies by Chen and Associates.in March of 1977 and September of 1977 where in one study they described the probability of rock - fall in Parcel C as moderate and one of the problems I have with the map here is that I4ve always heard of hazards described in terms it seems like most geologiests use terms of low, moderate or high and that sort of an accepting arm that people relate to and I too have difficulty, Peter, in understanding from the Miers report exactly what he means when he designates R1, R2. Is one of those equivalent to hi.gh,.one equivalent to moderate? I couldn't tell by.looking at the map. Well, we went through this process and at that time Art Miers, who I believe assisted the town in the compulation of this hazard map, was doing work for the Town and so because he was in the area and was already studying the area, was asked to do a recommendation of rockfall mitigation on Lionsridge Filing 3, that was actually resubdivision of Filing 2. Miers did a study and made some recommendations on that property. He described the problems there as ranging from moderate to high and made some recommendations for mitigation. One concern that I would have with the map at this time is that this occurred in exactly the same month that this map was being prepared. And the pattern hazard that he indicated is different from the pattern path he indicated on my specific site study for Lionsridge Filing 2 in relationship to location of high and moderate areas. At the time time we became VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 5 aware of Willard Owens Associates and .other geologists who had done a study on basically the same portion of Lionsridge but further to the east and that's the property that is directly behind the Valli Hi apartments and Parcel B which is a portion of our property and when Willard Owens did their first study, which was again in 1972, at the same time as the initial Chen's report, they said there was little likelihood that any large rocks would break off in the , and basically said that in that report that the rocks that were down there had been there for for a long history of time and that in our opinion the is sufficiently solid, the large blocks are unlikely to break off in the near geologic future. And the geologists talked about Miers geologic future, they not only talked about thousands of years, because they think in terms of millions of years being long distance in the future, but we had a followup study they we located that they did on the same property where again they described the hazard up there as moderate. That is a brief history of how we came to the to the rockfall hazard. We have had seven different studies on the same area, we had engineers, all geologists who had described . that particular problem in degrees from none to high. And all in various extent throughout the property. So at that time because of the concern we had about the variation in the reports that we had, I hired another geologiest, this was Woodward Clyde Consultants, and specifically it was Jim Irish who has worked with the Town some of the studies that have occurred up in Highland Meadows area, and I considered him to be one of the most competent geoligists in the State of Colorado, and we hired Woodward Clyde Consultants to go up and do a specific home site walk of the Lionsridge property and their findings were in a specific quote, "If we could rank the risk of periodic rockfalls as no worse than moderate across most of the slope. At several small localities where large blocks appear to be loosely perched immediately upslope from existing homes, we judged the risk to be high." And this is in the area where Judge Hart's house is and Patty house. There are specific blocks up there which he felt..warranted high hazard. He went on in his recommendation letter and this was in May of 1979 to suggest how we might mitigate that rockfall. And the suggestions involved selective removal going in with prybars in some cases blasting to remove all the rocks that were suspect and from that point in time he felt that that would reduce the hazards that we .had experienced in that area. We included that in our environmental impact statement which came to the Town of Vail. In fact, it was included in here with a suggestion right out of the Woodward Clyde Report as to how we intended to handle that rockfall.mitigation and that was in fact part of the agreement that occurred at the time that Lionsridge Filing #3 annexed to the Town of Vail. It was an agreement that that was entered into. That portion of property was annexed from the County into the Town and then we went through the zoning process and as part of our condition for the granting of the zoning we were required to undertakeand complete that rockfall mitigation. .During November of 1979 when to direct that work feeling that it was very important that they stay directly involved with it, we went through mitigation in November and December of 1979, whereby the Woodward Clyde engineers were actually on the site with a can of spray paint and he walked all of those rockout spraying specific rocks and specific formulations which he felt were suspect and should be removed. A local demolition contractor and excavator who was licensed in demolition in the State of Colorado did that work and then we had a followup letter on December 18, 1979, whereby he says, "In our judgment the rockfall risk prior.to scaling range from low to -moderate, that is to say . that risk is typical for mountain slopes underlaying by layed rocks that pop out of steep cliffs. In actuality, the risk appears to be somewhat less than typical because the rocks dip into the slope rather than outgoing. Thus blocks of that rock had a lesser tendency to slide from the cliff. Then he goes on to VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 6 add, "Now, in our judgement, the rockfall risk across this section of the crack has been reduced significantly by reducing blocks of slabs. They were allowed to tumble .down the slope until they reached a position of repose on a slighter section of the slope where they are unlikely to be reactivated by natural process in the foreseeable future." One of the things that Jim pointed out at that time we went ahead and did some additional work, he had another followup letter that basically said the same thing, but one of the things he pointed out is that this is a process that warrants monitoring. And so, during the early summer of 1981, this process was repeated. Again with an engineer in the field, and specifically marking areas of concern. And I. have a letter here, July 28, 1981, from Jim Irish of Woodward Clyde consultants that says, "In our judgment the rockfall risk prior to scale and ranking low to moderate going back to has initial report, and says that we also believe that removal of the loosened rock masses is as preferable to the rock from the standpoint of removal is in one sense a final solution because -the rockfall risk of these blocks that removed obviously cancelled. And this is the most important sentence in the whole letter, it says, "Our examination • of the slopes indicate that your contractor has completed the removal of those designated blocks which in our judgement appear to be potentially unstable." For that reason we feel that the developers out there have certainly done their share of work in mitigating their rockfall and that we should not be included, Lionsridge Filing 3 should notbe included as part of the hazard map that you're considering adopting tonight. Thank you. SLIFER: Ron, could you point at that map and specifically designate those areas? TODD: This area here, up by Chuck Rosenquist's house and then there's Lots 1, 2 and 3 which are basically on this map indicated as Parcel D, Parcel C and Parcel B in this area and then this is the adjacent property which is Valli Hi. Lionsridge Filing 3 encompasses these areas as well as the G lots. SLIFER: Is the area that was mitigated that entire darkened area? TODD: This entire area along the ridge above the portions of property that we were addressing which were again Parcel C, D.and B of Lionsridge Filing 3. This continues quite a ways over into Lionshead. I can't address what was done over there. SLIFER: Can you draw a line upwards north? I would assume that would be verified in your EIS. Is that correct? TODD: Yes, I can make all this information,, it should be in the files because it was part of our initial application. Parcel E comes all the way over to here, but we're mainly addressing the rock fall in this particular area. SLIFER: Is that all, Jay? PETERSON: That is all. Once again, we ask that you do not pass.the ordinance as an emergency ordinance or that if you do pass it, then it is passed with our parcel deleted out of the map, actually pursuant to the terms of this emergency ordinance. Just one final comment, on first reading, is that I think Larry took quite a bit out of the original ordinance to cut it down to this emergency ordinance and you can adopt it on first reading. On second reading if there are substantial changes I think you have to pass it again on first reading. So it may not do you any good to pass it on first reading tonight. SLIFER: OK, thank you. Any other comments? VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 7 *PIRO: I am Ken Shapiro, representing Shapiro Construction. Company. We're the developers of the Vail Golf Course Townhomes which are also designated in a hazard area on those maps and without giving you the details as it applies to their property, I just wanted to relay to the Council and make it aware that our site and I would presume other developments in other sites like the site that Ron Todd was involved in have been developed subsequent to the preparation of these maps. Our project was developed in 1978 and a subsequent portion of the project was developed in early 1981 and specifically the property located on that map had a site specific study done by a specialist in the field and that site specific study. resulted in the proposed buildings on the site to be subsequently approved and the sumation of my point is that like the situation with Lionsridge property, our parcel is in an area that has already been identified as having circumstances being mitigated to hazard and should not be included by reference to the general study done in prior years that did not take in the site specific details. And I would just like to suggest that in addition to my points concerning my own property, that the Council consider the fact that there are many studies of record concerning other property as well, whereby people have already a incurred the expense, time and inconvenience of having site specific studies done and it might be more appropriate to have the ordinance either exempt or incorporate all those site specific studies at the time of this adoption rather than overriding the site specific studies with a blanket adoption of a map which really was done in very general terms.. I think you'll hear from; leaving the issue of our specific site and speaking in general as property owner in another place in the valley and also hearing some neighbor's concerns this map doesn't identify any of the impacts of existing buildings that have in fact been built on sites where the site specific drainage adjustments of those improvements on the sites may have altered the flows and the location of these hazards. As soon as anybody goes on a site and changes a drain, or erects a structure it's conceivable that that has an effect on all the contiguous property and again this general map doesn't address all.those existing improvements. SLIFER: Thank you, Ken. Peter, do you want to comment? PETER: Yes I do. I think you may have a misunderstanding here. And before we go through every development that had a site specific study done, the whole idea of this is that the ordinance reads that the elements of control or identification are this map., .which as everybody can. see, is quite old and is obviously outdated for the last 7 years. The whole idea was that we were of course aware that site specifics have been done in Lionsridge, the Vail Golf Course Townhomes and numerous avalanche studies, floodplain studies and soil studies for the majority almost of major developments in this valley in the last 7 or 8 years. The point is that any conflicting information which is what Jay and Ken are talking about, we have conflicting information between this which is of course a general hazard map done of the entire valley conflicting with site specific that has been done for that project, obviously the site specific takes precedence and the map will be amended and of course the intention is that if we proceed to an ordinance stage here and possibly between first and second reading this 'map would then be addressed and we would conglomorate those studies, have the map changed and updated so that we would have an existing uptodate.map. And we have the same situation with our floodplain and avalanche maps as we have with this map, so I want to make that clear that any conflicting information, the most recent specific information would of course take precedence. ANDERSON: Peter, administratively I think.Ken's example is a very good one. . Let us say that in projects such as his which has had site specific done on it and it's approved and it's in fine condition. Go down the road ten years and somebody,wants to sell one of.the units. How are the realtors involved and the buyers going to know that that has been taken care of and how are we going to administer it? See VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 8 • what I'm saying? PATTEN: The map would be changed to reflect that that would not .be in a hazard zone because it had been mitigated. ANDERSON: But are we going to do that .in every single property that has been mitigated out? PATTEN: I think it's like the zoning map in that you periodically update your maps .. ANDERSON: There are just some practical things so that when a realtor is listing a piece of property they would have to come over to the Town for their own liability and see that that particular piece of property had been exempted from the hazard area in's in. PATTEN: I would think so, yes. I would hope so. PETERSON: Chuck, the ordinance does address that, and I agree with what peter is saying but I think I disagree with him on the two week time span here and I think all that should be done before the first reading. What you've done is basically, say somebody's in the hazard area which kind of designates that and puts a stigma on it, even though they're not today. Today you're putting a stigma on it. From now until June 5th you're going to say, well then we can look at all these site specific studies and amend the map to reflect that. That should be done before you adopt these maps on first reading. Let's go back and take a look at those site specific studies, amend the boundaries that you can, now that you're sure of it, then adopt the ordinance on first reading. That would allow in the future to happen is that people do in the future is to mitigate their site do their studies, they can once again call for the Town Council to formally change the boundaries of the map. ANDERSON: I realize that. My concern was the administration of a down line. When somebody's reselling a piece of property, how is this going to be handled? How are they going to know? SLIFER: Any other comments? JAMAR: My comment in regards to Chuck's comment,.you.probably ought to take a look at administratively following the same procedure for all the hazard areas, because when a guy comes in and builds an avalanche wall behind his house and in effect takes himself out of the avalanche.hazard area, he's still shown on the Town of Vail map as being in the avalanche hazard. When the houses out by you in the llth filing to level their lot and taken out of the 100 year floodplain, the Town of Vail floodplain map shows that he's still in the 100 year floodplain and I guess that kind of points out one thing, is that everybody seems to be taking this hazard and setting it off apart from how we treat avalanche hazard and flood - plain hazard and they're assuming that a big stigma gets put on these lots as being in a hazard area. They are in a hazard area and I don't think you need or should ignore it. The fact is that the Town is regulating avalanche hazard areas right now, they're regulating floodplain hazard areas and there are hazard areas and everybody seems to have a problem with this word hazard. I think Jay and Ron brought up a good point in that alot of these hazard areas can be mitigated and successfully they have been. So I don't think that everybody should get so excited all of a sudden to find out that they're in a hazard area.' That would be the purpose of the regulation is to alert people to the fact that they are indeed in • this area and sometimes they can mitigate it and sometimes they can't. I think that you need to go ahead and adopt an ordinance with the updated map. But I think it's important to realize back in 1977 when the avalanche hazard map was adopted and controls were adopted and the floodplain controls were adopted, the rockfall studies and geologic studies were not as technically advanced at that time and now that that field of study has advanced a little bit more these areas need to be addressed.and again, as Jay pointed out, they can be addressed in certain cases so I would urge you at some point to adopt some legislation. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 9 0 FER: Thank you, Peter. Any other comments? HALLENBECK: My name is George Hallenbeck. I'd like to make a few comments. One of them in regard ordinance in general and a couple of specific comments. I've yet talked to anybody outside of Town officials that have been in favor of this ordinance or in favor of the hazard ordinance being considered on June 19th. An opinion that that I have perceived from the people I've talked to along with my own opinion is that a plan more along the lines suggested by Ray Story at the last meeting has a lot more chance for addressing the problem in a positive rather than in a negative way. I'm concerned with the notion of having any legislation, I would argue, I have a feeling that most of the people sitting in this room would happy to come up and tell you that for one reason or another why they're opposed to the hazard ordinance and I think that given that kind of opposition and given the fact that.people deal with this problem in the short term with a simple resolution asking the Town to protect property and personal life makes no sense to me, why you would want to treat this as a first reading. I would recommend that you instead, which would make a lot more sense, for the Town officials that they remain committed to this course to take the steps that are required to get the map correct so that.you don't change everything between the first and second readings, and to get the ordinance correct, this is a good ordinance, or at least as good of an ordinance as we have with the basic flaws of philosophy as I see them. And so I would strongly recommend to you that you resind the resolution at this meeting and in a very,vigorous way at the Council meeting on June 19th. Secondly, in regard to this ordinance specifically, if you pass this ordinance tonight, any damages that occurs to any homes say damage from the mud flow that happened down in West Vail, my feeling is that with this ordinance you couldn't a building permit in order to correct the damage, with- out a site specific study. So I believe that if you pass this ordinance, technically, people that are in the mudslide area can't repair their homes. And, anybody in a mudslide area anyway can't move a wall in their kitchen because you need to get a site specific geological survey in order to do that in.order to make any modifica- tions whatsoever. And so by removing the clause that addressed the issue of , by removing the clause that addressed how you rebuilt something that was damaged, you have a piece of legislation here. If you pass it on first reading, I would suggest and then wait until the middle of June and take it second reading, number one, you're going to have make so many changes to it that the first reading isn't a fair first reading and number two, by the time you do finally get it passed and enacted, you're going to be very close to the final decision on a permits.. So.for.both of those reasons I strongly recommend that you decline to pass this ordinance and that instead that you make a resolution now that would be binding until such time as you're able to act on SLIFER: Thank you, George. Any other comments? SNOWDEN: My name is Craig Snowden, local resident. I just have some very general questions. They may be very minor and they may have already been brought up in the previous meetings. This is 1 he first one I've attended so I don't know if they have been brought up before. But there were several things, very minor as they may appear to you, but to me seems to a and that is, some of the wording tries to be all encompassing and you sometimes cannot be all encompassing where it describes what geologic hazard is and talks about expansive soils. You can go on to..a piece of property and take ten soils tests and none of them showing expansive soils, but that may be in a pocket where a portion of the house is, will the Town then go in and enforce that portion of the property because it has expansive soils? There are several things, one question I had was were the designated areas done by qualified geologists and maybe they have been. Another question is on several portions of the code you state that they will be approved by the Town Engineer, Building Official or authorized representative. If you're going to have the Town Engineer or Building Official approve something you better make sure they're qualified to approve it. Or I would think VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 10 • your bookwork would get all messed up constantly having to call in a qualified representative to oversee every little proposal that comes through the Town. The other thing that just concerns me and these things I just question whether it was put together so fast that it wasn't thorough enough and then there were half a dozen or so grammarical errors and I don't know if those get carried through in the ordinance or.if that's automatically corrected, so that's all my comments. SLIFER: OK, thank you Craig. Any other comments? EDWARDS: My name is Scott Edwards. I am a resident of East Vail and a member of the Vail Board of Realtors and am speaking for myself. One point on the Section that was discussed that was left out about the minor modifications. The .way I read this ordinance it only covers development plans and building permits for new structures. So minor modifications is an issue in this emergency ordinance. I may sound like I'm for this - I'm not sure. The biggest problem that I have with this ordinance is the map and under Section 4 (a) it says "any areas identified in the geologic hazard area by either a master plan or map.of the Town of Vail". . I don't see that this specifically.says that this is the official map anywhere in this ordinance, I.don't that it suggests that it is the official map. That map going the other way from what .Tay went, I think when I look at it, the Bitetto lot in West Vail where the land slide occurred is not identified as a hazard area on that map. I just feel that the map is not theright map to start the ordinance from and I think that when you do have a map to start working from the.ordinance should specifically point out which map it is pertaining to. The way this is written I don't see that it identifies that. SLIFER: Thank you, Socttie. The map does have a definition at the bottom. PEROG: Members of the Council, my name is Rick Perog and I discovered for the first time this past week that I am in a hazard area and I haven't done anything to mitigate it yet. So it comes as a, I'm speaking to you personally today because obviously this thing might., many of the people in town, it affects them personally. And I guess there's two issues that I just want to raise and one has to do with, I think that perhaps we could address the emergency nature in and the somewhat nature.of that type of mechanism in dealing with it. Hopefully that issue is going to be handled in a more low key and administrative way. I think the other thing that's important that I don't think this ordinance addresses is that I think that there is a responsibility in dealing with this issue not only to protect the people that are going to be building but also to consider the values of the people that are already here in the hazard areas. And certainly with a seven year old map.I refer to a section here on page 6 that talks about in order to remove yourself from the designated area an individual is required to -submit a reliable technical geologic evidence to.be removed and I certainly think that there's an equal responsibility for the town to demonstrate reliable technical and geologic evidence before you put people in a hazard area. And I think a 7 year old map that's referred to in generalities by a map without the ability to look at specific support data that may or may not be outdated in 1977 certainly, we ought to have the opportunity to review that data and be sure that it's fine. I sort of felt like the ordinance implied a sense of guilt and I was obligated to prove my innocence at my expense and we start multiplying what's the cost for each site specific survey - $2000 -- $1:0,000. Maybe some of that legwork needs to be done going in rather than just blanket the area and say OK, you're responsible for getting yourself out of this zone. I would like to just call • what I think is a serious shortcoming is the specife reference to minor construction details. I don't know if Larry was in a rush VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 11 S and the ordinance get the attention it.needed, but I do think that this ordinance seems to imply that if you want to convert a closet into a bathroom or expand a deck, that you've got to have a site specific survey done and I think that's probably excessive. Thank you for your time. SLIFER: Thank you, Rick. Yes Peter. PATTEN: I think that I've found the missing link here. On page 2 under (a) Larry stuck in a word on the fourth line at.the end, "No building permit for a new structure". The words "for a new structure" were not in previous ordinances. I think that's the whole key. What he's saying here in this emergency ordinance is this is only for new structures for 60 days and we're forgetting about the minor ones which are, what he's saying is it shouldn't be a problem of interior modifications as well as not addressing the conforming stuff. I think that could be the key in drafting this emergency ordinance. SLIFER: OK. Any other comments? WRY: Members of the Council, my name is Ray Story. I very much support the things that have been said by the people tonight. I don't wish to rephrase them with the exception of again trying to caution you to sign any kind of ordinance or legislation to date it is not appropriate and I mentioned last meeting,, none of the hazard in terms of real hazard, hard hazard, addresses manmade hazards. Paul Johnston last meeting pointed out that does imply and it does on page 1., at the end of Section 2, it says "or any manmade modifications to slope". And there's a misprint here,"may be caused significant hazard to life or property". Well, there's some manmade things other than just modification slope.. And you continue to do this because you're addressing just a geologic hazard that got stirred up because of rockfall. And this doesn't cover it and we're trying to tie it to maps that are not appropriate and I've been at this now for two weeks and I find out there's another map I still haven't gotten yet. And there's an implication in here that there's, if I may quote the ordinance again, "or any reliable study done by a geologist or engineer." Which one? When does the new one come up? How do I know what it is that this means? According to that map my property isn't in a hazard zone. That's erroneous, because there's a study somewhere that exists that says it is. But then when does • the study occur that somebody did that isn't here tonight. It suddenly get incorporated and included and falls into this thing without ever on. I submit to you that the Town has at its disposalthe proper means to continue monitoring this during this interim period until we can find a better way to do this. The means are available. They may lead to an agrument now and then but that agrument still has a process to come back to the zoning division, back to the Town Council to get resolution of the dispute. And all those avenues are in place right now. And I would hope that you would allow that to happen and not get this started until we can find a better way to do it. Thank you. SLIFER: Thank you, Ray. Hick Baldwin had a comment. BALDWIN: I'm Rick Baldwin, I live in the 11th filing. I guess I'm not in a hazard zone but I do walk in it occasionally and I'm wondering whether the Town's going to protect me from that experience too. I appreciate being protected from a geologic condition but I'm concerned how it's going to affect not only me as a may move from place to place within the Town but as I deal with the cost of me to operate and that sort of thing. I think it has a • far reaching impact on all of us that goes way beyond protecting ourselves from natural phenomeon and I really want to stress my concerns to the Town that they work through the method, both that Chuck and Paul eluded to and that.is working through the existing facilities that we have , adopt a resolution saying that we have this concern and the concern must be addressed in any building permit that goes on. But not place inflamatory names and titles on those issues on the concern. Rather address it in a realistic and concerned fashion. Somebody asked, by the way, whether there VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAX 15, 1984 Page 12 were, if this ordinance was adopted, would it be adopted in current form and I don't think there's an answer to those questions of concerns and the rules of procedures that we follow with the Council, but for instance, on page 2 in paragraph D, at the bottom of that paragraph the last sentence says "when any gootechnical.study disturbs the surface of the area studied, construction on said area is not to be instituted within three months of said study then the owner will revegetate the area and return it.to the same condition that he originally had it in before the disturbance. I assume the word "and" is supposed to be after the word "study" but it would change the whole meaning of the that stipulation if it weren't there. So if you're going to pass an ordinance, is it passed in this form or is passed in the present form and when do we get in to see it when it's all written and everything? SLIFER: Before any ordinance or resolution is passed we try to correct all those and I presume that will come.up later in the discussion. BALDWIN: So then, we would be made aware of all the changes and whether those clauses that were left out were left out intentionally or not. O FER: Absolutely. BALDWIN: Great. Thank you. SLIFER: Any other comments? If not, any questions or comments from the Council? ANDERSON: First of all, I'd like to thank people for ering here tonight. I think some excellent input has been made and my earlier thought of perhaps passing this ordinance on first reading tonight has changed. I think we do realize, and. the Council has never questioned the seriousness of this ordinance and I think we do realize that we have a dual responsibility here. We have one responsibility to the health and safety of the people and I think we have the other responsibility of not destroying the quiet enjoyment of some of this property unless we absolutely have to do that. Some certain things have come up tonight that I find very concerning and I think that the points that Ron Todd made about the exact designation of low, moderate and high areas, the conflicts within the map that I just checked, Ray, and you're right, you are not in the hazard zone on this map, the reliability of the data has thus come into question. And that's been a concern I've had from day one'on this issue. Furthermore, I do believe we had asked Larry Rider (Eskwith) prior to going on vacation to provide us with a brief of the actual legal liability and position of the Town and do not have that, which is one of major reasons for us to pass this legisation. Therefore, I would suggest from my own thinking at this point in time, we still obviously have to deal with this and I think we've a long way to go before we're ready to pass the ordinance, this is the kind of ordinance that even if we pass it once and if even the first reading it suggests that somebody is in one of these areas and until we're 100 percent sure, I think that's a grave error. Inasmuch as we have come up at least tonight with a temporary administrative way.to handle this I would suggest that we direct staff to do that.and that we continue to try to refine this ordinance both in the way the ordinance is written and in the reliability of the data before we bring it into a first reading. SLIFER: Any other comments? L� VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 13 *RLICH: Well, I concur. I think whether it be resolution or whatever, obviously the map has got to be updated. I think the point is a good one. Well, basically I think in my opinion we are beyond the ordinance stage and we are working a resolution of some sort to allow some sort of process for the Town of Vail until such time as we pass on first reading an actual ordinance. There would be a couple of concerns in what the guidelines are for the process and I think the emergency ordinance basically sets out everything except we obviously have to address the two sections that Larry had omitted. But I think that when we're talking in Section 4 No. A, even though this map is obviously outdated, I think it is helpful at least to identify the gentleman that was saying what map, there could be many different maps that we should at this point talk about this map. In otherwords, if you get a project that you have to approve, you're trying to address how that references on this map and then any current information you would have that would override this map.But I think we need a reference point for everyone on what map we're talking about. Secondly, the insertion of the word "and" when I read that I also ... Well, I'll just go through mine and maybe we can catch some of them. On page 3, section C, I think the geologist from the State Department talked about mitigate danger as opposed to eliminating danger. OK, I think that's all that I had. SLIFER: I'.11 disagree with what Chuck and Gail. I think, I was on the Council merely as a member, when this hazard map was adopted and this map is not a haphazard document that was created by someone who just had three pieces of paper. There's a great deal of study that came along with the map and it documents each of those areas that are identified as hazard areas. And those studies are available in the planning commission and if anyone would like to look at them. A hazard map, when it talks about rockfall and landslide and so on, doesn't get outdated unless mitigation occurs. And if you look at the area in West Vail where we had the mudslide today which appeared, I didn't get very close to it, but it appeared to me very very serious, is exactly as was located on this map. And I think it appears pretty accurate. I also think that our problems are just starting. I think that the runoff is just starting, I think we're going to have the next 30 - 60 days problems we haven't seen before. We're going to have water in places we haven't seen before, we're going to have rocks falling in places we haven't seen before. And I personally think that an emergency exists. This ordinance only would be in place for 60 days. I don't think there would be any hardships on anyone for a 60 day period, I don't think there are a lot of building permits out.there where people want to build new buildings in hazard areas in the next 60 days, or if there are I don't know about it, I don't want it on my conscious that someone is injured or hurt badly or.woree because this Council didn't act in a prudent manner. I think.it is a serious.problem and I think the study, although. done in 1977, and as someone said earlier, geologists feel that thousands of years and from 1977:to 1984 in geologist's minds is.a tick. I think the ordinance should be adopted. CAPLAN: For the record, maybe I should ask Peter Patten to research what applications are applied for building permits that have not/154n issued. It might be of some interest to the Council to know that• PATTEN.:i In terms of building permit applications which have not been processed at this point in time we have absolutely nothing in terms of new construction in any hazard zones, It's very early. SLIFER: Any other comments? • VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 14 WERSON: Rod, I would just like to say I certainly consider the issue serious. I wouldn't disagree with you on that. I am concerned about, my only concern is that with the seriousness of the issue, I just think we have to be absolutely 100% positive that the map is as accurate as possible. SLIFER: Any other comments? ROSE: Well, I think this ordinance is serious too, but and I also agree with most of the comments that Chuck made. I am really hesitant to approve anything this evening for a number of reasons. One is we don't have any legal advise tonight and I really think we should have, I don't think we're totally prepared with the ordinance that's written and I don't think we're totally prepared with the base information that we have in the way of maps and although I think it needs to be resolved in a manner that is presented there are certainly a lot of problems that I think just have not been addressed yet and we probably ought to go back to square one no matter how long it takes. As far as I'm concerned you can probably call for a motion and hopefully it will die due to a lack of because I'm not going to make a motion to approve anything. KLINE: I would make a motion. I would move that we postpone any consideration of this ordinance either in emergency or in any other status until we've done a little more homework. SLIFER: Do you want to then table the motion, Colleen? KLINE: Yes, I want to table the ordinance. SLIFER: Indefinitely or until a specified period of time? KLINE: I would suggest we table it indefinitely. My feeling is it ought to come back as soon as we're ready. WAHRLICH: Colleen, in relation to that, would you have any proposals regarding a process in the interim until we've actually passed an ordinance? KLINE: I don't have any objections to some and we did discuss some directions to staff and if anybody wanted to add an amendment to my motion, I'd be happy to consider that. ASTON: I presume we've have to wait until Counsel's back or obtain outside counsel. WAHRLICH: Well, I guess I'd get back to your initial proposal, and that was using a resolution using the emergency ordinance as the guideline. SLIFER: Do we have a second to the motion? KLINE: Well, we're discussing.an amendment to that motion. SLIFER: Oh, OK. But we don't have a second to the motion I don't think. ANDERSON: Peter, if we were to direct you tohight to simply use the guidelines generally as outlined in this suggested tabled motion, that would give you the guidelines you need wouldn't it? If a project comes through in a hazard area in one of those designated areas right now, that you should generally request this information from that property. We don't, that gives you what to do and how to do it, doesn't it? I mean, how would you like to see this? PEN: Well, I'd like to see it passed, but yes, I think if the Council would make a resolution saying we're not going to pass anything but staff do it anyway, I guess that gives me clear direction. You're saying that the emergency ordinance would be my guideline for the next days. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 15 RLICH: Coupled with, I think, the fact that in the instruction that we need an update of this map. PATTEN: OK. Yes, that's good direction to me in terms of what you directing me to do until something gets passed or addressed. I feel comfortable, I would at least request that direction in some type of official motion or resolution so that you are giving me clear direction so I can give the people that come in to see our staff in terms of development plans very clear direction as well. That's the important thing, that it comes from the Council directly to us. KLINE: Well, Peter, it's my understanding that that's precisely what you're doing now in a more casual way, but I will add the amendment to my motion that the staff be directed to do precisely that. SLIFER: OK, the motion is totable the ordinance indefinitely and to direct the staff to give building permit applications for new structures to proceed following the guidelines outlined in this ordinance. WAHRLICH: May I just make two real minor corrections. One was where we talk about the Community Development Department, this is on page 2, Section 4 (a). Ok, well I think it's more the process or the procedure, that he has to work with, where we're talking about the Community Develop- ment Department, then shall have the discretion to send any report or study to the Colorado Geologic Survey for their review and recom- mendation. I think we had talked about the cost to have the Colorado Geologic Survey be analyzed be',borne by the property owner. PATTEN: Yes, I've got that. WAHRLICH: OK, I'm sorry. And the only other area and again the procedure that using this as a guideline for the procedure that Peter's staff would be using is on page 4, Chuck this was a concern of yours when we were addressing the:,ordinance the last time. It starts actually on page 3, paragraph 1 of Section c at the very bottom. Town approval of all reports, designs and actual as built construction plans shall be required, all reports shall indicate that, and then item (d) on page 4,.design and construction will reduce danger to the public health and safety or property due to geologic hazard. I think you were concerned about the Town making that determination. ANDERSON: Well, I think if he's just using this as a processing guideline, Gail, then we're OK on that for now. WAHRLICH: OK. CAPLAN: I think if we have any problems from week to week, we will come back to the Council for clarification. ANDERSON: But I do agree, Gail, in the final ordinance, yes that is a concern. One of the things as we go through the process on this, Peter, would it be possible to take some typical property in each kind of hazard area and have what, what are we talking about mitigation? I mean, I think, we were all up today at the West Vail mudslide and what is the cost of mitigating and how would they mitigate? I'm not sure what you do in Mill Creek Circle or if it's just improved-foundati.oas or I guess I'd like to have a feel for the cost of ramifications of mitigation within the various kinds of hazard zones. SLIFER: I think that's what each site specific study is for. To determine what kind.of mitigation has to be created to solve the problems and the cost related thereto. r� U VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 16 460ERSON: Oh, I understand that, what I think, Rod, is what I'm saying is I would like to know that if you are going to have to mitigate a lot in Mill Creek Circle, this is approximately what's going to be involved in it and I think the people then could have some idea of what we're talking about. Let me, that's just something I'd like to know. SLIFER: But that's the reason the ordinance was proposed in my opinion. ANDERSON: Oh, I know, I'm just saying it's a typical type of thing. CAPLAN: In Highland Meadows, for example, one lot we know cost almost $300,000 to mitigate and the lot next door was significantly less and the lot on the other side totally different again. So it just depends on the immediate needs. PATTEN: It really does vary greatly and an avalanche wall, for instance, it could, the variations are tremendous because how high:it's going to be, what it's made out of, PERSON: OK, for example, how do you mitigate, what is the mitigation against a mudflow? I don't know. Or debris flow? SLIFER: Well, in some cases you may not be able to mitigate it, but that's why you do the site specific study, is to determine if there is mitigation and if so, what it is. And I think it's impossible to put a dollar figure on it. Same with rockfall. PATTEN: I would agree with that. SLIFER: I think that down in West Vail, I've lived here for 20 + years. I don't even remember water running down there: It absolutely blew me away. It's on the map, but I didn't thank there was a problem and I don't know what you do to stop that . I guess a lot of drainage. We have a motion, Are there any comments from the floor in regards to the motion? MAITLAND: Rod, my name is Tom Maitland. There was a statement made that there is, there has been no building permits issued in a hazard area and I know specifically there 1IFER: No, there.are none pending right now. No one's applied for one. MAITLAND: OK. SLIFER: Any other comments? OK, if not, we have a motion to table the ordinance indefinitely and for the staff to generally follow these guidelines in reviewing any building permits that might :apply. Any other discussion from the Council? If not, all in favor of the motion vote by saying "Aye". {Johnston, Anderson, Kline, Rose, Wahrlich responding "Aye". Opposed - Slifer "Aye". OK, the motion carries 5 to 1. HALLENBECK: When will you be discussing this again? CAPLAN: I think it will depend on the Town Attorney's ability to review it as .well as our staff's ability to update the map. JOHNSTON: The earliest would be June 5th. SLIFER: I doubt if it will be the 5th, if we have a meeting on the 5th we will have only 4 people here because of some vacation schedules so I think that in a situation like this it will probably be the 19th. We might pass some information out before then. CROWLEY: My name's Charlie Crowley, and you've heard from me before on this. I would to think that Larry left those two sections out because he saw the error in the waves, but I'm just wondering, what are you going to be considering on June 5th or 19th? Will you consider the original ordinance? VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MAY 15, 1984 Page 17 FER: I don't know, Charlie, it will be up to the Council to direct the staff and our attorney to draw something that the Council feels it could approve. And I don't know what that is. CROWLEY: Well, I'd just like to urge you to consider the ramifications of those two sections that Larry left out. I think they're very - well in .the replacement value. We went round and round about if your home is damaged more than 50% you're really going to have a problem. SLIFER: Thank you. I think the logical dialogue on this issue is through the Board of Realtors. I think that most people here, or a lot of you, are associated with that and we'll also stay in touch with George and others that have been very involved and it will be in the news- paper. HALLENBECKTI Rod, may I suggest one more time that you maybe ask for considera- tion of Ray Story's alternative to look at that between now and June 19th. SLIFER: OK. If there are no other comments, we will go on to the next item. next item on the agenda was the second readings of Ordinances #15 and #16, ries of 1984, relating to the amendments to the plan documents of the Town of Vail employee pension plan and the Town's Police and Fire Pension Plan. Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no change to either ordinance from first reading. Councilmember Anderson made a motion to approve Ordinances #15 and #16 on second reading and Councilmember Johnston second the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously and the.ordinances were ordered published by title only. Under Citizen Participation, Ray Story asked if the Council would not consider approaching the hazard zoning issue from a different point of view. Mr. Caplan stated that the Town Attorney needed to be.present to discuss any issues of hazard zoning any further and if the Attorney could figure out another approach to the issue that covered the Town's liability it would be a possibility. There was some concern discussed regarding the West Vail mudslide of this date and who would be liable for that. Story questioned whether the ordinance as written would cover the Town in case of lawsuits. Wahrlic stated that although the map as presented is not perfect, it is all the Council has to work with at this point in time Slifer stated that numerous documents outlining hazard areas were not exact at this time, but they are the best we have. After much discussion, Rod ended the discussion until a future meeting when the Town *orney was present. Stan Berryman, Public Works Director, stated that a contract had been reached between the Town of Vail and Smeizer and Associates of Glenwood Springs to do advisement to the Town of site specific rockfall studies. The fee for their services is to be $6900. Vail Associates has agreed to help fund this project. The next item on the agenda was a report back on expanded taxi services in the Vail area. The Council agreed to direct Mr.. Caplan to write a letter to the PUC in support of extended transportation services in Vail. Stan Berryman reported to the Council on the mudslide of that afternoon in West Vail. Howard Rapson was reappointed to his term on the Planning and Environmental Commission. Under Town Manager's Report, Rich Caplan reported on the sod fundraising for Ford Park. Moses Gonzales, project coordinator, also reported that $13,000 had been raised from donations and another $6,000. was needed to complete the pro- ject. Gonzales was directed to continue the fundraising efforts and report ek to the Council on his progress next week. Moses was congratulated by e Council on his efforts to raise the funds. The Town Council was urged to attend the Town Clean Up Day, SaturdE.y, May 19th. As there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to Vail Village to review the street light situation. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 15, 1984 Page 18 Respectfully submitted, Road ey E. 8 i er, ayor ATTEST.; Pamela A. Brandrfleyer,d Town Clerk 0 6 •