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
•