Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 Support Documentation Town Council Sessionslows of uai 75 south frontage road department of transportation/public works vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 TO WHOM IT MAY CONC~RIV: I would like to clarify any misunderstandings that have arisen concerning the perennial versus annual flowers question. This .year we planted approximately 3O,OQO.annuals and .27,000 new perennials. The majority of our flower beds are 100% perennials. There are almost as many flower _ beds that are 50 to 75% percent perennials.. We are unable to leave plants in the beds-year after year 'without re-working the soil, therefore we have to take the old flowers out and replace them with new perennials. During the winter we experience alot of damage due to the skiers walking over the beds""tli'at have been packed with snow, therefore we plant these beds with annuals. Normally annuals bloom longer than the perennials and thus we would have better looking flower beds for more days during the summer season. .This is one of the reasons why we .rely on petunias so much. They are colorful,-prolific and can take some frost. If there are any other questions that anyone would have I would invite them to call meat 476-7000 ext. 251. Howard Gollnick Landscape Coordinator . _ _.. .:.. _ .. ,:_:. ..._..__ . _ ~_ y SUBDIVISIONS 17.40.075 Condominium conversion-Lodge and accommodation units. Any applicant seeking to convert a lodge, building or struc- ture containing accommodation units, in whole or iri -part, to condominiums shall comply with requirements of this section. The requirements herein contained shall nit apply to conver- sion of two units or less. . A. The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall be included in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed record with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. The condominium units created shall remain ill the short- ternl rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public. I . An owner's personal use of his unit shall be restricted to fourteen days during the seasonal periods of Decem- ber 15th through April 15th and fourteen days during June 15t11 through September 15th. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner occupancy of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner or taking the unit off the rental market during the seasonal . 5" periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrentable. Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the lodge, however, shall not be restricted by this section. 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment by the condominium association of three times the daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment, when paid, shall be deposited in the general funds of the condominium association for use in upgrading a wiring the common elements of the con nlinium. All SUI11S assessed against the owner for violation o the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the COlldomllllllnl association on that owner's unit, whidl lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the. clerk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and may be col)ccicd by foreclosure, cv:~~i z-xis 298-4 _.. .. r.- 4 CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS ,r on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium association's failure to enforce the owner's personal .use restriction shall give..: the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of the assessment for the violation. In the event litigation results from the enforce- ment of the restriction, as part of its reward to the pre- vailing party, the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred. 3. The. town shall have the right to require. from the condo- } minium association an annual report of owner's personal use during the high seasons for all the condominium units. B. A condominiumized lodge shall provide on-site management ~ an~mu~nt-enance and other tourist accommodation services consistent in quality and quantity to those provided during ~;~ the high seasons for the three years previous to the date of . . application when the property was operated as a lodge. Any condominiumized lodge shall provide or contract for on-site management from eight a.m. to eight p.m. seven days a week during high season. A condominiumized lodge shall provide ` or contract for on~all services twenty-four hours a day, maintenance of the grounds common elements and emer- ' gency unit repair consistent with those provided by the lodge for the three years previous to the time of application when the property was operated as a lodge. At the time of application, applicant shall provide a sworn and notarized affidavit stating what services were provided for the three years previous to the time of application. This affidavit shall address: 1. Whether breakfast has been provided; . 2. Whether there has been front desk serving the guests; 3. What kind of and to what extent transportation has been provided to guests; 4. What have been the check-in hours and procedures; 5. What amenities have been available to guests; and ,,, ~~.. 298-4a w~u z-sib ~; t,. ~~ ~: :.` SUBDIVISIONS 6. Any other relevant information regarding on-site man- . agement, maintenance and other tourist accommodation services provided by the lodge. C. The condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. This condition may be met by inclusion of the units of the condominium, at comparable rates, in any local reservation system for the rental o.f lodge or condo- minium units in the town. D. The common areas of the lodge shall remain common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its previous character. Any changes, alterations or renovations made to common areas shall not diminish the size or quality of the common areas. -~A y lodge or building with accommodation units that has provided housing for employees at any time during the three years previous to the date of the application when the property was operated as a lodge shall set aside said employee units for such duration as may be required by the planning and environmental commission or the town council. F. Applicability: all conditions set forth within this section shall be made binding on the applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs, personal representatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is the subject of the appli- cation for the life of the survivor of the present town council plus twenty-one years. A condorniniumization of a lodge pursuant to this section shall be modified only by the written agreement of the town council and the owner or owners of the condominiumized lodge property. The documents creating and governing the condominium shall be modified by the condominium owners only with the prior written approval of the town council. G. Procedure: condominiumization of an existing lodge shall be accomplished pursuant to the subdivision review process. The applicant strap provide the following additional docu- mentation to the town at the time of application for condo- miniumization of a lodge: I . Proof of ownership; 2. Site inventory for the property. indicating in detail the actual configuration of the lodge facility, the common areas and the location of any amenities serving the lodge; _~:.:.: ~~A r CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS "; 3. Affidavit of services provided as is called for in sub- ~ .di isien 2 above; 4. Designation and description of employee units; i 5. Plan of improvements to be made to the property f along with estimated.costs therefor. (Ord. 24(1980) § 2.) ~, 17.40.080 Action on preliminary map. A: At the hearing on the preliminary map, the planning commission shall consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the following housing goals of the town: 1. To encourage. continuation of social and economic diversity in the town through a variety of housing types; 2. To expand the supply of decent housing for low and moderate income families; 3. To achieve greater economic balance for the town by increasing the number of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold them. B. The commission may require that a reasonable percentage of the converted- units be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income. C. The planning commission may deny the tentative or pre- liminary map upon finding that: 1. Based on the information required by 17.40.070 and on the vacancy rate for rental housing, tenants will have substantial difficulty in obtaining comparably priced rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below five percent based on the most recent town survey constitutes a housing emergency situation. 2. The ratio of multiple-family rental units would be reduced to less than twenty-five percent of the total number of dwelling units in the Core Valley, from Dowd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with no replacement rental housing being provided. (Ord. 27(1978) § 1 (part).) 298-4c N Q~~,4i~ Cam- ~/ rn~ ~°~- , ~~~ .~~,tia ~ ~„~~., ~ ~ ~ ~~~, Cr~~;~ ~2~ ~ 523 per; ~~. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i . m.~~ ~,~ ~.~ ~~-~- ~t, off.. P,~,.-~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~y I. ~~ ~~ - ~ ~. ~~: ~; ~ Z ~ ~~. 3 3 ; l . ~ n~ b ~~ i i ~ ~ ;" r. ~~~~ ~~ s. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i , ~ t F..s } ,x ~, .. ' ~ s 't3 ! , I .. • , 'Page A2 ;: ;` ,. '• ;;. •~ . , .. aye ~ 6, 1 ~. Thursd cember~l 982.~~ , z ~! 4• f; ® ® . . ,f$ , ~ " ;'. .. ~~ ,,Sh®u~.d . C .. s en 1~~ Nall o:: - S , ~ ~ c `` } ~ C ,.n ~. ~1, ~ nts . o ~~ r a~sw~r :,coda ~,~,;' ; ,You mayyhave -noticed a striking similarity in the an ;, ,where we are competing for the' tourist dollar against ~ °: I; ; swers'to this week's' "How About It,?":question.. People m ;•~ ~ Aspen;.and Vail and Sun Valley. = ", ,' ~~F' , ~~Park`City'rarely,seem to agree on anything,"but this is one;. ~ ~` ;The question then.becomes: how far are we will1ing to goo =~. '°+"•~} `, instance where Park- City. Newspaper photographer ;Jill::; :.to':compete for the tourist dollar? And how much of,the tabs. ,.,: ~'I•` 1 u`, Snyder: couldn't find, any disagreement. Everyone she ~ . should we, the local residents; be picking ups `.~ ~ ~ ` ,, ,~- talked to, (and there were akiout a dozen people) gave the ~ ry .: The debate over who should pay for the traffic control of , ,.,~' `"•' ~ °`,`same answer`:' Park'.City . isn't, spending its ~.' money ""~ •' •fcers is tlie.perfect illustration. Should the ski resorts ,pay, -... ~. ~~' . frivolously. ~ '; •' ~:~ ..:: ` ~ •.. ~, ', , -since they are generating the traffic? Should the city foot ° _ . ` =`•~ We're not pretending that this is a scientific survey. But it . ., the bill; since the ski resorts are, after all, paying taxes to I~•;.~ ;t s•_ does, indicate'that city officials have some support in their `., the city? Or should nobody foot the bill, and let:chaos rein at ,:~ ~~ 'efforts to upgrade city services. •. - ; ' 5 p.m. during Christmas week? '' • •;:?; ',~ ;• `~ ' s.; And there's no,question that members of the City.Council, . .According to. City Manager .Arlene Loble, city govern :'' ,_ °: and Tina;Lewis in particular; are nudging-us gradually m" ~"<`' merit 'in 'Aspen.; is taking the conservative approach; cut '-.' thatdirection: an elegant new library, an improved trans- `- ting back on services such as the free buses: And, perhaps i ~` ' ;;"portation~.~system, '.slick <new ,logos: on.. everything .from ~° as a result,..tourist revenues have dropped in Aspen while :~ s~": "'stationery to cop'cars.. 'Vail continues to flourish. _ ;`.' , I °~ :;',,The question in our minds is: just how far do we want_to ~~ - • `: At",5 p.m. today,.there will be a public hearing: ui the' 's: go in that direction? ~ ' " ; • , ' ' Memorial Building.on a bill :which" would, if passed, by the ti ~F :~ } 4 ~ °s , At tlie: beer,'tax hearing on Dec.• 2, there were some ~;; ` ` ~ state legislature, allow resort ,communities to levy an ad ' {,eloquent statements made,by people opposed to expanding .... ~ ditional one percent sales tax to. help .defray the 'cost of 3, 'city services >"Just..•give us the "basics,'.' they said. ~ "The ''; providing the type.of extra services that tourists demand:: ~. °~ :other things~we;can provide for,'ourselves " ;~ S °` ,~ r, { •, Bar owners already have told the council what.tliey thirik~~,' ~,~ , : ~ But'' do; these" statements 'reflect the opinion ,of the ,~ ~~ of a.plan to raise money by..taxing beery What ~do you, tliink :,~,~ t ,; majority, of local 'residents? The .answers to our:;'"How ~`:~ ; .about a plan to raise money by taxing food and clothing?. Is = :About, It? ". '.question;': although somewhat less ,eloquent, it too,steep a price ~o pay to sti~ulate.the local economy, to ' ~+, a suggest that there is"another„viewpoint. We gave a dozen make-Park-City. a more',inviting•place for our winter _: 'people the chance to take theu•shots at the city, and they all " J visitors? ".. • ; •. ~. ;;: ~ ; : r; ~~ ,, 5 ,.turned us down. •, ~ (.'Tonight's session is more than~just a hearing on a simple .v~: ':''":- Some people believe that`the real focus•of;this debate' piece of ~legislation.'•It's.an opportunity to express your ''doesn't lie in Park City, or with the local residents. It lies in ,. 'vision~of what our quality of life should be all about. ~ ~, : 'the big populahgntcenters like Los Angeles and Chicago,`. , : ~ • DH,, { .t •- ~. , ' ~ . ,~ .' f • ' ~; „„..--~` MEr~ORANDUM T0: Town Counci l FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 28, 1982 SUBJECT: Proposed new. subdivision regulations Please find enclosed a copy of the ordinance adopting new subdivision regulations for the Town. The ordinance is written as per the Planning and Environmental Commission's recommendation to you. The revisions include the new design standards which dictate how new subdivision improvements with regard to streets, etc. are constructed. Our existing Subdivision Regulations and.D~sign St~rndards vrere adopted in 1y70, three years after the Town was incorporated. They are quite minimal, general regulations which v:~ere adequate to control the subdivision. of land at that time. - Vail 's rapid grovrth since that time has mandated that vre revise our subdivision regulations to address newer types of development (condominiums, townhouses, timesharing) as well as :;he processes a.nd procedures fer a-I 1 subdivision prod oral s . Indeed;-.-the existing regulations have caused confusion ~;rith regard to the processes and approvals required for such things as condominiumizing adevelopment. The attempt vrith the proposal in front of you is to simpl ify ~:oday's var-io~rs and complex types of subdivisions. Uf course, the objective is to reflect the community's values with regard to each of these provisions. The proposed regulations were arrived at after consid~r~able.study on the part of various staff, Planning Conu»ission and Council members. Many different subdivision regulat ions were reviewed ;jy sttafi , and a small review cornmitte4 was formed after the first draft was completed. Since ti-~e review of the first draft, there have boon four more meotincs and subsequent revisions. The filial proposal represents the four.h draft of the regulations. Very little of the existing regulations were retained, as ii; v;-as felt by all that there shou'Id be a totally neav set-of provisions for our current values and needs. The folla~ring represents a brief description of each chapter o~F the nevr regulations: A. CHAPTER 17.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS This chapter sets forth some general s%atements regarding the purpose of the regulations as well as statements of compliance. Also included are the totivn's remedies for violations and ti,e jurisdiction the town possesses to err}`once the regulations. B. CHAPTER 17.03 DEFINITIONS A~~D R!1LES OF LANGl1AGE CONSTRIICfION This c!rapter sets forth how various words, usually open to interpretation, will be 'defined with regard to these regulations. This is one of the ir~orc important sections in thc~ regulations; as it needs to be complete and specific enough so that interpretation is kept to a minimum. ~i Sub Regs -2- 12/28/8? 6 C. CHAPTER 17.16 MAJOR SUBDIVISION This chapter outlines the procedures and requirements fora subdivision involving more than 4 lots, etc. (see 17.0$210 D). This is one of the most important chapters of any subdivision regulation, as it can shape the design of a major portion of a community. This chapter usually contains the bulk of the sub_ division provisions fora community. i One may argue that these are unimportant for Vail in 1982 as we are "subdiv ided out" with regard to this size of ;parcel. This is not the case,~as the staff is aware of at least t~vo ,proposals which will fall under the jurisdiction of this chapter most likely within the next year, The approval process fora major subdivision is: 1. Consultation with staff. 2. PEG public hearing on preliminary plan 3. Concil right to appeal decision on preliminary plan. 4. PEC public hearing on final plat 5. Council right to appeal and accept/reject dedications . One issue which should be discussed in this section is the property dedication .requirement (17.16.112}. Proposed is requiring 8% of the property to be dedicated to the Town with the stipulations that the land must be buildable area and that the developer cannot count this 8% toward his total buildable area on the site. D. CHAPTER 17.20 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS This is the procedure to follow for a subdivision involving 4 or less, lots or parcels. Basically, this exempts. the applicant from the preliminary plan procedures required in a major subdivsion. This means that a final plat is submitted and rev-iewed by PEC with ,the Council's right to appeal. E. CHAPTER 17.22 CONDOMINIUM AND TO~~INHOUSE PLATS This is a "new" section to the regulations which outlines procedures for obtaining approval of subdividing a mult ifamily project after its foundations are in place.. This is done for ownership purposes and generally delineates common and ljmited elements (ownership) of a project versus individually owned property. Since this type of subdivision contains no actual subjective type of criteria, it is done at staff level arid does not come Before the PEC, unless staff's decision is appealed. F. CHAPTER 17.24 DUPLEX SUBDIVISIONS With the number of these types lots in Vail, this is the most popular form of subdivision. This subdivision defines ownership of land and property between two individual ownerships on a duplex lot. As with condominiu-n~and to-vnhouse plats, this is done on a staff level unless appealed. Sub Regs -3- 1 ~/2~~/u2 .~ G. ,CHAPTER 17.26 CONDOP~INIUMS AND CONDOP1INIUM CONVERSIONS This is a 1978 amendment to the subdivision regulations. This chapter is included as -existing, but will be reviewed and revised in -1983 as we revise the zoning code in •its entirety. H. CHAPTER 17.28 DESIGN STANDARDS This chapter defines the work done in construction of new subdivisions. It specifies all design criteria needed to construct such things as roads, curbs and gutters, storm sewers, and utility placement. I. CHAPTER 17.30 VARIANCES AND AMENDMENTS This chapter states that these processes will follow the existing ones for such requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed subdivision regulations and design standards. :There has been a lot of study and review on~this proposal, and we feel that .it will accomplish our objectives as stated on page 1 of this memo. The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval of the subdiv ision regulations on October 11, 1982 a.nd the design standards on November 22. As you'll recall, we discussed the process for adoption of the various sections of Title 17 at your work session on October 19.. At that .time it was decided .to hold everything at Council leve] until the condominium conversion chapter could be re-written. Upon the staff's initial research on condominium conversions, we find the issues involved, quite complicated and extremely important to Vail 's housing situation. With this in mind, we wish to delay the re-writing of this chapter until later in 1983, after it can be more completely studied (see memo from Department of Community Development to Torn Council and Planning and Environmental Commission dated December 9, 1982). At. the October 19th work session, we discussed the subdivision regulations, page by page (not including design standards). The following revisions were suggested by Council at that time. You may refer to this list of revisions in your motion on January 4 by~referencing this memorandum, thus, including them in the written. version of the ordinance a,t second reading. Council Fdork Session Revisions as per meeting on 10/19,/82: 1. p.2, 17.04.010(x.). 2,3,5,6 as noted 2. p.17, 17.16.110 delete "effects on the aesthetics of the town" 3. p.18, 17.16.112 Council wishes to delete section 4. p.18, 17.16.115(c) changed 10 days to .17 days Sub Kegs -4- 12/Li;/~32 5. p. 20, #,-~11 should read ; .... or corporate t~i tl e insurer, that the oti-~r;er. (s) of record dedicating to the publ ~ic the pub1 ~ic rights-of-t,~ay, are~:zs or facii ivies as sito~rr~~r thereon are the owners thereof in i ee S11Tlple, free and cl car.... . 6. p.21, 17.16.130 (c) --make neT~r #14: 14. Certificate of oT;~nership --make existing ;#14 ne4a rl 5 --l cave the rest the sane 7. p.22, 17.1G.150(5) change to read only: landscaping 8. p.23, 17.16.250 4th line --add "and approved by ti,e Town P1anager" after ToT-m Engineer 9. p.23, neti~: section: 17.16.?_05 Filing and Recording The Depa rtnrent of Cc~,r:,TTUn i ty Devel opnu~n% ti~~i 11 record the plat with the Eagle Coun%y clerk ~rr;d recorder. The Cckranunity Development Depat•tment t•till retain one nlYldr copy of the plat for their records and r~•ill record the renraininc~ mylar copy. 10. p. 25, new section: 17.20.050 Filing and Recording same as ~!9 above 11. p.29, new section: 17.24.110 Filing and Recording same as #9 & #10 above 12. p. 26, 17.22.030 .Gth line insert new sentence: --as the approved plans. [Also required to be submitted is a copy 'of the condominium dccuments for staff revier~~ to assure that there are maintenance provisions included far all con;,nonly--or;ned areas. All property pins must..... 13, p. 28; 17.2.030 ma{:e .the existing paragraph here a no 1 with paragraph no. 2 as follows: 2. A copy of the declarations and/or covenants attached to the subdivision to assure the maintenance of any coTTtmon areas t~rhich are being created. 14. p. 20, #4 revise to read: 4. A systematic identification of all existing and proposed buildings, lots and blocks and names for all streets. 15. P.2G, 17.22.030 2nd line: add ~4 to numbers after 17.1G.130(c} Sub Regs -5- 12/28/82 Please come in to our office and talk to Peter Patten if you have any comments or questions. w'~ ' ~ .._,._.., hiEE~~fOi'f~iiu~l;~l T0: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 9, 1982 SUSJECT: Study of Condominium Conversion Ordinance Revisions In conjunction with the re-writing of the subdivision regulations and design standards, the Council has requested the condominium conversion regulations be addressed now rather than in 1983 when the whole code is reviewed. They requested it be done noti~r subsequent to the planning staff's comment that the regulations ~rere confusing as they exist and, therefore, require some revisions. They felt that this should be _ accomplished at the same time the remainder of Title 17 was re-written. In researching the various existing regulations of different municipalities, ~r,~e have discovered a wide range-of stringency levels in these regulations. Condominium conver- sion ~regu:lations are designed to protect the health, safety and 4velfare of the fu~cure occupants and general public; to protect the consumer purchasing a unit; and probably most importantly to protect an existing stock of lo.v to moderate income (or employee) rental housing. Conversio.n~of apartments to condominiums can cause negative impacts in a community by displacing existing tenants r~aho can only afford to rent with a -higher income purchaser. This can result in not only a decrease in the number of employee housing units, bu't can cause extreme hardship to the former tenant who now must find. housing elsewhere. For Vail, the issues of condominium conversions and employee housing are intricately ~~- tied together. There are a great number of rental uriits, which serve to meet our . • empoyee housing needs. The conversion of these to condominiums with high sales prices may negatively affect our ability to adeouately house both seasonal and permanent • residents. Thus, we.as a governmental agency with the ability to control the rate and conditions put upon conversiens must look closely at tivhere our policy sho;~id fall in regard to the extremes between leaving it totally up to the private sector • and rent, sales and lease term restrictions as•conditions of approval. The staff wishes to initiate discussion on condominium conversion restrictions. Enclosed please find the existing ordinance which we use for condominiums and condo- minium conversions. It is also found in Section 17.40 of the Municipal Code. Note that we have recently revised the lodge conversion section and that is not part of our present effort to revise Section 17.rr0. The staff also proposes that regulations for condominium conversions be a part of the Community Action Plan effort in conjunciior with the development of pclicies on employee housing. We will have a full discussion of this item at our joint meeting with the Council the first part of 1983. _ ~ a ' ~ ~ J. Oitl~)a~[dT,NCE P~.10. SF ri.es o£ 1 ~'7 ~,~~ ~:N E:•lERGIi~1CY ORDINANCE I:I.1F:AIDING TITLE 17 OF THE VAIL i•1UNICIPAL CODE 13Y THE ADDITIOPI OF A Cf1APTER 17.40 ItELA.'I'1NG TO CO21DO2~SINIUi•1S, CONVERSION OF R.~:I~ITAL L't7I`iS TO CONDOi•IINIUi~fS OR i;ON-REi~ITAL UNITS; SE'I'TING FORTH DEFIiv'I- TIO_~S, RI:QUZ[:I::2.IFNTS FOR TfiE `l'ENTATIVE M11P AND PRELIiiINARY i•lAP, REQUIF:t?2•iENTS FOR THE FINAL 1`iAP AND PARTIAL i•?AP, SPECIFYING PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CONVERSION AND SPECIFYING `Pf-IE TYPES OF SECURITY THAT THE TO~•7N MAY P.EQUIRE FOR • ~IMPP.OVEi•IENTS; STATING THE DETAILS REQUIR- ING THE INLhiEDIATE ENACT2•1E;2~T OF THIS ORDI- NANCE AND DECLARING TEIS ORDINANCE TO BE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE 47ITH SECTION 4.11 Or THE CHARTER OF THE T01'~I1 OF VAIL; AND SETTING.FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION TO THE FOREGOING :`•-" WHEREAS, the Town has not previously regulated or • _ `,~ .controlled condominium developments, but the Town Council is of the opinion that the building of condominium units and the conversion of rental units to condominiums has the potential • ~ `J for adversely affecting the 'public.~health, safety and welfare; WHEREAS, the decreasing availability of rental units has become an increasing problem within the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, in particular, the availability of low and moderately priced rental housing has been declining within the Town of Vail until now the lack of housing for low and moderate income residents is at a crisis point; WHEREAS, the increasing lack of availability of low and moderately priced rental units for residents has resulted in the following impacts to the community: (a) The population of the Town of Vail is changing significantly and dramatically with employees of private and public enterprises being forced to live out of tie Town of Vail because of the lack of low and moderate rental housing. In addition, existing low and moderate priced rental housing is being converted to condominiums for sale at prices that cannot be afforded by low and moderate income people and for sale in ~ntcrval o•.:nc'rship. ' Grd. ..__...._.___- Pack :' (b) Publ i.c ~~nd priv~,t;e cnt.:cr.prises have found it increasingly difficult to get and keep employees because of the lack of local low and moderately priced rental }lousing. • (c) The effect of converting rental housing units to condominiums has been to remove from the market housing for residents and in place thereof, to provide transient hous- ing for short-term rental to visitors or interval ownership. •(d) The loss of employee housing has had the impact of rer.oving from the Town of Vail residents that~are necessary to provide leadership and support for the Town. WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that in order to lessen the impact of rental conversions on the Town ~~.,, of Vail and~to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town of Vail that a review process is required to control rental conversions; • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOj~~A' OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT Section 1. Title 17. of the Vail Municipal Code is .amended by the addition of .Chapter~17.40 to be entitled "Con- dominiu_-ns and Condominium Conversions" which will read as follows: 17.40 CONDOA'1INIUriS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS 17.40.010 Purpose This ordinance has been adopted in accord- ance with the provision of the Local Government Land Use. Control Enabling Act of 1974, as found in C.R.S. 29-20-101, et. 'seq. as more particularly spelled out in C.R.S. 29-20-104 to regulate condominium develop- ments which may result in sicnificant changes in the population of the Town of Vail and to control the impact thereof on the Town of Vail and the surround- ing areas. The Town of Vail finds that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare to accomplish the following purposes- L-enance responsibilitiesein,~condom~niumseand conve condominiums, and to promote the public health, safety and welfare, (b) To ensure that .rental unit; ; 1.,~~ing con- verted to conciorriiniums meet r-errsonable r~h~•s.ir.r~l stan- c3a•-~?s ns reciui:~~~d by strixiivi':ion and },ui ].riin<~ adopted by the Town of Vail. codes . (} t ~ ~C:') 'I'o {.~Ir'}tt•i'i.:. rL0171 l];5I1C'C~:',..:i'V CV1Ct]t)!1 . t}ir1 rr~.~,.ir3%~rlt:.`; of rcnt<,). ~i~~i.its bc:~ing ~-r~riv~:~i-t::~t3 to cc)r;-- dam:i.:~i ~iri~,, rind t:o asr:;i~:t t:-iic:rse resident:, :i.,, meeting t})elr fUtUI-`, ~1UU;;lI~g Ilt_'i~c.~:~'. (d) To prescr. ve a reasonable t.><-ilance in • the owned vs. rental hou::;ing' mix rind to r~zii.ntain the .' supply of low to moderate income units available in the mown of Vail. (e) To monitor the supply of low to mod- erate income units so that the Town may take measures to avoid a worsening housing crisis. 17:40.020 Definitions • The following definitions shall apply to the interpretation of this Chapter: , (a) By-Laws: By=laws as used in this Chapter shall refer to the by-laws of the unit owners' association or corporation. (b) Condominium L7nit: Condominium unit ' means an individual air space unit together with the interest in the common elements appurtenant to such unit. (c) Community Apartment: Community apart- ment is defined as a development in which there is ar. undivided interest in the land coupled with the right .' of exclusive occupancy of an apartment located therein. Community apartments shall be subject to the same restrictions and conditions set forth herein for con- - dominium units. (d) Condominium Conversion: Condominium conversion is defined as the development or use of the land and existing structures as a condominium project •regard less of the present or prior use of such lands and structures, and regardless of vahether substantial improvements have been made to such structures. (e) Condominium project: Condominium pro- ject is defined as the entire parcel of .real property, including all structures thereon', to be divided into two or more units for tl~e purpose of constructing or converting existing structures to condominium units. (f) Declaration: A declaration is an inst•rul-nent recorded pursuant to the Statutes of the State of Colorado a.nd which defines the character, duration, rights, obligati-ons,.and limitations of condo-inium o~anership. (g) Individual Air Space Unit: An indivi- dual air space unit consists of any enclosed room or rooms occupying all or part of a floor or floors of a building of one or more floors to be used for residen- tial, professional, commercial or industrial purposes, which has access to a public street. (h) Moderate Income: Moderate income shall be as defined from time to tame by the Council. f"r1 ~;. r'~`i cr f,' '~ 17. ~U..0:3~~ ~ 1'rr~] ~imir,~az_~, ;~'.,;, T~11. }~r.c~~~oscd r~r,r~c,3~~rninii.rm pr.ojc-•ct_s shall submit i:1rc~ r~rc~l.irninary rn.in ~„ ,:ir .. ,; , 't ion c~Ild (J . : ~ ,. n{:,';1. lr ~,.r. i.r~fortria~. rec]uircrncnts ~. }~~c_~ find in Ch~iptc~r 17.16 of this `i'i.tl e ]_7, ~-~ may be <.,;;plicab].e to the proposed condomin~.um project. In ~sc7{liti.on to thtit nforma- tion, the preliminary map for the condominium project shall include; (a) A map showing, all common arias and usages of the building ~ir.d grounds, and plans for the interior division of the building showing hori- zontal and vertical boundaries of alI units. (b) A copy of the declaration applicable to the condominium project.. _ shall contain)the i~for~ation required byhthbyCondo- mxnxum Ownership Act of the State of Colorado. All condominium projects shall comply with this require- ment. 17.40.040 Final rsa~ {--~ ~ The_ final map for the condominium project ~~:,~_. shall contain all information required by Chapter 17.16 of this Title I7 as the same may be applicable to the condominium project. In addition, if there are any restrictive covenants, conditions or res- • frictions other than specified in the declaration, they ,shall be filed concu gently with the final map. 17.40.050 Review Procedure The review procedure 'for condominium pro- jects and condominiu.-n conversions shall be in accord- ance with the procedures -for subdivisions as speci= fied in this Title 17. 17.40.060 Conversion to Condominiums In addition to any other applicable require- ments contained in this Chapter, condominium conversion projects shall comply with Section 17.40.080 through 17.40.130. 17.40.070 Additional Requirements - Condominium . Conversions The applicant procosing to make a con- dominium conversion shall provide the follocaing documentation with the preliminary map; (a) A condominium conversion report from the Town of Vail nuilding Inspector on the condition of the building, lisf:i.ng all building . code violations, fire code violations and related violations which are detriir,ental to the health,. safety and welfare of the public, the owners, and the occupants of the building. The applicant shall have available and shall provide copies of this report to all prospective purchasers of •condorinium units or interest in the con~3ominium project. • (}~) it r't~j>OX'1: c„ 1:}1C }ir.C>}~U:;E:•c1 c.:C~;7Ve_rSiOn includ~n,] t_}1e f.ol]owing i.r,rorrn~3tion: • .. _ , , (1) Lengt}-r of occupancy of ,,resent tenants. (2) The household composition of present tenants. (3) Current: rental rates; whether rents include or exclude utilities; date .. and the amount o.f bast rental increase. (4) A summary of the proposed owner= ship of the units, if the units will be sold as time-s}lare or interval ownerships; the approximate proposed sale price of units and financing arrangements to be• provided by the applicant. (c) Plans acrd descriptions showing how the following will be performed:. . (1) All site work shall be brought up to current Town of Vail standards unless a variance therefrom. is granted to the appli- • cant by the Town Council in accordance with the variance procedures of this Title 17. The Town Council may, if it deems necessary, require additional parking facilities to meet requirements of owners and guests of . the condominium units. ~` _ • (2) Corrections of violations cited . in the condominium conversion report by the Building Inspector. (3) Condominium projects shall meet current Uniform Building Code requirements for heat and fire detection devices and sys- _ terns. (4) Condominium .projects shall have public utilities independently metered to. each unit; water may be on a common meter if appropriate agreements are included in the covenants, declarations, conditions, and restrictions. (5) All applicable taxes, fees or ! . . charges for water, sewer, recreational amen- ities, or other services that would be pay- ``~. able to .t he Town for~the project if it were being constructed new rat}per than being con- verted, shall be paid by the applicant prior to approval of the conversion. The applicant shall be credited in the amount equal to the ' corresponding fee, tax or charge that was paid to the Town of Vail when the building was built. 17.90.080 Action on Prelirni.n~-rr Map (a) At the hearing on the preliminary map, the Planning Conuni ~sion ;hell consider whether the. pro- posed conversion i s consi ::tent with the foll.o~.~ing hour - ing go~rls of the Town of Vail: C1Yr3, . (l.) 'To ~~i~~.~c,tar.agc c~c~nt. ir,~...,; :i<>n Of sc,ci~rl ~rnd c~<:~r,;,c;r,,i.c di.vr,z~:_,.i.t:y ire t..he Town of Vail t}iro1.1~~:7 a variety of 1,~,,j;ing type:,. (2) To c::~:;r.:,nd the supply of decent housing for low rind moclcrate income family+'.~~:. (3) To achieve greater economic bal~-~nce for the Town of Vail by increasing the n wnber of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold t}~c~m.. (b) The Commission may require that a rea- sonable percentage of the converted units be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income. • (c)_ The Planning Commission may deny the tentative or preliminary map upon finding that: (1) Based on the information required by 17.40.070 and on the vacancy rate for rental housing, tenants will have substantial difficulty in obtaining comparably priced rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below five percent (5Q) based on the most recent Town survey shall constitute a housing emer- gency situation. • (2) The ratio of multiple family rental units would be reduced to less than twenty- - five percent (250) of the total number of dwelling units in the Gore Valley, from Dowd . Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with . no rep~.acement.rental housing being provided. 17.40.090 Preliminary Public Report (a) No later than five days after the filing of an application for conversion, the applicant shall notify the tenants of the proposed condominium conversion and report to the Planning Commission at its public hear- ing, the approximate number of tenants desiring to con- vert to condominium ownership. (b) Existing tenants shall be notified of the proposed sale price. Each tenant sha11_ have a ninety day non-assignable option to purchase their unit at this preliminary market value. The "preliminary market value" shall be a fair market value for the unit, and if the Planning Commission deterrni.nes that the preliminary market value was too high, the application may be denied. 17.40.100 Final t~;ap T}~e •final map t.o be filed by the applicant shall contain the infor;~ation required by Section 17.16. 130 relating to subdivisions as the same may be appli- cable to the condominium project. In addition to that information, the applicant .hall obtain the following certification to be filed ~;ith the final map: Receipt of a condominium report from the Building Inspector of the 'i'o~ti~n of Vail stat_i.ng that condominium structure and units are in conformance with the Town of Vail building codes, fire codes and other related codes adontc~<3 by t}ie 'T'own of. V.-~i1 or t}re Vail Fire Pre>ti~ction Dis.tr-ict, or that .~rtrr~,rments h.1ve k~~cn crnt~rcd irrt.o ~.ith th~:~ ~i•~~wn Uf 1'.-i1 car '~',,il Fire ~'roLection 1)i~>trict conccrnic,c~ said St2"i1C't..11rC and units:. (i, ~1 . . _..._._ ~. P~yl: i 17.90.].]0 ?'_~_n;,_1 ;",_ii~_.T~;:;~r~,v.,]_ t:o f.iu~+l or 1,,,rti;ll m~~p ::?;~.;]]. :~~• approv~,i ~. unti.l t11e certi f.ication ~i_~•ciua.red in 17.90.100 is • . obtained. 17.40,120 Subdivision Pl/bli.c Report The subdivision F~ublic report shall state that sales ar.e subject to occupancy by the existing tenant for ninety (90) days from the r?.at-e of issuance of said report, tai thin five (5) days of issuance of the subdivision public report, the applicant shall notify the tenants of the fallowing: ,. (a) The date of issuance of the report. (b) The right of .occupancy specified above. (c) That no repair or remodelling will .~ begin until at least thirty (30) days after the date of the issuance of the subdivision p~.iblic report, or the date of notification, whichever is later. the the con the (S) Copies of said notices shall be filed with Department of Community Development at the time notice is given to the tenants. In the case of a version project consisting of four parcels or lass, applicant shall meet this require~ient within five days of the approval of the final maw. 17.40.130 Improvement Security .. ~, The Planning Coru*lission and the Town Council . may require a security.to be. posted by the applicant. which shall consist of one or more arrangements which the Council shall"accept to .secure the actual cost of construction of such public improvements as are "required ' by the ordinances .of the Town .of Vail. The improve;nent security may include any one or a combination of the tyres of security or collateral listed in this paragraph, and the applicant may substitute security in order to rel`ase portions of the condominium project for sale. The types • of collateral which may be used as security are as follows: (a) Restrictions on the conveyance, sale or transfer of any unit within the condominium project as set forth on the final map, (b) Performance of property }:ond. (c) Private or public escrow agreement. (d ) Loan co:rmi tment . (e) Assignments of receivables. (f) Liens on property. (g) Letters of credit, (h) Deposits of security funcs; or other similar :ty :,cements. Sc~~• ; ty c,'.;,~~r. then plat rc~,t 1-ictions, r~~•~~ui 1-n? un;3cr i11c i:, '. ~,v,:r,~,nt r:~'cllrity sh.a11 er:u•-11 in value !;, c: • ~"^St (?f t 11(' i : ;'•I'OVt?1'lt~nt'.'. t O tae • co:nl~) ~'t ~-•r] l~llt ShA 1 1 ni,t. 1,c' ircltlirrd can Lhc~ }port:ion cat t.hc~ conc]c>;ninil,:n ,~rojcct: :.ul,j,~~•t t:o j~],+t r~~s:t.ri~t.ions. 7'l,c~~f'c,uncil ~.hal] I,~,t rr..c]uil'~• •,,~c~ur- it:y with c•c,] ];It,•r:ll air r.,n~t~•1:•.c,nt_s in ~,xc.,.:;~; of the ~ . ••;-,1 f I - (-) ~ r 3 . - ----•----- P ~ ~ < ~ , ~ y , cost: of corisi.rur~ti.on of i.hr, in~j~~rov~_;,~~.nt~;. The am~~unt . of security r~,~y hn i.ncrc~rn~:n.:~].ly r~,r>>>c.~-•~~ .~r subdi.vi-- Sion or conc]o:ninium imprwc~t,ents ar.e corn~~leL-ed. 17.40.135 F_,x~ ;nptions The terms of this ordinance shall not apply to devel.oprnents or structures of two units. 17.90.140 Applicability ~ • The terms of this ordinance shall be appli- cable to condominium projects that are cor^,menced or converted after the effective date of this ordinance. Section 2. ~nergency. The Town Council finds that an emergency exists for the following reasons: .~.(a) The decreasing availability of rental units has become an increasing problem within the Town of Vail. (b) In particular, .the availability of low and moder- ~.. - ately priced rental housing has been declining within the Town of Vail unti-1 now the lack of housing for~low and moderate income •residents is at a crisis point: . (c) At leas t. one large project, Apollo Park, and other .~ smaller projects have been sold or are .to be sold shortly, and the • rental units will~be removed from the moderate and low income ren- •• tal-market to be sold as condominiums or time-share units. The loss of these units to moderate. and low income residents will push a crisis situation to the emergency level. •• (d) The rate of conversions of rental units will esca- late upon the notice of this ordinance. Therefore, based on the above, the Town Council finds and is of the opinion that an emergency exists, that this ordinance is immediately necessary for the protection of the public health, safety a:~d welfare, and••the provisions of the within shall take full force and effect immediately as an emergency ordinance in accordance ~:ith the Charter of th.e Town of Vail. Section .3. If any part, ~;ection, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is fox any reason }geld to },e invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the rcm.zin- ing portions of~ this .ordinance; and i.he ,Town Council :hereby c3c~c-1 sires :. trU. 3, ' it +~~c~u.ld hrcve pr3:: ;cc3 t..hi.s C~rc3 J n.,ucc, ,end c~r,ch };,,rt., section, :,,,}.;- s~~c~tion, ,c~ntc.~nc~+, C];,u~cc nr `-,hr-,, ;;e th~r:-r~of.: r }, r ~c;,;rc3l.ess of t:. . fact that any onc+ or mare parts, c.ctions, subsections, sentence , clauses or phrases be declared i.nva]_i.d. i ~ INTRODUCF,D, READ AS All Iri•,ERGENCY OFZDIt~~;?~CE, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLLSHED 02~~CE IN FULL, this 5th da.y of Septembcr_, 1978. . i' ---~-~1``-`- Mayor ATTEST: ~ . T . Town Clerk ADGPTED AS AN Eh1ERGENCY ORDINAtv'CE• - firsi;~reading only. t l t M~ ~•90t?/11•J r)tif~1 T0: Tom Council and Planning and Enviro~rrnental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 16, 1982 SUBJECT: Construction in the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead general area This past year the Community Development .Department has received several questions and concerns regarding construction in the Vail Village area and the Vail Lionshead area. Some people have expressed that they would like to see more controls and reduction of the. amount of construction that would take place in both areas, while others have expressed that they would like to be able to have construction on a year-round basis. Below are some of the concerns that have beeri expressed Department. Attached is Ordinance x`17 of the Series of by the Town Council to regulate construction within the Lionshead area. The major question before the Town Coin do you consider that Ordinance #17 of 1980 is .adequate, changes such as those listed below? to the Community Development 1980 that was approved Vail Village and Vail ~cil and the PEC is, or would you suggest One suggestion is to define a major project and a minor project,~and that only x amount of majors and y amount of minors can take place cluing any one year in the Vail Village and Vail Lions Head areas. If this is determined to be desirable by the Town Council and Planning Commission, there ti•~ould probably have to be a system where you would determine which major and wf~ich minor projects would be allowed to be constructed during that year. Two systems that have been used throughout the country are: a) to set up a point system whereby the Planning and Environmental Commission would determine the most beneficial project on a point by point basis; b) would be to have a lottery, where you would put all major projects in a hat; and all minor projects in a hat, and then pick the number of projects determined to be appropriate for both areas. 2. A concern of the staff is having projects started early after the ski season has concluded. It is probably more desirable to require that the contractor must take out a building permit for any major projects if that designation is determined within the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead area by April 10 and that construction and site work must start by the end of April. Small projects that require only a few weeks of construction would not be required to follow the above schedule. 3. Another aspect that needs to be reviewed would be how many projects in one defined area should take place during one year? There could have been cases this last building season whereby he could have two projects taking place directly across the street from each other. The impacts are: the amount of construction taking place in one area, and the co~~str°uctioi; fences coming out of the right-of-way and making the streets a great deal narrower in one location. Does the To-vn Council and Planning and Environmental Commission want the staff to look at a way to insure that we don't have projects taking place directly across from each other during the high sunnier season. 4. During the last few months there has been Borne discussion about the need to have some type of guarantee that once a project starts. it ~•~ould be completed. l•~e have had one case ti•~here a project has slo~•~ed down because of the lack of funds being available to continue the project. This has been a one case situation, and the question tt~e staff .has is, does the staff need to revie-,r how to guarantee projects will be completed by looking at performance bonds, letter of credit, or other instruments to guarantee that funds would be available to complete the project? ~• 5. During this last building season, m~~~rclrants and sor~c~ tourists have cc~r~;!la fined regarding power tools at the site o{!cr•a ling during tie 1 ur-,ch time prr+• ir,d. Some people consider~• this very cl~isru~:!tive to the cr:rnmercial activity taking place and the anil~iance taking place in the Village, s~~ecifically during lunch time. Do you want the staff to look at ways to insure there ~~tc.,u1d be no power tool vrork during .the restrictive times for allowing vehicles in and vehicles out and during lunch times? 6. During the winter season only repair-work is permitted. Does the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission want to see projects under construction during the winter? The staff would like to know if you have other comments and concerns that the staff should work on regarding construction in the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead area. If you have other comments and concerns, we would like them brought up at this meeting so that we can review and study what the impacts of potential changes. might be on the Town of Vail. If the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission desire to make changes in the ordinance, we will do the work to complete those changes and have them before the Town Council this winter to be in place for the 1983 building season. ' ; 1 LARRY SMITIi ~l COMPANY LTd. 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 (415) 328-3701 December 13, 1982 Mr. Dick Ryan Town of Vail 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Dick: In response to the complaint regarding the distance measurement from Vail-Glo to the West Entry Bus Shelter, the following points should be kept in mind: 1. The distance to five (5) other building/projects have been measured from this same point. 2. An additional five projects have been measured from the new stairs at the south entrance. 3. Vail-Glo and the other properties in this area are benefited because of the bus shelter, and Vail-Glo more so because it is directly across the street. 4. Nearby sheltered transportation facilities are a significant amenity for lodging customers, especially for older people and during the winter months. 5. Although work to the sidewalk, street, and landscaped areas of this West Mall entry has already been completed, and is thus not part of the improvements to be financed by the District, all of these improvements were initially part of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan. These improvements previously completed were paid for solely by the Town of Vail but benefited Vail-Glo.as well as other properties, and the proportion of benefit is partially related to a project's distance from them. Although these other improvements previously completed were not considered in the definition of this area as a starting point in distance measurements, in fairness they might have been. 6. The bus shelter and vicinity is actually an extension of the mal l area but is separated from the new mall improvements by the Concert Hall Plaza Mall. This is because the Concert Hall Mall is (i) private property (and therefore the Town of Vail is not responsible), and (ii) it is in good physical condition and not in need of repair. REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS MARKET ANALYSTS URBAN ECONOMISTS Mr. Dick Ryan Town of Vail December 13, 1982 Page 2 7. The amount to be spent on the bus shelter is substantial and thus a logical inclusion in the major improvement category. There are also major implications if the bus shelter at the West Mall entry is not used as a starting point for distance measurements. These implications are as follows: 1. For consistency, the new stairs at the south entrance would probably also not be used as a point from which to measure the distance to any project/building. Thus, only the improvements to the mall proper could be used. 2. The Vail Spa would be outside of the 600 foot district and yet would benefit from the bus shelter and mall improvements. 3. In addition to the Vail Spa, the assessments for ten other projects/ buildings would-be reduced because.of greater distances to the nearest major Design Plan Improvements. These are Vail-Glo, Enzian Lodge, Enzian Condos-A', Enzian Condos-B, Antlers, Lion Square yorth, Lion .Square I, II and III and the Marriott Mark, 4. Since the total assessment remains the same at ~l million, the reduction of the amount to be paid by these 11 projects must be shifted to all the other projects. Thus, overall the assessments of 11 projects would decline while 21 would increase. Without redoing all of the calculations, I am unable to tell you precisely the amount of the shift, but I would guess it would entail about 10%, or $100,000 of total assessments shifted from the 11 projects to the other 21. The effect on each project would be different, ranging from -100ro for the Vail Spa to maybe +10% or +20% for some of the other projects. Without reviewing the effects on each, I am unable to say whether the new assessments would be fair and equit- able in relation to the benefits. In summary, we believe that the l•Jest Mall Entry bus shelter is a major benefit to surrounding properties, and should be used as a starting point in measuring distances to projects/buildings. incerely, ~~ N J. l• CE JJ1•J: e r - -1 ~ ~y to~~ ofi uaill~ 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 Mr. Gary Miller Heritage Cabletelevision P.O. Box 336 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Gary: office of the town manager March 23, 1982 Thank you for your informative presentation to the Town Council last Tuesday evening. After six months of owner- ship, I think that there is a universal consensus that service, reception and attitude of the company are greatly improved. I regret that the local origination efforts have not been effectuated to the extent we had hoped for. I hope, however; that with the recent grant to our Regional. Council of Govern- ments that we may all get more serious about this aspect. Thanks again for your presentation. Sincerely yours, .h ~• ~, ~ `~` Richard Caplan Town Manager cc: Jim Cownie, President Heritage Communications, Inc. Other Entertainment Technolo ies Cable and the g Cable has enjoyed its favored position as a forerunner in providing the entertainment and service system for the future. lately, however, public concern has risen and some opinion has changed. Some feel the new technologies, MDS, DBS, SMATV, STV, pose a serious threat to the future growth of cable TV. In any industry, fear of competing technologies can paralyze a company and a financial community. Too often, we assume an established industry will be harmed quicker and to a greater degree than has almost always been the case. The perceived threat of these technologies is similar to that posed by radio to newspapers, or broadcast television to radio -and, of course, most recently, the threat of cable to broadcast television. In each case, of course, the challenger carved out its own niche in the total marketplace. But, the "challenged" business remains and prospers. Importantly, however, it was those businesses which did a good job, businesses which adapted to the changing environment that survived. WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE? NCTA President, Tom Wheeler, has described cable as the competihue choice. Referring to research in the Shape of the Video Market in 1991, he stated that cable will be in 55% of all U.S. homes, STV in 5.1% and DBS in 4.7%. Paul Bortz, managing partner of Brown, Bortz & Coddington, a Denver- based economic and policy research firm serving numerous clients in the communications field, estimated that together all of the media viewed as cable's competitors could have ]0% of the total market by 1990. This would be principally in areas not served by cable. Heritage believes that the cable industry can work with these new tech- nologies. The communications market is growing and expanding and increased competition to cable TV should be expected. But, there is no technology that now exists or is being planned that threatens the existence or long-run viability of the cable industry. Heritage is doing a good job. And, more significantly, we are committed to good performance and customer satisfaction. These two characteristics are essential to success in the cable business. - -HOW-SERIOUS IS THE-CHALLENGE?-- But what about our competitors? [f cable is in place in a community, the threat of other technologies is minimal. A recent study by the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) found that once a consumer receives a tele- vision entertainment service via any medium, other technologies, have a difficult time competing. So, if cable is there first, the challenge is insignificant. In cable systems under construction, however, SNiATV and DBS could quickly establish service, develop a subscriber base and inhibit cable growth. Heritage Itas minimal exposure iii areas where competing entertainment businesses have been established first. Currently, the competitive threat is not eery significant. Cable provides more services, more efficiently, and it's already in place. [n addition, cable also has better current sources for acquiring exclusive programming. Only cable has two-way capability. Only cable can create localized programming that is technologically not feasible for much of the competition. HERITAGE'S PLAN OF ACTION We recognize that when a business refuses or is unable to adapt to a changing environment, it fails. This' is not the case with Heritage. We know that Heritage is in the business of delivering aservice - primarily entertainment. As such, we are strongly committed to our custom- ers. This means that:ve will do our best to provide high quality technical service and to be responsive to our customers. This commitment, coupled with the unique advantages of cable and the services it provides, will insure our survival and growth. More broadly, we recognize that Heritage is not just in the cable television business - we are in the communications, entertainment, and information industries. This perception of our industry role and our future development strategies will allow Heritage to grow and prosper in the coming years. N d~~ ~ ~. a=~ .~ ~N~ goo ~a v, < c o ~ ], N fCp c. 0 ~y c ~ o ~~ .~ ~ p ~ro ~ ° a cyn ~ a o ~ ~ m ~ m 1982 Third Quarter Report Herita e Communications Inc. g ~~ F 9 ;'~ . _ ~~r: ~ , _ _,~ ~~, .. p, -r!~ +«~ .~ ~"k l ~ 'n~ ~~` ''~._- .i r ~_ y~ ~ ~. -.: [+4•~riF 1 A ~+;~~ :~ Sha~-eho9ders' &8e~mt October 22, 1982 Earnings for the first nine months of 1982 were $.49 per share compared to $.28 per share in 1981. 1982 results include $.22 per share from nonrecurring items associated with limited partnerships sponsored by Heritage compared to $.04 per share in 1981 from similar non-recurring items. Excluding these items, Heritage earnings were $27 versus $.24, an increase of 12%. Third quarter earnings were $.05 in 1982 versus $.04 in 1981 (excluding nonrecur- ring fees). We are generally pleased with these results, given the current economic environment in the country and the substantial investment and development which we are doing with our cable television properties. This development for the future has ashort-run negative impact on earnings. Capital expenditures in 1982 have been $14:4 million versus $10.5 million for the first nine months of 1981. We have been relatively conservative in our cable television development, -- -refusing to enter into franchising commitments or acquisitions based on unrealistic projections for the future. We are not concerned about-the future of cable television; we still believe it is the best communications system for the future, especially in the small to mid-sized markets where Heritage operates. But we believe it is irresponsible to enter into projects which can only be successful if there are major changes in the revenue or operating structure of the industry. Given our lower investment per subscriber, we will benefit from future advances in the industry without the risk associated with other companies. Much of the reason for the failure of cable television industry stocks to participate fully in the recent stock market increase is a fear generated by the business press of technological competition to cable. No technology planned has the potential to compete effectively against cable in markets where cable already exits, such as those where Heritage operates.. We discuss this concern more fully in a statement on cable and its competitors at the end of this report. Our marketing products companies normally have a very slow third quarter, and this year especially with the economic slowdown was no exception. We believe that the fourth quarter will show improvement in these companies. We are optimistic about 1982 and beyond for Heritage. C~rn~9i~ate~l ~V~rac~ S9~eefs HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES September 30 (unaudrted) (000's omitted) Assets 1982 1981 Current Assets: Cash .......................................... $ 1,005 Receivables .................................... 17,959 Advances to affiliates ............................ 6,121 Inventories .............•..........•............ 6,097 Prepaid Expenses ............................... 1,198 Total current assets ............................ 32,330 Investment in affiliates ............................. 3,725 Property and equipment, net • .. • .................... 65,100 Goodwill,net•..• ................................. 23,747 Other assets,net ... ............................... 4,622 $129,524 Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity Current Liabilities: Notes payable .......................:.......... $ 2,370 Current installments of long-term debt .............. 1,763 Accounts payable ............................... 4,910 Accrued expenses ............................... 5,741 Advance billings and deposits .. . ..:. ...:.:.:, ::.. - 3, 6 Total current liabilities ......................... 18,140 Long-term debt, excluding current installments ........ 47,174 Other liabilities ............................ • ...... 3,460 Redeemable preferred stock ........ • ............... 18,391 Stockholders' equity ....... • .. • .................... 42,359 $129,524 ~tr~YisYa~,9 ~aai7un~* HERITAGE COMMUMCAT[ONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Nine months ended September 30 (Unaudited) (000's omitted, except per share data) Third Quarter Nine Months ~~~ e~ ~~ ~~~~~fl~ ~®~fl~®~ HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Nine months ended September 30 (Unaudited) (000's omitted) 1982 1981~3~ 1982~Z~ 1981~3~ 1982 1981 703 15,129 Revenue ....................... $20,864 19,303 68,370 52,700 tq E 18 796 17 743 1 144 Workmg capital provided: 13 278 ' xpenses ..................... , , , 46,423 6 From operations .................. , ............. $12,617 7,917 4,844 Operating income ............. 2,068 1,560 7,226 6,277 Long-term debt issued or assumed ........... , ..... 25,075 26,087 2,145 Other income (deductions): Common stock issued ........................... 144 14,171 Interest expense, net ........... (998) (707) (3,085) (2,135) Redeemable preferred stock issued ................. - 18,384 36,099 ....................... Other 103 (11) 2,473 38 Other ......................................... 94 991 595 Earnings before income taxes .. 1,173 842 6,614 4,180 Total working capital provided ................... 37,930 67,550 49,880 23,435 Income taxes ................... 455 67 1,905 1,317 Working capital used: 1,964 Net earnings ................ $ 718 775 4,709 2,863 Acquisition of non-current assets of businesses ....... 272 11,105 111 973 Aver a common and common ~ Additions to properly, plant and equipment .......... 14,402 10,545 , equivalent shares , ...... • ..... 7,434 7,351 7,417 7,148 Rea ents of ion -term debt and p ~ g transfers to current installments .................. 12,178 24,554 Preferred dividend requirement ... $ 366 366 1,099 867 Investment in affiliates ........................... 3,167 98 3,175 Earnings per common share ...... $ .05 .06 .49 .28 Payment of preferred stock dividends ............... 1,121 457 1,549 Other ......................................... 1,652 293 4,390 ti~Includes depreciation and amortization of $1,963 and $1,488 for 1982 and 1981 Third Total working capital used ...................... 32,792 47,052 4,080 Quarters respectively and $5,849 and $4,346 for 1982 and 1981 Nine Months Increase in working capital ...... . ....... . .......... $ 5,138 20,498 1,739 _ - respectively. __ 14,933 _ - t2~1982 Nine Months results include $2,279 pre-tax, $7,623-after-tax, and $.22 per share - - - _ from non-recurring items associated with a cable television limited partnership 39,839 sponsored by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Heritage, 1,496 t3~1981 Third Quarter and Nine Months results include $200 pre-tax, $]37 after-tax, and 18,375 $.02 per share and $450 pre-tax, $308 aftertax, and $.04 per share respectively from 37,330 non-recurring items associated with cable television limited partnerships sponsored by 111973 a wholly-awned subsidiary of Heritage. Cable Subscribers ................... . Pay Cable Subscribers ................ . Estimated Miles of Cable .............. . Estimated Homes Passed ............. . Estimated Homes in Franchised Areas ... . September 30 December 31 September 30 1982 1981 1981 258,114 238,451 216,816 175,137 154,597 131,122 6,288 5,881 5,286 518,592 484,332 448,002 585,502 557,226 498,364 `Includes wholly- and partially-0wned systems, whether or not managed by the Company. • (For the nine months Revenue Operating income . . Indentrfiable Assets ended September 30 Third Quarter Nine Months Third Quarter Nine Months September 30 (000's omitted) 1982 1981 1982 1981 1982 1981 1982 1981 1982 1981 Telecommunications ........ $9,028 7,156 26,176 20,124 2,112 1,789 5,396 4,629 82,346 63,727 Marketing Products: Display Communications... 2,836 3,142 12,978 9,893 242 (379) 1,263 375 8,626 7,369 Graphics Communications.. 8,999 9,003 29,215 22,677 322 520 2,213 2,244 26,225 25,350 Corporate ............ . .... 1 2 1 6 (608) (370) (1,646) (971) 12,327 15,527 $20,864 19,303 68,370 52,700 2,068 1,560 7,226 6,277 129524 111973 'From March 1, 1981 on. Contact: David Lundquist Vice President -Finance Heritage Communications, Inc. (515) 245-7549 U; Heritage Communications, Inc. June 30, 1982 (1VYSE: HCI) Cor orate and Financial Inf ormatlon p The Company Heritage Communications, lnc, is a broad-based communications company with special emphasis on cable television. The Company, head- quartered in Des Moines, Iowa. has 1,975 employees in various locations in 15 states. Heritage currently ranks as the 17th largest cable television operator, the third largest display com- pany, the third largest speciality adver- tising distributor, the leading company in the meeting room products and school memory book areas, and one of the top short-run book manufacturers. Formed in 1971 as a cable tele- vision company, Heritage's diversifica- tion, beginning in 1979, has resulted in the formation of two corporate segments: Telecommunications and Marketing Products and Services. Heritage Communications, Inc. 6 Months 47,5os Revenue Dollars in thousands Revenue 77,157 $33,397 Operating $ 4.718 5,158 income _ - 1981 1982 $ ll 187 494 1,308 2 677 _r' _ $ (2) (133) (270) (165) ~ (27) 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Corporate Structure Telecommunications Group ^ 114 cable television systems ^ 13 states ^ 255,000 subscribers ^ 17th largest multiple-system operator ^ Leader in local programming ^ Iowa Cable Network: statewide in- terconnected network ^ Lower basic-to-homes passed pen- etration -excellent position for growth without large capital outlays ^ 13 new franchises by June 30, 1982 ^ 9 renewed franchises by June 30, 1982 ^ Sponsored six limited partnerships ^ State-of-the-art systems - Collier- ville, Tennessee (400 mhz) and Compton, California (400 mhz) 4.342 5,010 6,348 23:~ 173 80C 25,079 14'980 Operating income 8.397 2 172 3,515 1976 1977 1978' 1979 1980 1981 Marketing Products and Services Display Communications Group ^ Design, construct, and set-up of large ($100,000 plus) trade show exhibits ^ PhoneCenter Stores ^ Cable TV stores ^ InfoStop travel advertising centers ^ Major supplier of exhibits for Anheuser--Busch and 3M ^ Business communication centers ^ Museum exhibits ^ Portable exhibits Graphics Communications Group ^ Design, manufacture and sell a large selection of calendars and specialty advertising ^ Production of school memory books ^ Print short-run books ^ Easels ^ Lecturns ^ Meeting room and conference room equipment History of Heritage Communications 1970 Idea of Heritage conceived by Jim Hoak and Jim Cownie. Convertible preferred stock issued in acquisition of Colorado cable television systems. 1975 Des Moines cable television system growth continues. Small construction projects completed. 1976 Home Box Office launched in Des Moines. 1980 Major cable television acquisitions in Mississippi, South Texas, and Iowa. Preliminary planning done and contacts made with incorporating shareholders. 1971 Heritage incorporated Initial public offering for $1,275,000 ($10 per share) completed. First cable television franchise received -Urbandale, Iowa. First cable television acquisition made -Creston, Iowa. 1972 Three more cable television systems acquired and six more cable television franchises received. Two-for-one stock split. $1 million public offering completed. Des Moines franchise election held 1973 Des Moines franchise granted to Heritage, and minority interest in Des Moines area franchises purchased from partners. Des Moines construction begun. Kansas City-Des Moines microwave route completed. 1974 Several acquisitions and construction projects push Heritage into the top 50 cable television companies in the industry. Des Moines system completed -first subscribers in June. Minneapolis-Des Moines microwave route completed. Construction of 15 cable television systems. St. Louis display company (Brede) acquired. Fourth limited partnership formed. Heritage moves into top 25 cable television companies. 1977 Subscriber growth continues strong. Acquisition of 24% of Kansas State Network, Inc. Several new franchises received including Mason City and Fort Dodge, Iowa. 1970 Two cable television limited partnerships formed. Radio stations acquired. 1979 CDI (first Heritage display company - St. Paul) acquired. Dimensional Displays & Design (St. Paul) acquired. Investment in Kansas State Network sold. Twenty-eight new cable television franchises obtained. Third limited partnership formed. Two-for-one stock split. Listed on NASDAQ. $15 million private placement with insurance company. New $6.75 million bank agreement completed. $5 million public offering completed. 1981 Dallas/Houston display company ([&M) acquired. Three-for-two stock split and 10% stock dividend completed. $16 million public offering completed. New $20 million bank agreement completed. Shaw-Barton acquired for convertible preferred stock (Graphics Communications Group formed). Fifth limited partnership completed 1982 Heritage becomes 17th largest cable television company. Named 38th fastest growing publicly-held company by Inc. magazine. Radio stations sold. Listed on New York Stock Exchange May 19, 1982. Sixth limited partnership completed Wholly-owned Heritage Cablevision completes $10 million long-term loan agreement with institutional lender and new $30 million bank agreement. Financial Summary six six Months Months 1982f'1 1981111 19811i~ 1980 19791~1 1978 1977131 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 Summary of operations: Revenue ..................................................... Cost of sales and services ...................................... . Selling, general and administrative ............................... . Depreciation and amortization .................................. . Operating income ........................................ . Interest expense, net .......................................... . Equity in earnings of affiliates ................................... . Other income (deductions) ..................................... . Earnings (loss) before income taxes and extraordinary items .................................... . Income taxes ............................................... Extraordinary items .......................................... Neteamings (loss) .......................................... Preferred dividend requirements ................................. . Average common shares outstanding (primary) ..................... . Net earnings (loss) per common share (primary) ................... . Period~nd Position: Total assets ................................................... Fixed assets, net .............................................. Long-term debt ................................................ Redeemable preferred stock .................................... . Stockholders' equity (deficit) .................................... . Working capital (deficit) ....................................... . w Other: Employees ................................................... Shareholders (common stock) .................................. . Common stock price -High bid ................................ . - Low bid ................................. Net earnings (loss) as a percent of: Revenue ................................................... Beginning common stockholders' equity ........................ . Capital expenditures ........................................... Funds from operations ......................................... . $ 47,506 33,397 (24,145) (15,991) (14,317) (9,830) (3;886) (2;858) 5,158 4,718 (2,087) (1,428) 20 18 2,350 31 5,441 3,339 {1,450) (1,250) $ 3,991 2;089 $ 733 501' 7,41D 7,111 .44 .22 $123,734 99,579 60,903 46',653 ° 42,61'2 30;270 1'8,389 18,223 41,884 36;798 16,014 13078' i 1,975 1;850 5,600 4;900 - $ I1'/z 16'/z 7'/z t 1 S/s 8.4% 6.3 17.3% 15.8 $ 8,452 6,146 9,489 5,417 (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 77,157 25,079 14,980 6,348 5,010 4,342 2,677 1,308 494 187 11 (38,741) (11,972) (7,392) (2,291) (1,847) (1,169) (591) (400) (212) (69) (2) (24,222) (7,062) (3,925) (1,937) (1,615) (1,574) (1,099) (558) (297) (168) (7) (5,797) (2,530) (1,491) (1,320) (1,375) (1,366) (1,014) (515) (255) (83) (4) 8,397 3,515 2,172 800 173 233 (27) (165) (270) (133) (2) (3,270) (1,350) (1,256) (1,590) (1,387) (292) (282) (162) 9 21 (1) I 24 151 448 326 - - - 89 116 4,973 67 (842) 47 (272) - 5,217 2,305 6,040 (275) (1,730) (12) (581) (327) (261) (112) (3) (1,405) (520) (1,500) - - - - - - - - - - 1,970 - - - - - - - - 3,812 1,785 6,510 (275) (1,730) (12) (581) (327) (261) (112) (3) 1,240 65 71 127 127 127 121 84 - - - 7,231 5,563 3,946 2,580 2,265 1,414 1,414 1,260 1,199 878 22 .36 .31 1.63 (.16) (.82) (.10) (.50) (.33) (.22) (.13) (.14) 111,776 67,254 27,633 18,007 16,803 17,714 16,051 10,797 3,518 3,267 1,230 56,008 32,666 12,160 10,272 9,814 11,464 11,549 6,737 1,876 1,101 272 34,367 38,306 12,380 16,372 15,645 13,251 12,343 6,955 961 621 174 18,377 - - - - 38,150 20,547 10,700 (974) (865) 2,332 2,461 3,041 2,076 2,337 707 9,051 667 5,841 (1,469) (873) (999) (525) (188) (247) 727 295 1,900 600 300 140 135 117 130 150 42 30 6 5,500 4,000 2,000 700 640 600 580 570 563 535 128 16'/2 165/8 7'/8 23/8 1'/A ~8 23/8 25/8 4'/4 4~/8 1'/2 8'/4 53/8 23/8 1 5/8 '/2 Z/8 1'/2 1'/2 17/8 1'/2 4.9% 7.1 % 43.4% NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 12.8% 16.1 % NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 17,638 10,489 3,029 813 174 1,039 5,701 4,517 941 93 1 10,430 4,544 6,031 714 280 436 116 51 (24) (30) 1 NM =Not meaningful (1) 1982 results include $1,090 pre-tax, $799 after-tax, $.l 1 per share and $1,140 pre-tax, $821 after-tax, $.1 ]per share from non-recurring fees from a cable television limited partnership sponsored by a subsidiary of Heritage and from the sale of a Heritage minority investment to that partnership, respectively. 1981 results include $.OS per share from non-recurring cable television limited partnership fees, $.03 per share included in the results for the first six months of 1981. Prior years' results also contain some minor non-recurring cable television limited partnership fees. (2) 1979 results include a $4,959 non-recurring gain on sale of an investment in an affiliate and extraordinary items of $1,090 and $880 from utilization of net operating loss carryforwards and gain, net of taxes, from the early extinguishment of debt, respectively. Primary earnings per share excluding the non-recurring gain and extraordinary items would have been $.21 per share. (3) 1977 results include in other income (deductions) awrite-off of $842 of certain intangible assets. Telecommunications Group Heritage owns and operates 114 cable systems in 13 states serving over 250.000 cable television sub- scribers in approximately 200 com- munities. The Group employs 658 people. The two largest systems are in Des Moines, Iowa, and South Texas. Other concentrations of systems are. in Central Iowa, Northern Mississippi, and the Colorado mountains. t leri- tage is constructing systems in the suburbs of Memphis and Los Angeles. Cable Television Operations Revenue ~ Operating income (in millions) 13.9 $ 8.2 8.4 $ ~ ~ ~ 1.7 ~--- 1978 1979 1980 1981 17.1 1981 1982 Profiles of Largest Cable Systems Des Moines System The Urbandale, Iowa, franchise (awarded in November, 1971) was the first for the Company Urbandale was the start of the greater Des Moines system which now includes 14 a>m munities. Today, the system employs 161 people. The Urbandale system became operational in 1973. By 1975. Heri- tage's Des Moines system was the largest completed system in the na- tion. In 1976, Heritage became the second affiliate of the first pay ser- vice -HBO. From the beginning, the Des Moines system has been active. in local programming. Today, it main- tains that same strong commitment through the Iowa Cable Network, an experiment in regional programming originating in the Des Moines studio. In 1980-81 with the extension of service to eight more communities, major construction in the system came to an end. The Des Moines system is currently working to in- crease the number of subscribers through sales in multi-family dwell- ings. In addition, new marketing ef- forts will place an emphasis on in- creasing the penetration of basic subscribers to homes passed and the number of pay subscribers. Currently, the ratio of pay subscribers to basic is 94 percent, with three pay services offered and two more planned. Des Moines, Iowa (14 communities) Homes Subscri bers Passed Year Basic Pay 1973 143 - 900 1974 9,000 - 36,000 1975 18,591 49,000 1976 23,997 9,932 81.000 1977 21,120 10,518 87,600 1978 25,540 17,126 90,000 1979 30,281 21,671 90,657 1980 37,200 28,851 102,090 1981 44,427 39,212 111,629 Six months 1982 46,018 42,865 113,000 Des Moines (in thousands) 9,299 Revenue ~ Operating Cash Flow Operating Income ^ 5,598 4,0~ 1 $3,214 ~ $ 9t~ 1 $ 11; ~~ i I ~)ii l x!78 1.880 927 1979 1980 1981 1 27.5 6 months 6 months 1981 1982 Texas System The system in South Texas, Val- ley Cable, was the largest acquisition made by Heritage in 1980. Browns- ville, Harlingen, Alice and McAllen plus 18 other communities were in- cluded in the purchase. During the fiscal year prior to the acquisition, this system produced operating cash flow of approximately $1.85 million. Popu- lation growth and area demographics in South Texas create an exceptional market for cable television. The purchase price of $18.5 million included $1 L35 million cash, $5.9 million assumption of long term liabilities and 150,000 shares of com- mon stock (assigned value of $1.2 million). In 1981, construction of a 14,000 square foot office, studio and warehouse in Harlingen began. Cur- rently, there are 1'33 employees in the system which now serves 24 fran- chised communities. The population growth in this tourist, farming, and manufacturing area is tremendous. [n 1981. 110 miles of new plant were built. Plans call for the completion of 120 miles in 1982 and between 180 and 225 miles of new plant in 1983. The Texas system is in the. mid- dle of a five-year rebuild and upgrade plan which will raise the 12 channel system to a 36 channel system. South Texas (24 communities) Subscribers Year Basic Pa_y At the October, 1980 acquisition 31.110 9.600 1980 32,790 10,655 1981 42.835 21,902 Six months 1982 46?39 27,158 South Texas nn thousands) Revenue ~ 6'"''' Operating Cash Flow Operating Income ^ t ~ ~~:~~> -- _ ;;~ 1 3,045 $2,722 i i3S 2, Telecommunications Group Statistical Summary Homes Passed 92,854 92,854 108, 750 109,4 ] 0 Miles of Basic Pay domes Homes in Year Cable Subscribers Subsa~ibers Passed Franchised Areas 1971 44 1,814 3,245 7,755 1972 1'36 6,3 7 5 - ] 0,315 103,988 1973 151 7,910 11,065 1'30,557 1974 847 28.635 - 63.431 148,685 1975 1,360 40.632 112,733 141,1 fi7 1976 1.378 45.277 9,932 108,393 146,266 1977 1,429 49,565 11),518 125,369 160,168 1978 1,551 57.193 21.857 1'33,871 '122,140 1979 2.0:38 76,150 36,8'10 171,562 `271,705 1980 4,554 176,515 100,772 394.124 439,617 1981 5,881 238.451 154,597 484.332 557,226 June 30, 1982 6,1 U4 252.9:37 167,369 507,184 582,389 6 months 6 months 1981 1982 Marketing r®d~cts and Services Display I Communications Group ~ t. Paul _ This group was formed during the period din millions) of 1979-1981 through the acquisition of four ~ Revenue ~'~~>> ~° ~ 1 ~ ~~-' companies which design and construct trade :br'.17 ~ 28 / show exhibits. These companies also operate 1, ~ ~ ~: ~ travel advertising InfoStops and produce ~ 6.15 o -° museum displays, retail merchanding displays e e .. - for telephone, Cable TV, and other stores, and business communication centers. ~ ~~° Heritage Communications of St. Paul, lac. ~ ~ _ (formerly CDI, Inc. and Dimensional Displays ~ & Desi n /nc.): CD[ (acquired January 1, 1979) g~ Operating income ~~ was founded in 1952 and is located in St. Paul, - $1.17 ~ ~~~ , , ; Minnesota. This company grew through Bevel- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `3 ~`.30' ~ ~ 1~ opment of its basic trade show exhibit busi- i ness and through diversification into airport ~ ~~. ~ r~~ ,initli~~ ~; maths advertising displays, business communication 1978 t 979 1980 ~ 1981 . ~ I ~ i~ l 1982 centers, and retail store fixtures (most notably s ' 1 with A. T. & T.'s PhoneCenter Store for which it _~____~ is the primary supplier . Dimensional Displays & Design, Inc. { ;flQallasll-fouston ~: (acquired June 30, 1979) was founded in 1963. = ' ° 2.35 _' l3 This company, which creates award-winning exhibit designs, developed by providing full (in millions) _ Revenue ~~°°~ . ~ '2:U0,: . service to its trade show clients -exhibit design and fabrication setu and dismantlin $1.$1 o / , p g services, group meetings, sale and lease of ~ ` 1.74'. ~ ~~ ~ exhibit security and handling equipment, au- _ p dio visual equipment, collateral support mate- ~, ` ° ° rials and portable exhibits. Its operations were ~ ~ °- ,_. combined into CDI, Inc. in October, 1981. ~ ~ ° ~ ° - Principal clients of Heritage Communi- pperating income: ~ ~ = :17 ' ~~ ~ ~`.1°l~ ~ 02 ~ ~ ~ 13 cations of St. Paul include 3M, Honeywell, - Control Data, A. T. & T., Gould, and HBO. a ~ $~ ~~-1 ` s Heritage Communications of Dallas, Inc. t ~° and Heritage Communications of Houston, ° ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ nths. Inc. (formerly Industrial & Merchandising 1978 I y79 1980. ~ 1981, ~ I `!~~ 1 I : ~ 82 Displays, lac. of Dallas and 1 & M Display, /nc. ~--~- - _ _ ° ~- - of Houston): [n order to tap the industrial growth ~._ _ _ _ _ _~ potential of this area, Heritage acquired both locations on January 1, 1981. Specializing in ~ ~~~ ~ _ trade show exhibit design and fabrication, St. Louis exhibit installation and dismantling services and retail merchandising displays, this com- ~ i in millions) 3.93 ° pany also designs and handles museum exhib- ,; Revenue. its and is a major supplier of PhoneCenter $3.1 1 3.67 Stores to A.T. & T. Principal clients are: Owens- ~ a Corning, U.S. Steel, Halliburton, Alcoa, Whit- f l , ' taker, and LT. & T. ~ ~-° ° ~ ~ ~ Heritage Communications of St. Louis, Inc. ~ (formerly Brede, lac. of St. Louis): This firm, ~ ~ Operahn~ income 1.OU acquired by Heritage on January 1, 1980, 70 ~ ~ ~ specializes in trade show exhibit design and $ .~0 21 ~''~-~ fabrication, trade show and convention hall decorating, coordination of special events and ~~ mnil~~ 6 maths. entertainment, and meeting planning. Princi- 1978 19'r 9 ~ 1980 191 ~ 1981 1982 pal clients are Anheuser-Busch, Gates Learjet, - - --- Emerson Electric, Brown Shoe Company, 7-Up, and General Dynamics. Note: Financial results depicted do not reflect group overhead expenses or the 1981 losses of Dimensional Displays & Design, Inc., and Anro, Inc., which respectively were combined with CDI, Inc. in October, 198 1, and discontinued in April, 1982. 6 Graphics Communications Group This group was formed with the acquisition in March, 1981, of Shaw-Barton and its divisions which operate in several communications fields. They are: Shaw-Barton: This company designs, produces, and sells Oravisual: This leading manufacturer of meeting room calendars and speciality advertising to approximately 65,000 equipment and supplies -easels, pads, lecturns, production customers through a nationwide sales force of 300. In addition, and conference room boards - is located in St. Petersburg, another 300 employees are located at the Shaw-Barton plant. Florida. The 24,000 square foot complex employs approxi- The 223,645 square feet plant is located in Coshocton, Ohio, mately 90 people. and produces graphic speciality advertising products, primarily calendars. Shaw-Barton 23.8 ~ ~ a., 9.4 9.4 (in millions) ~ - 20.2 20.8 ! .~ . $18.5 ~~ ~ Revenue i Operating income $ 1.5 1.5 1.2 i ~I (in millions) 1978 1979 1980 1981 4 ~ ~_ 6 rrinths. 6 ninths. 1981 • " 1982` $2.9 / Revenue Operating income $ .7 .7 .8 F ~ 1978 1979 1980 1981 School Annual Publishing: This division is the leading Braun-Brumfield: This company manufactures books, producer of memory books (low cost annuals) at the Coshoc- journals, and periodicals for publishers and university presses ton plant and sells by mail to several thousand primary, junior primarily in runs of under 5,000 copies. Located in Ann Arbor, and senior high schools in this country and abroad. Its spring Michigan, the 107,800 square foot plant employs nearly production is a balance to the fall calendar production. 275 people. School Annual 2.7 Publishing (in millions) 2.0 1.6 $1.2 Revenue Operating income .6 .4 $.2 .2 1978 1979 1'980 1981 2.8 2.4 / R /l.l ~ g i I 6 moths. 6 ninths. 1981 1982 ~ i Braun-Brumfield 11.4 (in millions) I-0.4 8.2 $6:9 Revenue Operating income v $.7 '7 .7 J~978 ~ 1.979 ~. 1980 ~ 1981 7 Ca italization p Summary of stockholders' equity: inception through June 30, 1982 Number of Common Fiscal Shares Year Description Issued 1971 Common stock public offering ............................. ... 127,715 1972 Common stock split (2-for-1) .............................. ... 127,715 1972 Common stock public offering ............................. ... 70,000 1972 Common stock issued in acquisition of subsidiary ............ ... 20,000 1974 Preferred stock issued in acquisition of subsidiary ............. ... - 1974 Common stock issued in acquisition of subsidiaries ........... ... 33,187 1974 Common stock private placement .......................... ... 50,000 1974 Common stock warrants issued in acquisition of subsidiary ..... ... - 1974 Dividends on prefened stock .............................. ... - 1975 Preferred stock private placement .......................... ... - 1975 Dividends on preferred stock .............................. ... - 1976 Preferred stock private placement .......................... ... - ]976 Dividends on preferred stock .............................. ... - 1977 Preferred stock private placement .......................... ... - 1977 Common stock private placement .......................... ... 338,195 1977 Common stock issued to employee stock plan ............... ... 7,866 1977 Dilution from affiliates' stock options being exercised .......... ... - 1977 Dividends on preferred stock .............................. ... - 1978 Common stock issued to employee stock plan ............... ... 5,542 1978 Common stock issued in acquisition of subsidiary ............ ... 8,000 1979 Common stock split (2-for-1) .............................. ... 788,220 1979 Common stock public offering ............................. ... 640,000 1979 Reduction in stated value of preferred stock .................. ... - 1979 Common stock issued in acquisition of subsidiary ............ ... 50,000 1979 Conversion of preferred stock to common stock .............. ... 680,700 1979 Common stock issued to employee stock plan ............... ... 10,033 1979 Common stock options exercised .......................... ... 19,000 1980 Common stock issued to employee stock plan ............... ... 6,833 1980 Common stock private placement .......................... ... 333,400 1980 Common stock options exercised .......................... ... 1,500 1980 Common stock issued in acquisition of subsidiaries ........... ... 316,560 1980 Preferred stock issued in acquisition of subsidiary ............. ... - 1981 Common stock split (3-for-2) .............................. ... 1,817,234 1981 Common stock public offering ............................. ... 1,100,000 1981 Common stock options exercised .......................... ... 25,900 1981 Common stock issued to employee stock plan ............... ... 28,794 1981 Conversion of redeemable preferred to common stock ......... ... 471 1981 10% common stock dividend .............................. ... 659,516 1982 Common stock options exercised .......................... ... 19,600 1982 Common stock issued to employee stock plan ............... ... 35,021 1982 Common stock issued in acquisition of subsidiary ............ ... 21,700 7.342.702 Total Common Non- Shazes Consideration redeemable Additional Outstanding Received Common Preferred Paid-in After (Paid) Stock Stock Capital Issuance $ 1,270,950 $ 127,715 $ - $ 1,143,235 127,715 - 127,715 - (127,715) 255,430 915,556 70,000 - 845,556 325,430 267,000 20,000 - 247,000 345,430 1,050,000 - 1,400,000 (350,000) 345,430 38,015 33,187 - 4,828 378,617 250,000 50,000 - 200,000 428,617 10,000 - - 10,000 428,617 (56,000) - - (56,000) 428,617 122,768 - 143,500 (20,732) 428,617 (121,213) - - (121,213) 428,617 10,000 - 10,000 - 428,617 (127,151) - - (127,151) 428,617 300,625 - 185,000 115,625 418,617 549,567 338,195 - 211,372 766,812 25,015 7,866 - 17,149 774,678 (13,127) (13,127) 774,678 (63,675) - - (63,675) 774,678 29,835 5,542 - 24,293 780,220 40,000 8,000 - 32,000 788,220 - - 1,576,440 5,265,546 320,000 - 4,945,546 2,216,440 - - (1,537,965) 1,537,965 2,216,440 100,000 25,000 - 75,000 2,266,440 - 340,350 (200,535) (139,815) 2,947,140 66,626 5,016 - 61,610 2,957,173 21,000 9,500 - 11,500 2,976,173 123,107 5,125 - 117,982 2,983,006 5,001,000 250,050 - 4,750,950 3,316,406 1,875 1,125 - 750 3,317,906 2,498,702 237,421 - 2,261,281 3,634,466 480,700 - 480,700 - 3,634,466 - 794,043 - (744,043) 5,451;700 14,141,467 550,000 - 13,591,467 6,551,700 49,118 12,950 - 36,168 6,577,600 377,488 14,397 - 363,091 6,606,394 - 236 - 8,62] 6,606,865 - 329,758 - 1,771,933 7,266,381 25,368 9.800 - 15,568 7,285,981 315,221 17,510 - 297,711 7,321,002 113,925 10,850 - 103,075 7,342,702 $33,079,308 $3,671,351 $ 480,700 $31,037,805 7,342,702 8 Financial Results, Common Stock Prices, Monthly Trading Volume (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) Common Stock Net Average Net Earnings Stock Price Monthly Revenue Earnin s Per Share Range Volume 1982 First Quarter ........................ $21,871 715 .05 $73/a-10'/s 226,857 shs. Second Quarter ...................... 25,635 3,276 .39 7'/z-11'/z 200,956* Six Months ................... $47,506 3,991 .44 7'/z-11'/z 213,907 1981 First Quarter ..... ................... $13,072 738 .09 $115/s-16'/z 521,058 shs. Second Quarter ... ................... 20,325 1,351 .13 12~/a-155/s 402,049 Third Quarter .... ................... 19,303 775 .06 8'/a-14 298,029 Fourth Quarter .... ................... 24,457 948 .08 9'/s-13 287,777 Annual .... ................... $77,157 3,812 .36 8'/a-16'/z 377,288 1980 First Quarter ................... ..... $ 5,249 404 .08 $ 53/s- 8'/z 242,638 shs. Second Quarter ................. ..... 6,467 610 .11 5'/z- 8'/z 155,294 Third Quarter .................. ..... 6,567 633 .10 7'/s-145/s 329,355 Fourth Quarter .................. ..... 6,796 138 .02 11'/z-165/s 239,349 Annual .................. ..... $25,079 1,785 .31 5~3/s-165/a 241,659 *Listed on NYSE May 19, 1982 Shareholder Anal sis y Number of Shares % of % of Common Preferred Common* Preferred** Senior Management: James M. Hoak, Jr . ................ .... 263,459 2,437 3.6 % .27% James S. Cownie ................. .... 106,342 130 1.4 % .O1 David J. Lundquist ................ .... 6,300 - .08% - Wayne L. Kern ................... .... 6,406 285 .09% .03% Arlan W. Van Roekel ............... .... 24,170 - .33% - Russell W. Calkins lI[ .............. .... 6,950 - .pg% - VVilliam J. Riley ................... .... 110,550 - 1.5 Jay F. Shaw ...................... .... 4,100 64,072 .06% 7.0 Robert T. Buril .................... .... 39,673 - .5 % - Board of Directors* * * ................. .... 650,428 32,879 8.9 % 3.6 Equitable of Iowa ..................... .... 1,371,150 - 18.8 % - Institutions .......................... .... 104,000 - 1.4 % - *7.3 million common shares outstanding **.9 million preferred shares outstanding ***Excluding James M. Hoak, Jr., and James S. Cownie 9 Heritage Strategy Heritage has taken a conservative, consistent ap- proach to its development as a cable television company. Heritage stresses primarily the internal devel- opment of its existing cable television systems, putting emphasis on the management of existing assets, adding new cable television services and products, increasing subscriber saturation through improved marketing, and maintaining franchises through good governmental and public relations. Heritage has taken a conservative approach to franchising, acquisitions, and the introduction of new technology, refusing to commit to unproven products, to make unwise franchise commitments, or to make massive investments that can only succeed if additional revenue sources become available. In refusing to gamble with its investment in cable television, Heritage has focused on smaller markets and has virtually no exposure in the major, urban markets of the country. Heritage has been aggressive and innovative in its approach to financing, with an equity offering in the fall of 1979, which began a wave of cable television stock offerings, and another in January, 1981, near the end of that wave. Heritage has also been aggressive in seeking debt financing at fixed rates, leaving it with little exposure to the interest rate fluctuations of bank debt. To a greater extent than most cable television companies, Heritage has shown some concern for net earnings -both in terms of absolute growth and lessened volatility. Heritage has also stated its goal of producing free cash flow for many corporate purposes, such as debt retirement and balance sheet improvement, cash dividends, and stock repur- chases. In looking at its cable television investments, Heritage has insisted on rigorous financial analysis and a projected return to increase shareholder value. Heritage has made few new franchising or acquisi- tion commitments to the cable television industry during the past year because of its belief that promises and prices have gotten to a level inconsis- tent with a required return on investment. Consistent with its attention to earnings and creative financing, Heritage has put some of its cable television development into limited partnerships. Heritage is the largest company sponsoring cable television limited partnerships and has been respon- sible for six completed partnerships. In addition, Heritage has sought to meet its earnings and cash flow goals through limited diver- sification. Its diversification has been into communi- cations companies, where good management was available or could be provided by Heritage, where Heritage management has expertise, and where the input of Heritage management will be beneficial over time. This diversification has been successful in providing good financial returns, management oppor- tunities, and the potential for future growth. It has been directed toward companies in the communica- tions field that may become suppliers of products and services to telecommunications businesses, but where the ratio of investment to proven profits is still relatively low. Heritage has not been involved in cable television programming or technology ven- tures, because it prefers to maintain maximum flexibility in the selection of suppliers and because Heritage management recognizes that its primary skills are operational. Heritage has consistently defined itself as "a broad- based communications company with special em- phasis on cable television." [t will limit itself to communications because of its expertise and belief that the communications business will be one of the most exciting and rewarding of the 1980's. It will be broad-based within the communications industry because it believes that a company with operations in several communications fields will outperform a narrower company from a financial and stock market perspective. It will emphasize cable television be- cause of its belief that cable television will be the dominant technology in the exploding telecommuni- cations field. 10 Management Profiles James M. Hoak, Jr. (38) President and Director Mr. Hoak received his undergraduate degree from Yale University and law degree from Stanford Uni- versity. From 1969 to 1970, he was a legal assistant to a Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. During this time he published several articles on communications law. In 1970, he returned to Des Moines, Iowa, where he practiced law. In 1971, he co-founded Heritage Communications, Inc. He has served as President and Chief Executive Officer since then. Mr. Hoak was a founder and first President of the Iowa Cable Television Association. He served on the Board of the Home Box Office affiliates organization, the Cable Satellite Network, the Cable Television Administration and Marketing Association, and the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. James S. Cownie (38) Executive Vice President and Director President -. Telecommunications Croup Mr. Cownie, a graduate of Notre Dame University, is a co-founder of Heritage Communications, Inc. He now serves as Executive ice President of the corporation and President of the Telecommunica- tions Group. Prior to this, he was treasurer of a Des Moines, Iowa, investment banking firm. Mr. Cownie is active in industry affairs, serving on many state and national trade association commit- tees, and he is also on the board of C-SPAN, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. David J. Lundquist (40) Vice President-Finance Mr. Lundquist received a degree in economics from the University of Minnesota and a Masters in Busi- ness Administration (Finance) from Stanford Univer- sity. He joined Heritage in December, 1980. From May, 1978 until then, he was Vice President-Finance and Treasurer of First Data Resources, Inc., a computer services firm. Between January, 1976 and April, 1978, he was Treasurer of Valmont Industries, lnc., a manufacturer of irrigation systems, lighting fixtures, and transmission poles. Wayne L. Kern (49) Secretary and General Counsel Mr. Kern, a graduate of the University of Illinois, earned his law degree from Drake University. Before joining Heritage in 1979, he served as Secretary and General Counsel of IFS Industries, Inc., an operator of funeral homes and cemeteries. Arlan W. Van Roekel (36) Treasurer Mr. Uan Roekel received a B.S. in Accounting from the University of South Dakota and a Masters in Business Administration from the University of Iowa. Prior to joining Heritage as its controller in 1974, he worked as a certified public accountant with the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Russell W. Calkins, III (39) Vice President-Corporate Development Mr. Calkins is a graduate of the University of Kansas. He served as Executive Vice President and General Manager of Kirke-Van Orsdel, Inc., abroker/adminis- trator of membership benefit programs for national associations prior to joining Heritage Communica- tions, Inc. Before this position, Mr. Calkins was marketing manager for CRM, Inc., a subsidiary of Ziff- Davis Publishing Co. Robert T. Buril (5s) President-Display Communications Group Mr. Buril has been involved in the display and exhibit industry since 1944 when he joined the Display Department of the First National Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota. In 1952, he established his own display company which was acquired by Heritage Communi- cations, [nc., in January, 1979. He now serves as President of Heritage Communications of St. Paul and the Display Communications Group. Jay F. Shaw (59) Vice President President-Graphics Communications Croup Mr. Shaw is a graduate of Denison University. He has been involved in the calendar and specialty advertis- ing business since 1950 and served as President of Shaw-Barton since 1976. In 1981, the Shaw-Barton companies were purchased by Heritage Communica- tions, and Mr. Shaw became President of the Graph- ics Communication Group of the~Company. He is past chairman of Specialty Advertising Association International. Glossary of Cable and Financial Terms Basic Service -The initial service offered in a community. It usually consists of 12-20 channels available off-the-air and satellite channels supported by advertising. Basic Tier - A group of additional channels marketed as a unit. Cable Television - A communications system that distributes broadcast television signals as well as satellite signals, original programming and other signals by means of a coaxial cable. Converter - A device that is connected to a television set that can increase the channel capacity of the set so that it can receive the many channels offered by cable television. Earth Station - A structure used for receiving those television signals coming from the satellite. Franchise -The contractual agreement between a cable operator and a governmental body which defines the rights and responsibilities of each in the construction and operation of a cable system within a specified geographical area. Headend -The electronic origination center of the cable system, the site of the receiving antennae and signal processing equipment. Homes in Franchised Area -The total number of homes which have the potential for being hooked up to the cable system. Homes Passed -The total number of homes which have cable service available without significant new construction. MSO (Multiple System Operator) - A company that owns and operates more than one cable television system. Operating Cash Flow -Earnings before depreciation, interest, other income, and taxes. Operating Income -Earnings before interest, other income, and taxes. Pay Service - A channel offering movies, sports and made-for-cable specials which are available to the cable subscriber for a charge in addition to the basic fee. Pay-per-View - A coming service of cable that will allow a subscriber to receive an individual movie, sporting event, or concert upon payment of a fee for that single event. Penetration (or Saturation) -The ratio of the number of cable subscribers to the total number of households passed by the system or of pay TV subscribers to basic subscribers. Rebuild - A major construction project at an existing cable television system to replace old equipment with more up-to-date equipment. Satellite - A device located in stationary orbit above the earth which receives transmissions from points and retransmits them to cable systems over a wide area. Subscriber - A household which pays a monthly fee (and a one-time installation fee) to cable system operators for the capability of receiving a diversity of programs and services. c, ~~~~ ~~~ Herita e ~, ~ g ~ ~ COMMUNICATIONS 2195 Ingersoll Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50312 (515) 245-7585 12 Two other areas of 1981 results might at first appear to be problems, but we feel that they are, instead, a wise in- vestment for the future. First, operating expenses in the corporate and Tele- communications Group home office areas grew substantially in 1981. Since many of these ongoing expenses were incurred late in the year, 1982 will also show significant increases. However, we feel that this increased overhead has improved -and will continue to improve -the operations and future financial performance of Heritage. Sec- ond, capital expenditures exceeded our 1981 budget by more than 100%. How- ever, these budget variances were ap- proved during the year, and we believe that they are an important investment for 1982 and beyond. We are pleased that we were able to make these invest- ments. Our goal is not to spend fewer capital expenditure dollars, but rather to spend more - as long as they are spent well. Despite the growth and investment made by Heritage during ] 981, we ex- pect 1982 to show mixed results similar to 1981. We feel that we must be con- servative in budgeting in the marketing products area, since the national economic forecasts for 1982 are so un- certain. Also, we are continuing a somewhat aggressive franchising and new construction program in cable television. And, although we have none planned, we expect to conclude addi- tional cable television acquisitions dur- ing the year. These activities are good investments for the future of Heritage, and they are essential for preserving our competitive position in the cable television industry, but they do have negative short-run impacts. To many economic observers in America, the most serious malady af- fecting sustained economic growth and increased productivity is the obsession of many corporations with demonstrat- ing growth in earnings per share on a quarter-by-quarter basis. Unlike Japa- nese companies, some American cor- porations feel that constant increases every quarter in earnings are a sign of economic health and a necessity to shareholders. However, the true long- run health of a company is often in- consistent with short-term growth in earnings. Heritage has consistently told its shareholders that short-run earnings increases are not a major goal of the Company. In the capital-intensive cable television industry, investments for the future often decrease short-run earn- ings. Heritage has never regarded this building for the future as a negative, and in 1982, we expect cable television franchising and construction to de- crease earnings by at least 10-15Q per share from what they could otherwise be. On the other hand, Heritage (unlike some other cable television companies) does regard earnings as somewhat important; it is our goal to grow well without a substantial earnings decrease. We see 1982 as basically a continua- tion of the past few years -aggressive development in the cable television area, concentration on improving cable television operations, balancing the Company (through internal growth and acquisitions) in the marketing products area, and conservative, creative financ- ing. Our capital expenditure budget for 1982 for cable television construction and development substantially exceeds that of 1981. We expect to continue to improve basic cable television and pay TV subscriber saturation in all systems, thereby increasing operating income per subscriber. We are hopeful for con- tinued strength in our Graphics Com- munications Group and improvement in our Display Communications Group. And our goals and plans for financing continue to be aggressive. We are fortunate to be a part of the communications industry, perhaps the most exciting and poten- tially rewarding industry in the country. We are now the 17th largest cable tele- vision operator nationally, the third largest display company, one of the largest calendar and specialty advertis- ing firms, one of the leading com- panies in the meeting room products and the school memory books area, and one of the top short-run book manufacturers. Taking advantage of these existing opportunities, while growing to preserve our future vitality, is the challenge that we face. We appreciate your confidence in our ability to take the opportunities and your assistance in helping us to meet the challenges. Very truly y rs, ERITAGE OMMUNICATIONS, INC. mes M. Hoak P nt mes S. nie cutive Vice President Telecommunications Two-Year Summary (Dollars in thousands ) 1981 1980 '% Change Heritage cable subscribers 238,451 176,515 35~% Heritage pay cable subscribers 154,597 100,772 53% Revenue $27,486 13,892 98% Operating cash flow ] 0 , 951 5,065 116% Operating income 6,108 2,672 129% Total year-end assets 72,555 55,93'2 30% Heritage Cable Subscribers (in thousands).. Heritage Pay Cable Subscribers (i n ~ thoi~rsands) 176.5 ~ ~tg~l~ 76,1 36.8 4v~ ~ 1 f.9 2 ~~ 197! 1978 1979 1980 1';)81 19~"i 1;178 1919 154'. 100.8 980 1981 1981 was a very good year for Heri- tage's Telecommunications Group. An unprecedented amount of time and en- ergy was devoted to establishing man- agement systems and an operating environment which allowed the com- pany to operate and develop its cable television properties more efficiently and professionally than has been possi- ble in the past. This was appropriate and necessary, not only because of the rapid expansion of the past few years, but also because of management's per- ception that opportunities for further growth will continue to present them- selves. Few cable television companies have assembled the combination of Heritage's management and financial resources; these strengths were drawn upon liberally throughout 1981 and will continue to be drawn upon as new opportunities are identified. Internal Growth Basic cable TV subscriptions in sys- tems existing at the beginning of 1981 increased by 27'%; pay TV subscriptions 6 Letter to the Shareholders March 15. 1982 Fellow Shareholders: Looking back over 1981 for the pur- pose of reporting to you as the owners of this Company and our partners in this venture, we have mixed feelings about the year. While we are generally pleased with Heritage's 1981 results, we feel that they should have been better. While there were good achievements, there were disappointments as well. Net earnings increased by 114% to $3.8 million. Earnings per share were affected by increased shares from a January public offering and preferred dividends as a result of the Shaw-Bar- ton merger, and, therefore, increased by only ] 6% to $.36. Operating cash flow was $14.2 million, up 135%, and funds from operations were up 130% to $10.4 million. This cash flow, coupled with equity and debt financings during the year, was used for $17.6 million in capi- tal expenditures, principally in the cable television area. The Telecommunications Group showed exceptional growth during 1981 with operating income nearly tripling for the year. Basic cable and pay TV subscribers grew substantially (up 35% to 238,451 and 53% to 154,597, respec- tively), operations became stronger, key management personnel were added, and important advances were made in construction, franchising, and devel- opment of cable television systems for the future. The large cable television acquisitions completed late in 1980 were integrated into Heritage. Overall saturation of subscribers to homes passed was increased from 43% to 49%. Acquisitions of 28,235 subscribers were completed, franchises to serve 63,000 new homes were won, and con- struction adding 56,200 new homes was completed. A fifth limited partner- ship was finalized during the year, and a large, national, public partnership, Cablevision Associates VI, was begun in early 1982. But by past Heritage stan- dards, 1981 was a year of focus on internal development in the cable tele- vision area, and a year of significant accomplishments for the future. In March, 1981, Heritage completed its merger with Shaw-Barton, Inc., and formed the Graphics Communications Group from the four Shaw-Barton com- panies. The merger with Shaw-Barton gave Heritage an entry into new com- munications fields, and the addition of fine, experienced, management talent. The Graphics Communications Group had an outstanding year, exceeding our expectations for financial performance. The assimilation of Shaw-Barton into Heritage as a new Group proceeded smoothly, and we are optimistic about this new part of Heritage. There were two troublesome areas for Heritage during 1981. First, our Dis- play Communications Group did not have a good year, due to the effects of the recession, some operating difficul- ties at some companies in the Group, and anticipated problems of integrating these entrepreneurial companies into Heritage. Operating income fell by 91 % to $135,123, and the Group showed losses for the last six months of 1981. We believe that we have identified the major problems, and, although we rec- ognize that some future difficulties will continue, we believe that the financial performance of these companies will improve in 1982. Our commitment to the development of Heritage in the marketing products area has not changed due to this one troublesome year. We know that this development will produce some years with lower earnings from these com- panies than others, but the Graphics Communications and Display Com- munications Groups combined made a significant contribution to Heritage in 198] and we believe they will do so in the future. Further, as we grow and develop in the marketing products area, a clear plan is developing. The provid- ing of business products and services is an increasingly important area of the national economy, and our products are filling an important niche. As we acquire companies in this area, and as we develop new products within these companies, we are able to develop in- terrelationships between the products, develop efficiencies, and fill a larger area of corporate needs. In addition, we expect that someday these products will become tied into our Telecom- munications area through the devel- opment of electronic marketing and communications products. A second problem area for Heritage in 1981 was interest expense, which exceeded our budget despite the com- mon stock offering in January. A combi- nation of high interest rates and aggressive capital spending in the cable television area produced this disap- pointment. While we are obviously un- able to predict the future cost of funds, and while our capital expenditure budget continues large in 1982, we are more optimistic in this area due to recent Heritage financing and our financing plans for the future. 1981 Highlights _~ 1981 HIGHLIGHTS (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 1981 1980 %Change Revenue $ 77,157 $25,079 208% Operating cash flow (1) 14,194 6,045 135% Operating income (2) 8,397 3,515 139% Earnings before income taxes 5,217 2,305 126% Net earnings 3,812 1,785 114% Per share .36 .31 16% Average common shares outstanding 7,231 5,563 30% Preferred dividend requirement 1,240 65 NM Total assets 111,776 67,254 66% Long-term debt 34,367 38,306 (10% Redeemable preferred stock 18,377 - NM Stockholders' equity 38,150 20,547 86% Net earnings, % of revenue 4.9% 7.1 % - Net earnings (after preferred dividend requirements), return on beginning common equity 2.8% 6.1 % - (1) Earnings before depreciation, interest, other income and taxes. (2) Earnings before interest, other income and taxes. (3) Before extraordinary items and excluding non-recurring sale of an investment in an affiliate. Revenue (in rtiillions) $ i 7.2 $25:1 $15.0. i ~:wi ~'~~,1 Gdi 11111Y~S CCI JI ldre "~.6 $.;31 Description of the Company Heritage Communications, Inc., oper- ates in two business areas - Telecom- munications and Marketing Products and Services. It operates or is con- structing cable television systems in more than 200 communities in 13 states and serves approximately 240,000 cable television subscribers. Heritage also owns and operates display com- munications companies in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Louis, Missouri, and Dallas and Houston, Texas, which design and manufacture commercial advertising displays and trade show ex- hibits. [n March, ] 981, Heritage com- pleted amerger with Shaw-Barton, [nc., a company with operations in several graphics communications fields, in- cluding calendar and specialty advertis- ing, book manufacturing, and meeting room products. • Cable ^ Displ< O Graph 2 Contents Letter to the Shareholders ...... ... 4 Telecommunications .......... ... 6 Marketing Products & Services ... ... 10 Corporate Goals & Strategy ...... ... 14 Financial Information .......... ... 15 Board of Directors ............ ... 35 Management Directory ......... ... 36 rose 50%. Much of this growth oc- curred in systems acquired in ]980. For example, the south Texas systems grew from 31,100 basic subscribers at the October, 1980, acquisition date to 42,835 subscribers by December 31, 1981. The growth rate for pay television subscribers was even better, increasing from 9,600 to 21,902. These Texas systems will continue to be a major source of growth for several years, probably surpassing Des Moines as Heritage's largest single system within the next few years. To prepare for this growth, ground breaking occurred in July 1981, in Harlingen, Texas, for a 14,000 square foot, three-phase office. studio, and warehouse facility New em- ployees were added, including addi- tional management personnel, and a new organizational structure was intro- duced. Also, the system was connected to Heritage's central computer which will enhance internal operating effi- ciencies and accommodate the rapid expansion anticipated in the next few years. Other 1980 acquisitions made good progress in 1981; these systems, located in Mississippi, Missouri, Ne- braska, and Iowa showed a 134io basic subscriber increase and a 94°io increase in pay TV subscribers. The Des Moines area system, serving 13 central Iowa communities, con- tinued its subscriber growth while im- proving financial performance. Basic subscribers of 44,427 reflect a 19% in- crease over 1980. Pay TV subscribers increased to 39,212 - a 36°io gain. Much of the pay TV subscriber growth came from the introduction in late 1981 of two additional premium sen~ices, Cinemax and Escapade. [n October both basic and pay TV subscription rates were increased 50 cents to $9.95 per month. This combination of sub- scriber growth and rate increases generated operating cash flow of $3.7 million, a 55% increase over 1980. During the year, Heritage's average monthly subscription fee in wholly- owned systems increased 3% to $9.19 for basic service and 5% to $9.56 for pay TV service. Annual revenue per subscriber increased 33'% to $183, and operating cash flow per subscriber in- creased 44% to $72. The 21 Iowa communities served by systems in four Heritage-sponsored partnerships had a 40% gain in sub- scribers and a 339°/r~ increase in operat ing cash flow. External Growth Acquisition activity, while heavy, did not match the pace set in 1980. Several small systems near existing systems were purchased. The Mississippi com- plex expanded with the purchase of systems in Aberdeen, Shuqualak, Brooksville, and Macon. [n Iowa, Heri- tage acquired systems in Storm Lake, Alta, and Lakeside and unbuilt fran- chises in Lake City and Rockwell City. Eighty percent of the South EI Monte, California, franchise was purchased. The system has been constructed and is now operational. [t is the first of severai Los Angeles area communities that Heritage intends to serve. Cablevision Associates V, a Heritage- sponsored limited partnership, expand- ed through the purchase of the South Padre Island.. Texas, system and the successful franchising of several neigh- boring areas. Cablevision Associates V[, a limited partnership currently under devel- opment, made the year's largest acqui- sitions. The system in Vail, Colorado, and several unbuilt franchises and sys- tems in Iowa, including Fort Dodge, Webster City, and Boone, were pur- chased in late 1981. Those properties, as well as others, will be developed in this partnership, the largest yet spon- sored by Heritage. New franchise awards of over 63,000 homes exceeded expectations. Numer- ous small franchises in Iowa, Texas, and Tennessee, as well as larger fran- chises in Michigan and California, were granted to Heritage. In the Detroit area, a 50%-owned joint venture with Booth American Company, was awarded the 15,000 home franchise for a consortium in- cluding Birmingham, Beverly Hills, Franklin and Bingham Farms. The award, made from a field of nearly 20 applicants, should enable the Booth- Heritage joint effort to win additional franchises in this highly desirable area. . _~ .. . ., ~~~ Telecommunications HERITAGE OPERATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS Des Moines (1) 1.98! 1980 (13 communities) Homes passed ............................... ............... Ill,f,29 102,090 Cable subscribers ............................. ............... 44,427 37.200 Pav cable subscribers .......................... ............... 39.212 28,351 Clinton, lowallllinois Il) f 1 1 communities) Homes passed ............................... ............... 25,116 21,326 Cable subscribers ............................. ............... 14,472 12,7118 Pav cable subscribers .......................... ............... 8,914 6,6'22 Iowa (1) (35 communities) Homes passed ............................... ............... 43.963 35,509 Cable subscribers ........................... ............... 22.026 16,536 Pav cable subscribers .......................... ............... 12,960 11,353 Minnesota (1) (2 communities) 7 326 :326 7 Homes passed ............................... Cable subscribers ............................ ............... , ................ 6,266 , 6,185 Pay cable subscribers ......................... ................ 1.900 1.349 Wisconsin (1) (3 communities) Homes passed .............................. ................ 5,230 5,215 Cable subscribers ............................ ................ 3,275 3,045 Pay cable subscribers ......................... ................ 1,205 623 Colorado (1) (12 communities) Homes passed .............................. ................ 16,405 14.000 Cable subscribers ............................ ................ 13,827 11,883 Pav cable subscribers ......................... ................ 5,098 3,865 Mississippi/Alabama (1) (24 communities) Homes passed .............................. ................ 28,552 ' 21.5112 Cable subscribers ............................ 13 ................ 19.9 15,875 Pav cable subscribers ......................... ................ 5.279 2,732 Texas (l ) (28 communities) Homes passed .............................. ................ 108.750 92,854 Cable subscribers ............................ ................ 42,835 32,790 Pav cable subscribers ......................... ................ 21,902 10,655 Limited Partnership Affiliates (2) (62 communities) Humes passed .............................. ................ 103.340 60,961 Cable subscribers ............................ ................ 52,613 22,690 Pay cable subscribers ......................... ................ 35,121 15,219 Other Cable Affiliates (3l 15 communities) Homes passed .............................. ................ 34,021 33,341 Cable subscribers .................. ......... ................ 18,787 17,603 Pav cable subscribers ......................... ................ 23.006 ]9503 (1) 100% Heritage owned. (2) 1-29% Heritage owned; buy-out otition seven years from commencement of operations. (3) 10-50°/o Heritage owned. In September, a 40%-owned Booth- Heritage joint venture filed an applica- tion for the 60,000 home, southern portion of Pinellas County, Florida, a rapidly expanding unincorporated area near Tampa-St. Petersburg. Several companies are competing for this franchise which will be granted some- time in 1982. Near Los Angeles, franchises were awarded in Compton (24,000 homes) and Hawaiian Gardens (4,000 homes) to CATV West, Inc., an 80%-owned Her itage affiliate. Franchises encompassing an additional 75,000 homes in this area will be sought in 1982. Costs associated with unsuccessful franchise efforts in the amount of $285,000 were written off during the year. The St. Paul and Twin Cities sub- urban effort was unsuccessful and has been abandoned with the exception of Hastings, a 3,000 home city southeast of St. Paul. Heritage decided to discontinue its franchising efforts in the Twin Cities area because of the cities' fiscal prob- lems and the related willingness of some cable TV companies to make unrealistic franchising promises. As a matter of policy, Heritage has not sought, nor does it intend to seek, fran- chises, from cities which are more in- terested in eliciting speculative and futuristic promises in their cable TV franchises than commitments for proven, reliable service. Iowa Cable Network In 1980 Heritage Cablevision began operating Iowa Cable Network (ICN) - a bold experiment in regional pro- gramming. ICN, which links 29 Heri- tage systems, provides quality local sports and public affairs programming to 65,000 subscribers. This live pro- gramming is available to subscribers only through ICN. In the future, ICN plans to include non-Heritage systems across the state, expand the subscriber base, and attract national advertisers. Regulatory and Technical Environment The recent rapid expansion and higher visibility of the cable TV industry has brought more attention from regu- latory bodies. In the past, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pre- empted almost all authority over cable television, leaving specific, limited regulatory areas to local government. The current FCC, however, has indi- cated its intention to deregulate much of the telecommunications industry. The specifics and timing of the dereg- ulation plan are not certain, but it is clear that the cable TV industry will be affected. The industry expects the FCC to act on areas such as franchise fee limitations and the terms on which new, possibly competitive, services such as DBS (Direct Broadcast Satellite) and mu{tiple channel MDS (Multi-Point Distribution Service) will be allowed. Any relief of the burden caused by the FCC's deregulatory plans could be partially offset b_y increased regulation from other entities. Because of fiscal problems, local governments are in- creasingly interested in cable TV. Also, for the same reason, state governments have become more active. On the na- tional level, Congress will soon pass legislation which may affect such areas as copyright liability, syndicated ex- clusivity, common carrier status, com- pulsory licensing, etc. Finally, the judicial system has been called upon many times recently to answer jurisdic- tional, franchising, and antitrust ques- tions. While it is impossible to predict the ultimate effect of the existing dy- namic regulatory situation on cable television, Heritage expects that, on balance, the environment that is evoly- ing will be at least as favorable as that which presently exists. The same conclusion can be reached in the area of competition from services based on new technol- ogy. While Heritage is watchful of de- veloping services and products such as DBS, MDS, STV (Subscription Televi- sion), and "backyard" earth stations, it feels that the technological, legal, and economic advantages of cable TV tar outweigh these alternatives. Heritage Philosophy Heritage has adopted a somewhat unique strategy for its operations and growth in the cable television industry. It will continue to seek new cable tele- vision franchises and acquisitions, but only on terms that it considers to be realistic given the existing state of the cable television industry. It will con- tinue to emphasize the development of its existing systems and the protection of its existing franchises. This will re- quire greater-than-average capital ex- penditures at existing systems. Heritage will look to improve profitability by greater focus on basic service and pay television saturation at present systems and will seek to add new programming and new services as soon as they have become viable. It will not, however, speculate on unproven, "blue-sky" tech- nology to the detriment of its commu- nities, subscribers, and shareholders. Heritage believes that continued growth in the cable television industry is wise, but it will seek to do so in a conserva- tive manner, paying attention to its cash flow and earnings as it grows. HERITAGE STATISTICAL [NFORMATION* 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Cable Subscribers ........ 238,451 176,515 76.150 57,114 47,561 Pay Cable Subscribers .... 154,597 100,772 36,820 21,857 11,909 Estimated Miles of Cable .. 5,881 4,554 2,038 1,551 1,429 Estimated Homes Passed .. 484,332 394,124 171,562 133,871 125.369 Estimated Homes in Franchised Areas ....... 557,226 439,617 271,705 222,140 160,168 *Includes wholly- and partially-owne d systems, whe ther or not managed by th e Compam. Marketing Products & Services In 1979, with entry into the marketing products and services area, Heritage began to acquire businesses to comple- ment the dynamics of cable. By 1981, two new groups -Graphics Communi- cations and Display Communications - were in place. These groups are in generally stable and proven businesses (1981's Display Communications Group experience notwithstanding), with bright prospects for the future, and with considerable importance in Heritage's short- and long-run business strategies. With their relatively low investment- to-profits ratio, these groups should provide Heritage with good earnings, balancing in the short run the Com- pany's cable television operations which generally have the opposite financial characteristics. Over the long run, these operations should prosper in their own right. They are part of the rapidly expanding busi- ness services area, an area from which good growth in the 1980's is forecast. The business of marketing products and services is the business of "helping other companies sell." The companies provide communications products for businesses, just as cable television provides a communications product for consumers. Additional marketing products will be developed internally or through acquisition in the 1980's. The goal will be to create greater busi- ness efficiencies for companies within these groups. GRAPHICS COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Summary (Dollars in thousands) 1981 Revenue $36,179 Operating income 3,639 Total vear--end assets 24,792 10 months; merged with Heritage effective March 1. 1981. With the acquisition in March, 1981, of Shaw-Barton and its divisions, School Annual Publishing, Oravisual, and Braun-Brumfield, a new Heritage group was formed. During 1981, the acquisition was smoothly integrated into Heritage. These companies bring a successful marketing record to the Heritage or- ganization. Shaw-Barton is one of the nation's largest designers and produc- ers of calendar and specialty advertis- ing; Oravisual is a recognized leader in the production of meeting room prod- ucts; School Annual Publishing is well- known as a leading manufacturer of school memory books; Braun-Brumfield is a top short-run book manufacturer. The Graphics Communications Group will provide operational and financial strength and support to Heritage as it seeks a larger share of the communica- tions business. 1981 Review Operating results from the Graphics Communications Group, included in Heritage for the last 10 months of 1981, showed aggregate revenue of $36.2 mil- lion, an all-time high, and represented an 18% increase compared to the same 10 months in 1980. Total operating in- come of $3.6 million was 15% higher than in the same period a year ago. Shaw-Barton, located in Coshocton, Ohio, sells through a national sales force a full line of calendar and spe- cialty advertising. Unlike most of its competitors, Shaw-Barton creates and manufactures 70% of its volume. Of that total, over 50% is highly-renewable calendar advertising. [n an uncertain economy in 1981, Shaw-Barton broke all previous records. Revenue (for 10 months) increased to $20.6 million, an 18% gain. School Annual Publishing produces school memory books (low-cost annuals) in the Coshocton plant and sells by mail and education conven- tions to several thousand primary, junior and senior high schools and small colleges in this country and a- broad. Production is seasonal, peaking in the spring months and complement- ing the plant's fall calendar production schedule. This division achieved out- standing revenue growth over 1980 - up 31'% to $2.6 million. Oravisual is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. While traditionally its meeting room equipment sales (easels, pads, lecterns, production and conference room boards, etc.) have been subject to the vagaries of the economy, 1981 was its most successful year to date. Revenue was $3.7 million - a 21% increase. Braun-Brumfield in Ann Arbor, Michi- gan, is a complete facility for quality short-run books, journals, and periodi- ..~ cats. Representatives work with pub- lishers and university presses in reaching relatively narrow-markets - schools, libraries. professional groups. 1981 proved to be a somewhat difficult year. The depressed economy forced cut-backs in publisher and customer appropriations and price competition was stiff. However, revenue of $9.7 mil- lion still managed to exceed the 1980 figure by 13~/a. Operating Plans and Future Growth With Shaw-Barton in the specialty advertising field, the primary limit on growth is the size of the sales force which currently numbers approximately 250. During 1982, a top priority will be the addition of sales people, especially in territories where Shaw-Barton is underrepresented. In addition to the hiring and training of sales people, Shaw-Barton will continue to seek the acquisition of regional specialty adver- tising distributors. Although Shaw Barton's sales in 1981 were not adversely affected by the economy, prospects for 1982 are less certain. [n addition, the two months of 1981 not included with Heritage operations -January and February -are traditionally loss months for Shaw-Barton. Good growth is expected from the School Annual Publishing operation through an expanded sales effort, offer- ing of products to related organizations, and the tying in of specialized products to existing markets. With an efficient marketing plan based on direct mail. SAPCO can increase its market saturation at a low cost. In addition, churches and civic organizations repre- sent an untapped market. The prospects for growth at Oravisual are outstanding. As a market and prod- uct leader, Oravisual has tremendous potential for profitable growth. The abil- ity to expand its product line, and build on its marketing base, gives great op- portunities to Oravisual. Its ties to the Heritage display communications com- panies, begun in 1981, should continue to develop. And, most importantly, the market for the Oravisual products is expanding dramatically. as good busi- ness communications becomes in- creasingly afocus point of operations. Braun-Brumfield will continue to he influenced by the bid nature of its work in a period of recession and tight gov- ernmental purchases. "f he goals for this operation are to increase its sales effort and to continue to increase its operat- ing efficiencies. Braun-Brumfield and Heritage experi- enced areal loss with the death on March 'l, 198'1. of J. Richard Mellen. President of Braun-Bn~mfield. His posi- tion has been filled by Robert A. Wilson, a man with several years' experience at Braun-Brumfield, who will ably carrti~ on the operations of the company. Overall, the Graphics Corrununica- tions Group should experience steady growth, with some cyclical impact from the economy. Heritage looks fora sig- nificant financial contribution from this Group, as it expands on its business communications base. Marketing Products & Services DISPLAY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Two-Year Summary (Dollars in thousands) 1981 ]980 % Change Revenue $13,487 11,185 21% Operating income 135 1,428 (91%) Total year-end assets 8,514 5,505 55% 1981 was an uneven, troublesome year for the Display Communications Group -not good from an income standpoint, but good from the stand- point of operational improvements for the future. Economic conditions had a definite impact, but internal operational problems were also to blame. The Group focused on curing the causes of these operational problems, on seeking greater shares in its basic markets, and on seeking new markets for its basic capabilities. The results point to im- proved prospects for 1982, and, in time, to significant growth. As disappointing as 1981 income was, Heritage is firmly committed to these operations and its investment in ~tll~ll` ~ ~ ~11~11>~1 Symptoms of the Problems First Quarter results were depressed by the lingering effects of a seven-week strike in St. Paul at the end of 1980. With salesmen inside meeting delivery commitments to clients, selling ac- tivities were curtailed. Second Quarter results were better but operational problems and the economy produced sizable losses in the normally-slow Third Quarter. Fourth Quarter revenues and income sagged after a strong start due to the absence of major jobs that buoyed the St. Louis operation in 1980 and the pressure on gross margins from the poor economy. Solutions to the Problems Despite these results, there are reasons for optimism. New product areas (including travel advertising - [nfoStops -, museum displays, cable TV stores, business communication centers, and new retail displays) were created to supplant phone store fixture sales which have declined due to mar- ket saturation. Heritage entered two im- 12 them. In fact, that investment has al- ready all but fully been recovered, yielding free cash for expansion in cable television and other areas. portant new markets -Dallas and Houston -and consolidated opera- tions in St. Paul, reducing problems and overhead there with a minimum of disruption and with no client losses. A new agreement was negotiated with 3M (the Group's largest single customer) which has restored proper profitability to the plant operated for them. A new president in St. Louis was installed. And, the first stage of a conversion to a new computer system was completed. The Trade Show Industry's Future Prospects The trade show industry is strong with little or no signs of let-up in the 10% annual growth rate of convention square footage over the past several years. Attendance has declined slightly, but the number of trade shows has risen. And, as marketing costs in gener- al continue to rise, trade show selling is quickly becoming recognized as a sound economic trade-off against the person-to-person sales call. 1982 Outlook Major problems have been identified and addressed. The cure will take more time, but the mechanisms are now in place to solve both present problems and the problems which may arise. Together, with continued good pros- pects for the trade show industry and a hoped-for improvement in the econo- my, the 1981 experience provides cause for optimism about 1982. Marketing Products Overview As Heritage evolves into a diversified communications company, the financial and operational balance that the com- panies of the Display Communications and Graphics Communications Groups give to Heritage, the stability and safe- ty that they provide, the profitability that they produce, and the synergy (among themselves and eventually to the Tele- communications Group) that they will create will make Heritage a better com- munications company for its employees and shareholders. 13 Corporate Goals & Strategy Heritage Communications, Inc. Corporate Strategy 1982-84 During the period of 1982-84, Heri- tage will continue on its present course as a broad-based communications company with special emphasis on cable television. This special emphasis should mean that at least SO°/o of Heri- tage's operating earnings will come from cable television when all of Heritage's investments in cable television - wholly-owned, partnerships, and affil- iates -are considered. Heritage will continue to invest heav- ily in the cable television industry - both internally at its developing sys- tems and externally through new fran- chise construction and acquisitions. This growth in cable television will continue aggressively through 1983 when the current phase of the cable television industry growth will have be- gun to subside. Growth in the cable television industry is necessary now for Heritage, since future growth after the franchise period ends is much less pre- dictable. In addition, there is a need for size at this time for a competitive posi- tion in the industry. Heritage will consider expanding its Telecommunications Group through broadcasting acquisitions, cable televi- sion oro~rammin~ ventures, and other related activities, if the appropriate opportunities develop. In the marketing products area (dis- play communications, graphics com- munications, and related businesses), Heritage should continue to grow while seeking the stability and earnings strength that were the original basis of Heritage's involvement in this area. Additional marketing products businesses should be developed inter- nally or by acquisition in order to pro- duce efficiencies and synergies among the different companies in the marketing products and Telecommuni- cations groups. We believe that over the next three years -and beyond - a diversified communications company will perform better from an operational, financial, and stock market standpoint than will a company in one communications busi- ness only Therefore, we believe that Heritage should continue to diversify within the communications business - primarily in the telecommunications and marketing products area. Financially Heritage will continue to strengthen itself by financing in good times and bad. This aggressive financing should continue at least through 1983 utilizing both debt and equity. Heritage will continue to offer limited partnerships to supplement its growth as long as public acceptance remains high and suitable acquisitions are available. In 1982, while Heritage cable televi- sion growth continues strong, it will not be possible to focus much concern on earnings. The losses from new cable television franchises and acquisitions, coupled with aggressive financing, will lower the returns to Heritage in 1982. However, beginning in 1983 Heritage should begin focusing more attention on profitability - redricing assets not needed, working those assets retained harder, and increasing overall profitabil- ity. The business mix of Heritage should be examined in 1983-84 in terms of profitability also. Heritage can then work toward its 20/20 goal (20% return on beginning equity and 20% per year average growth in earnings per share), while still developing in its pri- mary communications fields. Further, in addition to the goal of increased profit- ability Heritage can be expected then to produce "free cash flow," available for any number of corporate and/or shareholder purposes. We believe that the resulting com- pany from the above actions will be well suited for the exciting communica- tions industry in the 1980's despite the uncertainties of the economic future. 14 Financial Information Consolidated Balance Sheets ....... 16 Consolidated Statements of Operations ................... . 18 Consolidated Statements of Changes in Financial Position .......... . 19 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies ............ .20 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ........... . 21 Accountants' & Management's Reports ...................... .28 Selected Financial Information ..... . 29 Five-year Summary ............... . 30 Management's Commentary on Operations ................... . 31 `~~~ 15 ®® Consolidated Balance Sheets HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Assets (note 4) (Dollars in thousands) Current assets: Cash .......................................................................... Receivables, trade (net of allowance for doubtful accounts ~of $532 in 1981; $76 in 1980)..... . Other receivables ................................................................ Recoverable income taxes ........................................................ Advances to affiliates ............................................................ Inventories (note 3) .............................................................. Prepaid expenses ............................................................... Total current assets .......................................................... Investments in affiliates (note 2) .................................................... . Property and equipment: Land and land improvements ................~...................................... Buildings and building improvements .............................................. . Cable television distribution systems ..........................................:.... . Microwave systems .............................................................. Cablecasting and test equipment .................................................. . Other equipment ................................................................ Less accumulated depreciation ................................................... . Net property and equipment ................................................... Franchises, net of amortization of $675 in 1981; $590 in 1980 ............................ . Goodwill, net of amortization of $1,042 in 1981; $416 in 1980 ............................ . Other assets, net of amortization ..................................................'.. . See accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes to consolidated financial statements. December 31 1981 1980 $ 777 326 16,938 3,489 95 127 99,5 95 3,078 3,210 4,935 862 1,243 203 28,061 8,312 595 1,210 1,229 505 7,004 1,472 50,429 35,054 1,534 1,342 2,257 1,483 7,063 1,377 69,516 4],233 13,508 8,567 56,008 32,666 2,125 832 24,097 23,598 890 636 $111,776 67,254 16 Consolidated Balance Sheets HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) Current liabilities: Note payable to bank ............................................................ Current installments of long-term debt ............................................. . Accounts payable ............................................................... Accrued expenses: Income taxes ................................................................. Payroll .................................................... .................. Interest ...................................................................... Other ................................. ...................................... Advance billings and deposits ..................................................... Total current liabilities ....................................................... . December 31 1981 1980 $ 400 - 1,993 1,945 7,793 1,760 209 1,716 960 2,834 3,105 19,010 Deferred income taxes ............................................................. 1,183 Subscriber deposits ................................................................ 656 Long-term debt, excluding current installments (note 4) .................................. 34,367 Minority interest ................................................................... 33 Redeemable preferred stock, no par value. Authorized 922,190 shares; issued 918,946 in 1981 (notes 1 and 5) ...................... . Stockholders' equity (notes 1, 4, 6 and 7): Preferred stock, no par value. Authorized 10,000 shares; issued 9,614 shares .............. . Common stock, $.50 par value. Authorized 20,000,000 shares; issued 7,265,311 shares in 1981 and 5,451,700 shares in 1980 ............................................. Additional paid-in capital ...................:.................................... . Retained earnings ............................................................... Total stockholders' equity .................................................... . Commitments and contingencies (notes 1, 2 and 1 i) See accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes to consolidated financial statements. 18,377 481 3,633 30,624 3,412 38,150 $111,776 75 501 698 913 1,753 7,645 212 509 38,306 35 481 2,726 14,850 2,490 20,547 67,254 17 Consolidated Statements of Operations HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Year ended December 31 (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 1981 1980 1979 Revenue ............................................................... $77,157 25,079 14,980 Expenses: Cost of sales and services ............................................... 38,741 11,972 7,392 Selling, general and administrative ........................................ 24,222 7,062 3,925 Depreciation and amortization ........................................... 5,797 2,530 1,491 Total expenses .................................................... 68,760 21,564 12,808 Operating income .................................................. 8,397 3,515 2,]72 Other income (deductions): Interest income (note 2) ................................................ 1,392 593 339 Interest expense, primarily on long-term debt (net of capitalized interest of $294 in 1981; $236 in 1980) ......................................... (4,662) (1,943) (1,595) Gain on sale of investment in affiliate (note 2) .............................. - - 4,959 Equity in earnings of affiliates 50 percent or less owned (no)te 2) ............... 1 24 151 Other income ......................................................... 89 116 14 (3,180) (1,210) 3,868 Earnings before income taxes and extraordinary items .................... 5,217 2,305 6,040 ]ncotnetaxes (note 8) .................................................... 1,405 520 1,500 Earnings before extraordinary items ................................... 3,812 1,785 4,540 Extraordinary items (note 10) .............................................. - - 1,970 Net earnings ...................................................... $ 3,812 1,785 6,510 Preferred stock dividend requiremen#s ....................................... $ 1,240 65 71 Average common shares outstanding (fully diluted) ............................ 7,231 5,579 4,243 Earnings Per Share: Prirrt~zry Earnings before extraordinary items ....................................... $ .36 .31 1.13 Net earnings .......................................................... $ .36 .31 1.63 Fully Diluted Earnings before extraordinary items ....................................... $ .36 .31 1.07 Net earnings .......................................................... $ .36 .31 1.53 See accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes to consolidated financial statements. 18 C~®S®liate tte~~tS ®f C i~ ire ci ®Sii® HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Year ended Decembe r 31 (Dollars in thousands) 1981 1980 1979 Working capital provided: Earnings before extraordinary items .................................... ....... $ 3,812 1,785 4,540 Add (deduct) items not requiring (providing) working capital: Depreciation and amortization ...................................... ....... 5,797 2,530 1,491 Deferred income taxes ............................................ ....... 770 98 (30) Other .......................................................... ....... 51 131 30 Working capital provided from operations, before extraordinary items .... ....... 10,430 4,544 6,031 Extraordinary items ............................................... ....... - - 2,207 Working capital provided from operations ........................... ....... 10,430 4,544 8,238 Long-term liabilities issued or assumed in connection with acquisition of businesses (note 1) ............................................ ....... 4,160 8,418 1,166 Long-term debt issued ............................................... ....... 30,594 28,994 15,765 Stock issued in connection with acquisition of businesses (note 1) .......... ....... 18,386 2,979 100 Common stock issued for cash (less issuance expense of $316 in 1981; $5 in 1980 and $219 in 1979) ....................................... ....... 14,698 5,126 5,298 Proceeds from sale of investment in affiliate, net of gain of $4,959 included in operations ........ ............................... ..... ....... - - 3,764 Decrease (increase) in investment in affiliates ........................... ....... 604 (509) (544) Total working capital provided .................................. ....... 78,872 49,552 33,787 Working capital used: Acquisition of noncurrent assets of businesses: Property and equipment ........................................... ....... 10,754 12,277 204 Goodwill ........................................................ ....... 1,125 20,081 2,714 Restricted escrow deposit .......................................... ....... - - (875) Other assets ..................................................... ....... 1,403 261 68 Additions to property and equipment, net ............................... ....... 17,638 10,489 3,029 Transfers to current installments and repayments of long-term debt .......... ....... 38,492 11,227 20,924 Payments of preferred stock dividends ................................. ....... 916 43 290 Other ............................................................ ....... 160 347 123 Total working capital used ..................................... ....... 70,488 54,725 26,477 Increase (decrease) in working capital ................................... ....... $ 8,384 (5,173) 7,310 Changes in working capital: Increases (decreases) in the elements of working capital are as follows: Cash and cash equivalents ......................................... ....... $ 451 (6,164) 6,306 Receivables, including recoverable income taxes ....................... ....... 14,317 1,063 2,029 Advances to affiliates .............................................. ....... (132) 2,995 215 Inventories ...................................................... ....... 4,073 226 637 Prepaid expenses ................................................ ....... 1,040 141 8 Note payable to bank ............................................. ....... (400) - - Current installments of long-term debt ................................ ....... (48) (1,552) 429 Accounts payable and accrued expenses ............................. ....... (9,565) (1,071) (1,987) Advance billings and deposits ...................................... ....... (1,352) (811) (327) Increase (decrease) in working capital ................................... ....... $ 8,384 (5,173) 7,310 See accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes to consolidated financial statements. 19 ®®®o Summary of Signflficauzt Ac~con~iting Policies HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES OPERATIONS The Company has been engaged in the cable television industry since in- ception. In January, 1979, it entered the display communications industry (tire design and construction of displays and exhibits), and in 1981 it entered the graphics communications industry (calendar and specialty advertising, books and meeting room products). See note 1. Sales to two display communications customers accounted for approximately 17 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of consolidated revenues for the year ended December 31, 1979. No custom- er accounted for over 10 percent of consolidated revenues for the years 1980 or 1981. PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION The consolidated financial state- ments include the accounts of Heril:age Communications, Inc., and its sub- sidiaries. All significant intercompany transactions and accounts have been eliminated. Gated to franchiset~ acquired in the ac- quisituon of businesses are amortized, by the straight-line method, over the remaining life of such franchises. Also included irr franchises are ex- penditures related directly to acquiring franchises from various rrrunicipalities. After a franchise i;; granted td~e related costs are amortized, by the straight-line method, over the remaining life of the franchise, commencing with the begin- ning of the prematurity period. If it becornes apparerrl: that the proposed franchise will not be obtained, the re- lated costs are ch~~rged to operations. RECENABLES The Company provides an allowance for estimated uncollectible accounts. The provision for bad debts for the years 1981, 1980 and 1979 was $804,363, $78,474 and $226,888, respectively. INVENTORIES Inventories of the Display Com- munications Group are stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out method) or market. Inventories of the Graphics Com- munications Group are stated at the lower of cost (last-in, first-out method) or market. after preferred stock dividend require- ments (as applicable) by the weighted average number of common shares and dilutive common share equivalents. Stock options, stock warrants (which expired March 31, 1979) and Series C preferred stock (which was converted into common stock as of June 1, 1979) are common stock equivalents. The stock warrants have been excluded from the computation of earnings per common share for the year ended December 31, 1979, since their effect is anti-dilutive. The Series C preferred stock was assumed to have been con- verted as of January 1, 1979, for the computation of earnings per share for 1979. Tt~e Series A and B preferred stock (which was converted into common stock on July 20, ] 979) was assumed to have been converted as of January 1, 1979, for earnings per share assu-ning full dilution. The Series A preferred stock issued in 1980 and the Series B redeemable preferred stock issued in 1981 are common stock equivalents but have been excluded from the computa- tions of earnings per share since their effect is anti-dilutive. INVESTMENTS IN AFFILIATES Investments in 20 to 50 percent owned affiliated corporations and all partnerships are stated at cost adjusted for the Company's share of undis- tributed earnings or losses since ac- quisition or formation. Investments in affiliated corporations less than 20 per- cent owned are stated at cost. ACQUISITIONS, FRANCHISES AND GOODWILL The cost of acquired companies is allocated first to the identifiable assets, including franchises, based on the fair market value of such assets at the date of acquisition (as determined by inde- pendent appraisers or management of the Company). The excess of the total consideration over the amounts as- signed to identifiable assets is recorded as goodwill. Since in the opinion of management the value recorded as goodwill will not diminish, such amounts are being amortized over a forty-year period. The amounts allo- PROPERTY AI~f® EQiJIPMENT Property and equipment are recorded at cost including labor, indirect labor, interest and other costs of constnrction and completion. Direct costs associated with installations in homes not previ- ously served by cable television are capitalized as equipment. Depreciation is calculated on tfre straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives which are: 8-10 years for land improvements; ]0~0 years for buildings and building improvements; 9,25 years for cable television distribution systems, and microwave systems; 4-9 years for cable- casting and test equipment; and 3-20 years for other equipment. Investment tax credits are treated as a reduction of income taxes in the year they are realized.. EARNINGS PE1Z SHARE Earnings per common share amounts are computed by;dividing net earnings 20 ®t~S ~~ ~~~S~~fltec~ ~~~ ~~ tate~ (1) ACQUISITIONS A summary of companies acquired in purchase transactions by year of acquisition is as follows: Year ended December 31, 1981: Shaw-Barton, Inc . ................... Five cable television systems ........ . Industrial and Merchandising Displays, Inc . ................... . Year ended December 31, 1980: Brede, Inc. of St. Louis ............. . Mississippi cable television systems ... . Valley Cable TV, Inc . ............... . Clinton Cablevision ................ . Total Assets Components of Purchase Price Acquired (Net Assumption Stock of Current Notes of Long-Term Assigned Number Liabilities) Cash Payable Liabilities Value of Shares (Dollars in thousands) $19,743 179 - 1,178 3,699 l ,112 2,587 - 530 135 214 181 $23,972 1,426 2,801 1,359 $ 1,486 583 869 34 6,319 1,256 1,715 1,990 18,535 11,348 - 5,953 6,493 1,440 3,465 1,201 $32,833 14,627 6,049 9,178 Year ended December 31, 1979: CDI, Inc . .......................... $ 3,450 Dimensional Displays & Design, Inc. ... 1,267 Chariton Cable, Inc .................. 369 $ 5,086 (A) Common Stock (B) Preferred Stock (C) Redeemable Preferred Stock 3,328 - 22 345 857 65 147 164 58 3,820 1,021 145 In connection with the acquisitions described above for the years ended December 31, 1981, 1980 and 1979, the Company has assigned $2,093,358, $20,257,490, and $2,714,463, respec- tively, to franchises and goodwill. In connection with the acquisition of CDI, Inc., the Company has agreed to pay to the previous owners up to an additional $1,500,000 for the purchase of the stock based upon certain per- centages of future earnings of CDI, Inc. Any amounts due under this agreement are secured by the stock of CDI, Inc. As of December 31, l 981, such additional payments amounted to approximately $218,000. The consolidated statements of oper- ations for the years ended December 31, 1981, 1980 and 1979, include the operations of companies purchased during the respective year from the date of acquisition, in the following amounts: Year of Revenue Earnin s Acquisition (Dollars in t housands) 1981 ...... ...... $38,821 1,559 1980 ...... ...... 7,283 270 1979 ............ 6,552 143 The following summary presents unaudited pro forma financial data as if all of the above companies acquired in 1980 and 1981 had been purchased January 1, 1980. 18,386 919,290(C) 18,386 877 280,701 (A) 481 9,614(B) 1,234 15U,000(A) 387 44,139(A) 2,979 100 75,000(A) 100 Year ended December 31 (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 1981 1980 Revenue .......................................... $83,255 69,956 Net earnings ....................................... 3,643 2,076 Earnings per common and common equivalent share after preferred stock dividend requirements ........... .30 .10 Earnings per common share assuming full dilution ....... .30 .10 The above pro forma amounts assume that the financing requirements in excess of the common and preferred stock issued were met by the incur- rence of floating rate bank debt. 21 (2) INVESTMENTS IN AFFILIATES On Apri120, 1979, the Company sold its 23 percent investment in Kansas State Network, Inc. (KSN) for $8,043,909 cash, net of expenses of sale, and the assumption by the purchaser of $677,567 of debt. This sale resulted in a gain of $4,598,871 before income taxes. Total revenue and net earnings for KSN's fiscal year ended August 31, 1978, was $17,396,000 and $1,910,00!), respectively. At December 31, 1981, the Company had investments in ten cable television entities, including partnerships, which are 1 to 50 percent owned. All invest- ments, with the exception of a 10% investment (cost of $75,000) in a corporation, are accounted for by the equity method. The Company receives management fees and construction supervision fees from these affiliates which amounted to $829,371, $293,136, and $208,600, for the years ended December 31, 1981, 1980, .and 1979, respectively. In addition the Company received interest income of $1,234,602, $143,408 and $30,681, for the years ended December 31, 1981, 1980 anti 1979, respectively, on advances to affiliates. Substantially all assets of the entities referred to below are pledged as securi- ty for their indebtedness. [n addition, the Company's stock or partnership interests in such entities are generally pledged to secure such indebtedness. Selected financial infom~ation of af- filiates accounted for by the equity method is as follows: Total current assets ............. . Total current liabilities .......... . Net: working capital (deficit) .... . Total long-term assets ........... . Total long-term liabilities ........ . Total equity (deficit) .......... . Total revenue ................... Net loss ....................... Cablevision Associates VI Others 1981 1980 1979 (Dol lars in thousands) $ 818 1,326 1,684 731 (22,998) (3,851) (3,529) (1,699) (22,180) (2,525) (1,845) (968) 24,472 16,093 13,547 9,056 (4,084) (13,110) (9,918) (5,571) $ (1,792) 458 1,784 2,517 $ 1,495 6,753 5,349 2,417 $ (1,807) (2,150) (1,950) (848) (3) INVENTOR[ES The components of inventories are as follows: December 31 1981 1980 (Dollars in thousands) Lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market: Raw materials ................................... $ 538 270 Work in process ................................. 857 498 Finished goods .................................. - 94 1,395 862 Lower of cost (last-in, first-out) or market ............... 3,540 -- $4,935 862 A wholly owned subsidiary of the Company is the general partner in Cable~~ision Associates VI, a limited partnership, organized in 1981. The partnership acquired cable television systems for approximately $23,100,000 during 1981. On September 2, 1981, the partnership filed a registration state- ment with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with a pub- lic offering of $25,000,000 of limited partnership interests. Such registration statement which became effective Jan- uary 11, 1982, requires a minimum escrow of $12,500,000 prior to closing. If the minimum escrow requirement is not met, the Company has an agree- ment to purchase a bank loan payable by the partnership. If required to purchase the loan the Company has an agreement with a bank under which it could refinance the loan by advancing additional funds to a new entity in the amount of approximately $8,00(1,000. When the partnership obtains the minimum escrow required by its public offering, the Company will recognize acquisition services fees of approxi- mately $970,000 related to acquisitions already completed by the partnership. [n addition the Company will recognize again of approximately $1,140,000 from the sale in 1981 of cable televi- sion systems to Cablevision Associates V[ by a 20-percent-owned affiliate. The Graphics Communications Group determines its inventory cost using the dollar-value, last-in, first-out method. Therefore it is not practicable to detemline its inventory components. . Had the first-in, first-out method of valuing inventory been used, inven- tories would have been approximately $263,000 higher than reported at December 31, 1981. 22 (4) L®NG-'I'EI~i[ DEL'I' Long-term debt is summarized as follows: December 31 198] 1980 (Dollars in thousands) 105/s% Senior notes (A) ............................. $15,000 15,000 Credit agreement (B) ................................ 7,900 7,050 Revolving credit and term loan (C) .................... 3,929 10,000 6%-16% Motes and contracts (D) ...................... 8,167 7,726 Other (E) ......................................... 1,364 475 36,360 40,251 Less current installments ............................ 1,993 1,945 $34,367 38,306 (A) The senior notes are unsecured long-term debt due to an institutional lender in annual installments beginning August 31, 1983. The principal pay- ments increase every four years from 5 percent of the original principal bal- ance in 1983, to 8'/s percent in 1987, and 11 ~/s percent in 1991. The note agreement, and the credit agreement described in (B) of this note, contain provisions which restrict the payment of dividends and the in- currence of additional debt and invest- ments and require the Company to meet certain operating and financial condition tests. At December 31, 1981, none of the retained earnings is restrict- ed as to the payment of dividends. (B) The credit agreement is with four banks and provides the Company an unsecured revolving line of credit of up to $20,000,000 with interest at prime rate until January 2, 1983, then convert- ible into a 5-year term loan with inter- est at prime rate plus '/a percent. The Company is required to either maintain average compensating balances of 5 percent of the line plus 5 percent of the principal amount outstanding, or pay a fee equal to interest on such amount. (C) The revolving credit and term loan agreement with a bank is secured by the common stock of a subsidiary of the Company. The agreement provides a revolving line of credit of up to $13,000,000 to June 30, 1983, then con- vertible into a term loan due in 22 quarterly installments beginning Sep- tember 30, 1983, in amounts varying from 2.5 percent to 6.25 percent of the original term loan amount with a fluc- tuating interest rate of 1.75 percent to 2.25 percent over the lender's base rate (153/a percent at December 31, 1981). Assets of the subsidiary securing this agreement approximated $23,100,000 at December 31, 1981. (D) Notes and contracts payable are due primarily to previous shareholders of acquired companies in varying amounts to 1993, and are secured by assets and common stock of subsidiar- ies totaling approximately $24,100,000 at December 31, 1981. (E) Other debt is secured by assets of approximately $3,000,000 at December 31, 1981. Aggregate annual maturities of long- term debt during the next five years are as follows: 1982, $1,993,437; 1983, $3,814,122; 1984, $4,500,361; 1985, $4,265,711; 1986, $4,361,484. (5) 1REDEEI~LE PIZEI:'EI~2ED S'I'®CK On December 18, 1980, the Board of Directors designated 922,190 preferred shares as Series B to be issued in connection with the acquisition of Shaw-Barton, Inc. (see note 1). The Series B has no stated value and an annual dividend rate of $1.50 per share, payable quarterly. and cumulative. Each share of Series B stock has one vote on matters submitted to a vote of the shareholders. The holders of Series B can at any time convert their shares into common stock of the Company at a ratio of 1.17 shares of common for each share of preferred. The Company may redeem the Series B preferred stock five years after date of issuance at $21.725 per share, declining by $.1725 per year to $2U per share plus accumu- lated dividends. Pursuant to a manda- tory sinking fund, such stock is redeemable at $20 per share, com- mencing at the end of the sixth year after date of issuance in equal annual installments calculated to redeem the entire issue by the end of the twentieth year after issuance. Upon liquidation, the Series B preferred stock has liq- uidation rights at $20 per share plus unpaid dividends. At December 31, 1981 options for 2,500 shares of redeemable preferred stock were outstanding at exercise prices ranging from $6.75 to $12.00. Such options were issued by Shaw- Barton, Inc. prior to acquisition, under a plan that subsequently has been discontinued. (6) S'I'®CI~-I®LDEIZS' EQvI'I'Y The Company has authorized 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, no par value, which is issuable in series. The Board of Directors previously des- ignated 10,000, 14,000 and 1,000,000 shares as Series A, B, and C, respec- tively. [n 1979, upon the conversion of these preferred shares to common, such designations were cancelled by the Board of Directors. On April 24, 1980, the Board of Di- rectors designated 10,000 preferred shares as Series A with a $1 stated value, issuable at a price of $100 per share and having an annual divi- dend rate of $9 per share. Such divi- dends are payable semiannually, cumulative and no dividends may be paid on common stock if dividends on Series A are in arrears. The holders of Series A preferred stock can at any time 23 convert their shares into common stock of the Company at a ratio of 9.158 shares of common stock for each share of preferred stock. The Company may redeem the Series A preferred stock at $109 per share plus unpaid dividends any time upon proper notice to holders thereof. Upon liquidation, the Series A preferred stock has liquidation rights of $10(I per share plus unpaid dividends. Effective June 11, 1979, the Com- pany's common stock was split on a 2-for-1 basis and the par value of the common stock was reduced from $1 per share to $.50 per share. Effective January 23, 1981, the Company's com- mon stock was split on a. 3-for-2 basis. All per share information and number of shares in the accompanying finan- cial statements and the notes thereto have been retroactively adjusted to give effect to the stock splits. On September 22, 1981, the Com- pany paid a ten percent stock dividend on its common stock. All earnings per share information in the accompanying finar-cial statements and the notes thereto have been retroactively adjusted to give effect to the stock dividend. The Company has never paid cash divi- dends on its common stock. Transactions in preferred stock, com- mon stock, additional paid-in capital and retained earnings (deficit) accounts during the years ended December 31, 1981, 1980 and 1979 are summarized as follows: Number of Shares Preferred Common Balance January 1, 1979 ...................... 200,535 Issued for cash: Public stock offering (less issuance expense of $219.) .............................. - Other ................................... - Issued under employee stock purchase plan ..... - Issued in conjunction with acquisition (note 1) ... - Reduction in stated value of Series A and B preferred stock ...........:... -- Dividends on preferred stock (Series A $32, Series B $258) ............................ - Conversion of Series A, B and C preferred stock into common stock ........................ (200,535) Net earnings ............................... - Balance December 31, 1979 ................... - Issued for cash: Private placement ......................... - Ot:her ................................... - Issued under employee stock purchase plan ..... - [ssued in conjunction with acquisitions (note 1) .. 9,614 Dividends on preferred stock .................. - Netearnings ............................... - Bala!nce December 31, 1980 ................... 9,614 Issued for cash: Public stock offering (less issuance expense of $316) ................................ - Other ................................... - Issued under employee stock purchase plan ..... - Corn~ersion of Series B redeemable preferred stock into common stock ................... - Dividends on Series A preferred stock ........... -_ Dividends on Series Bredeemable -- preferred stock ........................... - 10% common stock dividend, at fair value ....... -- Netearnings ............................... - Balance December 31, 1981 ................... 9,614 2,364,660 Additional Amount paid-in Preferred Common capital (,Dollars in thousands) $1,738 I ,182 1,577 960,000 - 480 4,786 32,484 - 16 16 11,066 - 6 50 75,000 - 38 62 - (1,538) - 1,538 Retained earnings (deficit) (5,472) (290) 1;021,050 (200) 511 (310) 4,464,260 - 2,233 7,719 500,100 - 250 4,751 2,250 - 1 10 10,250 - 5 109 474,840 481 237 2,261 5,451,700 481 2,726 14,850 1,100,000 - 550 13,595 25,900 - 13 163 28,794 - 14 363 471 - ] 8 658,446 - 329 ],645 7,265,311 $ 481 3,633 30,624 6,510 748 (43) 1,785 2,490 (86) (830) (1,974) 3,812 3,412 24 (7) STOCK OPTIONS AMID STOCK PI~CI-IAASE PLAN In 1981, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the establishment of a qualified Employee Incentive Stock option plan under which options to purchase a total of 350,000 shares of the Company's common stock may be granted to key employees and officers. The purchase price under the grant cannot be less than the market value at the date of grant. The options granted under such plan are exercisable two years after date of grant and expire ten years from date of grant. At December 31, 1981, 267,985 shares were available for the granting of options under the plan and options for 82,015 shares had been granted at an exercise price of $11.62. The options granted include op- tions for 47,815 shares which were con- verted from the previous stock option plan described below This plan is sub- ject to stockholder approval. Year ended December 31 Number of Shares Outstanding at beginning of period .. 149,250 Granted ......................... 38,825 10 percent stock dividend .......... 16,095 204,170 Exercised ....................... 25,900 Cancelled or expired .............. 51,145 Outstanding at end of period ....... 127,125 No amounts have been charged to operations with respect to the granting of options; proceeds from the exercise of options have been credited to capital stock and additional paid-in capital. The Company has an employee stock purchase plan under which eligi- ble employees can have up to 10 per- cent of their base compensation withheld to be used to purchase the Company's stock. The Company matches employee contributions up to 5 percent of the employees' base compensation. 1979 (8) INCOME TAXES The Company and its subsidiaries file a consolidated Federal income tax return. Income tax expense is summarized as follows: Year ended December 31 Current ............................. Provision in lieu of income taxes ...... . Deferred ............................ The provision in lieu of income taxes represents income taxes which would have been required in the absence of net operating loss carryfonvards (see note 10). Federal State Total 1981 1980 The prior non-qualified stock option plan has been frozen and no new op- tions will be granted under the plan. Options granted under the plan are ex- erciseable two years after date of grant and expire ten years from date of grant. The purchase price under the grant could not be less than the market value at the date of grant. Information relative to the non-qualified stock options for the three years ended December 31, 1981, is as follows: Exercise Number Exercise Number Exercise Prices of Shares Prices of Shares Prices $ .61-16.06 132,000 $ .61- 3.11 ]46,250 $ .61-2.43 10.00-14.55 19,500 6.67-16.06 14,250 2.43-3.] 1 151,500 160,500 1.06- 3.11 2,250 .75 28,500 .61-1.21 6.67-16.06 - - $ .61-10.00 149,250 $ .61-16.06 132,000 $ .61-3.11 1981 $ 300 335 635 605 1 fi5 77O $ 905 500 1,405 1980 Federal State Total (Dollars in thousands) 278 144 422 49 49 98 327 193 520 [ncome taxes are provided for all items included in the financial state- ments, regardless of the period when such items are reported for tax pur- poses. The sources of timing differ- 1979 Federal State Total 380 60 440 850 240 1,090 (30) - (30) 1,200 300 1,500 ences between financial statement and taxable income and the tax effect of each are as follows: 25 Year ended December 31 1981 1980 1979 (Dollars in thousands) Depreciation recognized on accelerated methods for income tax purposes ..................... $1,545 486 - Preoperating expenses which were expensed as incurred for inc~ime tax purposes .............. 60 49 (3) Investment tax credit recognized for financial statement purposesi in excess of amounts recognized for income tax purposes .... : ............................. (1,490) (484) - Difference between financial statement and tax reporting of profil:s and losses related to affiliated partnerships ............................................................ 625 - - Other ................................................c............................. 30 47 (27) $ 770 98 (30) The effective income tax rates for the years ended December 31, 1981, 1980 and 1979, differ from the statutory Federal income tax rates for the following reasons: Percent cif earnings before extraiirdinary items 1981 1980 1979 Computed expected tax rate ..................... 46.0% ~,, 46.0% 46.0% Increase (decrease) in provision resulting from: State income taxes, net of Federal tai: benefit ..... 5.2 ! 4.5 2.7 Investment tax credits ........................ (36.8) (35.6) (11.7) Gain on sale of investment in affiliate taxed at capital gains rate ........................ - - (12.5) Amortization of certain intangibles .............. 5.9 4.8 - Amortization of appraisal increase in ra e and e ui ment P P rtY q P .................... 5.4 2.9 - Other items ................................ 1.2 - .3 Effective income tax rate ........................ 26.9% 22.6%~ 24.8% (9) EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS The Company has a profit sharing plan covering all employees not cov- ered by a qualified pension plan or by collective bargaining agreements, and who meet length of service require- ments. For the years ended December 31, 1981 and 1980, profit sharing expense amounted to $305,981 and $156,546, respectively. The Graphics Communications Group of the Company has a noncon- tributory pension plan covering sub- stantially all its employees. The total pension expense for the year ended December 31, 1981 amounted to $319,405, and includes amortization of past service costs over 30 years. The Company's policy is t~~ fund pension cost accrued. At February 1, 1981, the At December 31, 198 ] , the Company had unused investment tax credits for Federal income tax purposes of approx- imately $2,195,000, which expire in 1986 and 1996 in the amounts of $781,000 and $1,414,000, respectively. The Company has recognized the bene- fit of such investment tax credits for financial. statement purposes by reduc- ing deferred income tax credits. most recent actuarial valuation date, the present value of accrued benefits totaled $3,795,000, of which $3,570,000 were vested. Plan net assets at such date were $3,071,000. The weighted average assumed rate of return used in determining the actuarial present value of accrued benefits was 6.5 percent. (10) EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS mount of $1,090,000 and a gain recog- ance. Such gain of $1,316,732 has been Extraordinary items in 1979 result nized as a result of ttie early extinguish- reduced by the unamortized deferred from utilization of all remaining net ment of debt at an amount which was finance charges of $236,342 and appli- operating loss carryforwards in the less than the remaining principal bal- cable income taxes of $200,000. 26 (11) LEASE COlVI1V[ITI~ENTS The Company leases certain real propert}; transportation and other equipment under noncancellable oper- ating leases with original terms varying from one to fifteen years. Additionally, the Company leases microwave signals and utility poles under leases with orig- inal terms of two to twenty-five years. Lease payments for the years ended December 31, 1981, 1980 and 1979 amounted to $2,657,471, $1,213,679 and $847,561, respectively. At December 31, 1981, minimum rental commitments under all non- cancellable leases are summarized as follows: Type of Leased Property Transportation Utility Real Equipment Pole Total Property and Other Space Commitment (Dollars in thousands) Year ending December 31: 1982 .................. $260 965 347 1,572 1983 .................. 210 602 30 842 1984 .................. 138 205 30 373 1985 .................. 102 18 28 148 1986 .................. 58 - 27 85 Later years ............. 138 - 196 334 Total ................ $906 1,790 658 3,354 (12) I3i1SINESS SEGIi~ENT INFORNIA'I'ION Refer to "BUSINESS SEGMENTS" on page 29 for information relating to reve- nue, operating income, and identifiable assets of the Company's principal busi- ness segments. Corporate assets are principally cash, investments in affili- ates, and building improvements. Additional information required by FASB Statement No. 14 is as follows: 1981 1980 1979 (Dollars in thousands) Depreciation and amortization: Telecommunications ........ .................. $ 4,843 2,393 1,405 Display Communications ..... .................. 251 105 71 Graphics Communications ..... ................. 627 - - Corporate .................. ................. 76 32 15 Total .................... ................. $ 5,797 2,530 1,491 Capital expenditures: Telecommunications ......... ................. $15,665 9,540 2,938 Display Communications ...... ................. 567 217 46 Graphics Communications ..... ................. 980 - - Corporate .................. ................. 426 732 45 Total .................... ................. $17,638 10,489 3,029 Equity in earnings of affiliates 50 percent or less owned: Telecommunications .......................... $ 1 24 151 27 Accountants' & 1V~ana.gemE~nt's Reports Certified Public Accountants 2500 Ruan Center P.O. Box 772 Peat, Marwiek,Mitehell &Ca Des Moines, Iowa 50303 To the Board of Directors and Shareholders Heritage Communications, Inc.: We have examined the consolidated balance sheets of Heritage Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1981 and 1980, and the related consolidated statements of .operations and changes in financial position for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, ] 981. Our examinations were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. In our opinion, the aforementioned consolidated financial statements present fairly the financial position of Heritage Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 1981 and 1980, and the results of their operations and the changes in their financial position for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1981, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis. February 19, 1982 Management's Report To the Shareholders of Heritage Communications, [nc.: The preceding consolidated financial statements of Heritage, Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries and all other information in the report to shareholders are the responsibility'of management. The consolidated financial statements, which include amounts based on judgments of management, have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied. Management depends upon the Company's system of internal controls in meeting its responsibilities for reliable financial statements and believes that this system provides reasonable assurance at an acceptable cost that assets are safeguarded and transactions properly recorded and executed according to',management's authorization. The financial statements have been audited by our indepencent accountants; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Their role is to render an independent professional opinion on management's financial statements following generally accepted auditing standards. The Board of Directors, through its Audit Committee which consists solely of outside directors of the Company, is responsible for reviewing and monitoring the Company's financial reporting and accounting practice. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. has free access to the Audit Committee and meets with it on a regular basis. ,~ a~ David J. Lundquist Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Q.t,~, ~i, Ua., ~e~ Arlan 'W. Uan Roekel Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer 28 QUARTERLY RESULTS, STOCK PRICES AND VOLUME (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) Common Stock Preferred Stock Net Net Stock Price Average Monthly Stock Price Average Monthly Revenue Earnings Earnings Range (Bid) Volume Range (Bid) Volume 1981 First Quarter $13,072 738 .09 $115/s-16'/a 521,058 shs. $17-17'/z* - Second Quarter 20,325 1,351 .13 12'/a-155/s 402,049 163/a-19 18,048 shs. Third Quarter 19,303 775 .06 8'/a-14 298,029 153/a-18 14,408 Fourth Quarter 24,457 948 .08 9'/s-13 287,777 15'/z-17 10,492 Annual $77,157 3,812 ~ .36 8'/a-16'/z 377,288 15'/z-19 14,316 1980 First Quarter $ 5,249 404 .08 $ 53/s- 8'/z 242,638 shs. - - Second Quarter 6,467 610 .I1 5'/z- 8'/z 155,294 - - Third Quarter 6,567 633 . ] 0 7'/a-145/s 329,355 - - Fourth Quarter 6,796 138 .02 11'/z-165/s 239,349 - - Annual $25,079 1,785 .31 S~/s-165/s 241,659 - - *From March 25, 1981, on. BUSINESS SEGMENTS (Dollars in thousands) Revenue inns inn Telecommunications .......... $27,486 13,892 Marketing Products: Display Communications ..... 13,487 11,185 Graphics Communications .... 36,179 - Corporate ................... 5 2 Total ........................ $77,157 25,079 Other income (expense): Interest expense (net) ...... . Equity in earnings of affiliates ................. Other (including gain on sale of affiliate) .............. . Earnings before income taxes and extraordinary items ..... . Operating Income Year-end Identifiable Assets 1979 1981 1980 1979 1981 1980 1979 8,428 $6,108 2,672 1,682 $ 72,555 55,932 15,418 6,536 135 1,428 847 8,514 5,505 5,123 - 3,639 - - 24,792 - - 16 (1,485) (585) (357) 5,915 5,817 7,092 14,980 8,397 3,515 2,172 $111,776 67,254 27,633 (3,270) (1,350) (1,256) 1 24 151 89 116 4,973 $5,217 2,305 6,040 29 Five-Year Summary HERITAGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 1981 1980 ]979~'~ 1978 1977~2~ (Dol lars in thousands, except per share data) Summary of operations: Revenue .......................................... $ 77,157 25,079 14,980 6,348 5,010 Cost of sales and services ........ . ................... (38,741) (11,972) (7,392) (2,291) (1,847) Selling, general and administrative ..................... (24,222) (7,062) (3,925) (1,937) (1,615) Depreciation and amortization ........................ (5,797) (2,530) (1,491) (1,320) (1,375) Operating income .......... . ................... 8,397 3,515 2,172 800 173 Interest expense, net ............ . ................... '' (3,270) (1,350) (1,256) (1,590) (1,387) Equity in earnings of affiliates ......................... 1 24 151 448 326 Other income (deductions) ........................... 89 116 4,973 67 (842) Earnings (loss) before income taxes and extraordinary items .......................... ` 5,217 2,305 6,040 (275) (1,730) Income taxes ' (1,405) (520) (1,500) - - Extraordinary items - - 1,970 - - Net earnings (loss) ................................ $ 3,812 1,785 6,510 (275) (1,730) Preferred dividend requirements ....................... I, $ 1,240 65 71 127 127 Average common shares outstanding (primary) .......... 7,231 5,563 3,946 2,580 2,265 Net earnings (loss) per common share (primary) ......... $ .36 .31 1.63 (.16) (.82) Year-end Position: Total assets ........................................ $111,7'76 67,254 27,633 18,007 16,803 Fixed assets, net .................................... 56,008 32,666 12,160 10,272 9,814 Long-term debt ..................................... 34,367 38,306 12,380 16,372 15,645 Redeemable referred stock p .......................... 18,3'77 - - - - Stockholders' equity (deficit) .......................... 38,1:10 20,547 10,700 (974) (865) Working capital (deficit) .............. . .............. 9,051 667 5,841 (1,469) (873) Other: ~ Employees ........................................ 1,900 600 300 ]40 135 Shareholders (common stock) ......................... 5,500 4,000 2,000 700 640 Common stock price -High bid ..................... $ 16'/2 165/s 7'/s 23/s 1'/a -Low bid ..................... ', 8'/a 53/s 23/s 1 5/s Net earnings (loss) as a percent of: Revenue ........................................ :. 4,9% 7.1% 43.4% NM NM Beginning common stockholders' equity .............. 12.8% 16.1 % NM NM NM Capital expenditures~3~ ............................... `$ 17,638 10,489 3,029 813 ]74 Funds from operations ............................... 10,430 4,544 6,031 714 280 NM = Nct meaningful (1) 1979 results include a $4,958,871 non-recurring gain on sale of an investment in an affiliate and extraordinary items of $1,090,000 and $880,390 from utilization of net operating loss carryfonvards and gain, net of taxes, from the early extinguishment of debt, respectively. Primary earnings per share excluding the non-recurring gain and extraordinary items would have been $.21 per share. (2) 1977 results include in other income (deductions) awrite-off of $841,533 of certain intangible assets relating to the Des Moines, Iowa, system determined not to be recoverable over their remaining assigned lives. (3) Does not include $6,996,931; $2,416,311; $7,154,100; $2,119,098; and $362,752 for construction of cable systems by affiliates in 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, and 1977, respectively. , 30 age e ~~ ~® ~~ ~e~a~ PERCEN'T'AGE OF REVENUE _1981 1980 1979* Revenue ................................ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Expenses: Cost of sales and services ................ 50.2 47.7 49.3 Selling, general and adrinistrative ......... 31.4 28.2 26.2 Depreciation and amortization ............ 7.5 10.1 10.0 Total expenses ....................... 89.1 86.0 85.5 Operating income ................... 10.9 14.0 14.5 Interest expense, net .................... (4.3) (5.4) (8.4) Equity in earnings of affiliates ............. - .l 1.0 Other income .......................... .l .5 .1 Earnings before income taxes ............... 6.7 9.2 7.2 Income taxes ............................ 1.8 2.1 1.3 Net earnings ............................. 4.9% 7.1 % 5.9% PERCENTAGE COMPARISON ~M'TH PREVIOUS PERIOD 1981 1980 vs. vs. 1980 1979* Revenue .......................................... 207.7% 67.4% Expenses: Cost of sales and services ......................... 223.6 62.0 Selling, general and administrative .................. 243.0 79.9 Depreciation and amortization ...................... 129.1 69.7 Total expenses ................................. 218.9 68.4 Operating income ...... . Interest expense, net ........ . Equity in earnings of affiliates Other income .............. . Earnings before income taxes .. . Income taxes ................ . Net earnings ................. . 138.9 61.8 142.4 7.5 (95.8) (84.1) (22.6) 728.6 152.4 113.3 170.2 158.6 113.6% 103.0% *]979 results exclude extraordinary items and the non-recurring gain on sale of an investment in an affiliate. Revenues and Expenses 1981 versus 1980 Revenue rose $52 million with ap- proximately 69% of the increase result- ing from the March 1, 1981, acquisition of Shaw-Barton, Inc. This acquisition also accounted for 78% of the increase in cost of sales and 64% of the rise in selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses in 1981 compared to 1980. Additionally, 75% of the increase in operating income was the result of the Shaw-Barton, Inc. acquisition. Industrial and Merchandising Dis- plays, Inc., Dallas and Houston, Texas (I&M), acquired effective January 1, 1981, was responsible for 5% of the 1981 revenue increase, 7% of the rise in cost of sales and 4% of the increase in SG&A expenses. Overall, however, the Display Communications Group (excluding [&M) experienced a decline in operating income during 1981 of $1.2 million or 34% from 1980 con- solidated operating income. Increases in basic and pay television subscribers in Des Moines, Iowa result- ed in 4% of the revenue gain during ] 981, while the systems in south Texas (acquired in October, 1980) accounted for 11% of the increase. Other cable television systems acquired during 1980 and 1981 produced 6% of the revenue increase. The inclusion of the south Texas systems for the entire year of 1981 accounted for 9% of the increase in SG&A expenses during the year. Overall, other factors in the in- creased SG&A expenses during 1981 include growth of the Des Moines sys- tem, Telecommunications Group over- head and Heritage corporate overhead. During 1981, interest expense in- creased substantially for several rea- sons. Heritage raised approximately $14.1 million in late January,1981, from the issuance of common stock and re- paid debt with the proceeds. Capital expenditures during 1981, however, were in excess of internally generated cash flow resulting in increased debt throughout the year after the January offering. Net earnings of $3.8 million provided a 114% increase over 1980. The con- solidated tax rate of Heritage increased slightly in 1981 as compared to 1980 (27% versus 23%). 1980 versus 1979 During 1980 as compared to 1979, the acquisition of Brede, Incorporated of St. Louis ("Brede"), acquired January 1, 1980, resulted in 50% of the increase in revenues and accounted for 72% of the increase in operating income in 1980. Other companies in the Display Communications Group accounted for a 3% decrease in revenue. The 1980 acquisition of cable television systems in Mississippi and south Texas resulted in a 22% growth in revenue and a 41 % increase in operating income. Growth in the Des Moines cable tele- vision systems accounted for 17% of the 1980 revenue increase. Expenses (other than depreciation and amortization) increased in 1980 be- cause of the inclusion in Heritage's consolidated operations of Brede, Di- mensional Displays & Design, Inc. (for the full year 1980 versus six months in 1979), the Mississippi cable television systems (from their acquisition in April, 1980), and the south Texas systems (from their inclusion in October, 1980). Expenses also increased because of newly constructed cable television sys- tems and because of growth in existing systems. Additions to property and 31 equipment at new systems, im- provements at existing systems and the acquisition of additional systems caused the substantial increase in de- preciation and amortization. Interest expense during 1980 in- creased moderately primarily because of debt incurred late in the year to finance the construction and acquisi- tion of cable television systems. Heritage first reported a profit from operations in 1979. Net earnings for 1980 increased 103% over 1979 nor- malized earnings as a result of the inclusion of Brede and the continued improvement of cable television operat- ing results. Taxes on earnings in 1980 were offset by large investment tax credits. Heritage's tax rate was 25% in 1979 and was 23% in 1980. Acquisition Activity During 1980, Heritage comple±ed the acquisition of three cable television systems and one display communica- tions company. All were accounted for by the purchase method and the aggre- gate consideration paid, including the assumption of debt, was $32.8 million. During 1981, Heritage made seven acquisitions, all accounted for as pur- chases. Five of these were cable tele- vision systems acquired for a total consideration of $3.7 million. Early in the year a fourth display company was acquired (1&M) for a total consideration of $.5 million. Effective March 1, Shaw- Barton, Inc., was acquired through the issuance of $18.4 million of redeem- able convertible preferred stock. Capital Expenditures Capital expenditures during 1981 were $17.6 million, compared to $10.5 million during 1980. Expansion, re- building, and pay television upgrades in the Des Moines and the south Texas systems accounted for $9.6 million or 54% of the total Heritage 1.981 capital expenditures. Expenditures for the con- struction of other cable television sys- tems were $6 million or 34% of the total. Capital expenditures in 1982 are presently budgeted to be in the $20-22 million range with approximately 87% to be spent in the construction and rebuilding of cable television systems. Operating Cash Flow/ Capital Expendiitures Operating cash flow Capital expenditures ~ _ ~ a; (Dollars in thousar.~ds) `' ,,...~._ „~~ ~l~ i ~' '~ GV Q 1 .. .~ 1979 1980 1981 Sources and Uses of Cash During 1981, funds from operations (net income plus depreciation, amorti- zation, and deferred taxes) were $]0.4 million. Additionally, Heritage issued 1.1 million common shares in January, 1981, and received r-et proceeds of $14.1 million. Other sources of cash included seller financing (cable televi- sion systems partially financed by the seller of the systems) of $2.6 million and the incurrence of additiional debt. The purchase of Shaw-Barton, [nc.; was financed through the issuance of re- deemabde convertible preferred stock in the amount of $18.4 million. Working capital ir.~creased by $8.4 million in 1981 as compared to 1980, due primarily to the acquisition of Shaw-Barton, Inc. Capitalization anal Liquidity During 1981, common stockholders' equity of Heritage increased from $20.5 million to $38.2 million due both to earnings retained in the business and to the issuance of common stock mentioned previously. During this same time period,. total interest bearing liabil- ities of Heritage decreased from $40.3 million to $36.8 million. Additionally, the exposure to fluctuating interest rates was reduced as debt tied to the prime rate declined from $1.7.1 million at the beginning of the year to $11.8 million at the end oif the year..At the end of 1981 on a consolidated basis, Heritage had unused revolving credit lines of $24.8 million. During 1982, it is expected that internally generated cash flow from operations will be less than amounts required to finance capital expenditures and increases in non-cash working capital assets. Although exist- ing bank revolving credit lines are ade- quate to finance the projected 1982 cash requirements, Heritage has obtained a commitment from a major insurance company for an additional $10 million of fixed rate debt. This fixed rate facility will provide funds to pay down existing floating rate debt, which will be drawn on for needed funds in 1982. Capitalization Debt Redeemable Preferred e. ,_ k Equity 2,0 ;4. '~ 4, . j a r ~ ,.. r.; a '~j '°' .t ~~'r 1979 1980 1981 Common Stock Dividends The Company has never paid cash dividends on its common stock, and it is the present policy of the Company to retain all earnings for the anticipated needs of the business. Heritage believes that cash dividends are not currently in the best interests of its shareholders. In the capital-intensive cable televi- sion business, Heritage feels that it is inadvisable to pay out equity capital in dividends and then incur costs to raise equity for growth. Cher time, the goal of the company is to earn above-aver- age rel:urns on capital, including that capital retained in the business. When expected returns are compared with the return on cash dividends that share- 32 holders can reasonably expect (after adjusting for the discriminatory tax on dividends), Heritage believes that it is wiser to retain profits for share- holders at the more attractive capital gains tax rates. Heritage declared a 10% stock dividend, which was paid in September, 1981. Heritage believes that investment opportunities in the cable industry at this time are many. Capital expenditure opportunities during the next few years (as well as selected acquisitions de- signed to enhance shareholders' invest- ment) will continue at levels that may preclude the payment of dividends. Inflation and Changes in Prices Basic subscription rates which Heri- tage charges in its cable television operations are generally regulated by the local communities in which the company operates. However, in many communities the franchise agreements allow these rates to be increased annu- ally by the amount of the change in the Consumer Price Index. Heritage, how- ever, has generally not increased prices by the full amounts allowed. At the present time, because of increases in the number of basic subscribers in the systems (for which there are fixed costs such as depreciation, interest, and cer- tain management expenses), and be- cause the numbers of pay subscribers is increasing even more rapidly than the numbers of basic subscribers, cable television margins have been increasing in spite of inflationary pres- sures of the last several years. However, the costs of acquisitions and construc- tion (resulting in more than proportion- ate increases in capital expenditures and interest expense) has resulted in Heritage not experiencing increases in the return on its investment in the Tele- communications Group. The Company does use accelerated depreciation methods for tax purposes, thus resulting in the deferral of tax expenditures. The new Accelerated Cost Recovery System available begin- ning in 1981 further enhanced the abili- ty of Heritage to defer its taxes. The Graphics Communications Group, acquired during 1981, has gen- erally been able to offset increases in costs by increases in selling prices. Additionally, this group uses the last in, first out (LIFO) method for determining the cost of its inventories. Under this method of inventory valuation, the cost of the products sold approximates replacement costs. In the Display Communications Group of Heritage, the products sold are generally custom designed. Since unique design characteristics and ser- vice are important competitive factors, the effects of inflation on material and labor costs are generally able to be recovered in the price of products sold. Return on Beginning Common Equity 16.1% 12.8% NM 1979 1980 1981 Limited Partnerships Heritage, through wholly-owned sub- sidiaries, is the general partner in six limited partnerships. Heritage's invest- ments in the partnerships are account- ed for by the equity method. During 1981 Heritage completed the marketing of its fifth limited partnership. The equity raised for Cablevision Associates V was $1.5 million. At the end of 1981 the limited part- nerships sponsored by Heritage had 52,613 basic subscribers and 35,121 pay subscribers. Also during 1981 capi- tal expenditures of $5.8 million were spent in the five limited partnerships. At December 31, 1981, these partner- ships had debt outstanding of approxi- mately $11.5 million. At the end of 1981 Heritage was in the final stages of preparation for the marketing of Cablevision Associates VI which is the largest limited partnership sponsored by Heritage with total equity being offered of $25 million. This part- nership has already acquired and is developing cable television systems which are financed by a major U.S. bank under an agreement whereby Heritage will purchase the loan if the offering does not raise at least $12.5 million. 1982 ®utlook Assuming that there is improvement in general economic conditions in the second half of 1982 (affecting primarily the Graphics Communications Group and Display Communications Group of Heritage), operating income for Heri- tage should increase. in 1982 as com- pared to 1981. Continued subscriber growth in the Telecommunications Group, affected favorably by the in- creased programming available and the effects of capital expenditures made in 1981 and anticipated in 1982, will pro- vide continued growth in both operat- ing cash flow and operating income. Operating income in the Display Com- munications Group should improve as a result of management changes made in late 1981 as well as changes in pricing procedures. Operating income for the Graphics Communications Group during 1982 is expected to be relatively flat as compared to 1981. Dur- ing 1981, the months of January and February were not included in the con- solidated results of Heritage because of the timing of the merger in March, 1981. Because of the seasonal nature of the business of the Graphics Communi- cations Group, the months of January and February normally show losses. Heritage's interest expense during 1982 is expected to be up versus 1981. In- creased levels of debt incurred in the second half of 1981 and continuing in 1982 to finance the capital expenditure opportunities of the Telecommunica- tions Group are the primary reasons for the increase in interest expense. 33 Heritage expects to complete the marketing of Cablevision Associates VI, a limited partnership offering of up to $25 million, in the first half of 1982. At the time of completion of the marketing of Cablevision Associates VI, Heritage will recognize income from two sources. First the partnership agree- ment allows Heritage certain fee in- come related to the acquisitions and the financing of the partnership. Sec- ond, Heritage was a minority owner of one of the properties purchased by the partnership in 1981. Recognition of the gain on sale of these. properties (ap- proximately $1.2 million) has also been deferred until the completion of the marketing of Cablevision Associates VI. Because of the anticipated high levels of capital expenditures during 1982, it is expected that the con- solidated tax rate of Heritage will not change materially during 1982. Until 1981, the results of Heritage were not affected to a material degree by seasonal factors. However, the ac- quisition of Shaw-Barton, Inc., in March of 1981 has added a very pronounced seasonal effect to the results of Heri- tage. The seasonality of the businesses of Shaw-Barton (now the Graphics Communications Group of Heritage) generates earnings peaks during the second and the fourth quarters due to the school annual a~.nd calendar busi- nesses of the Group. The operating re- sults of the Graphics Comrunications Group during the first and the third quarters are materially below those of the other two quarters. Additionally, the cash flow patterns of the Graphics Communications Group will affect the seasonal timing of interest expense of Heritage. Seasonal borrowings by the Graphics Communications Group nor- mally begin to build in the third quarter and reach a peak during the rniddle of the fourth quarter. These seasonal bor- rowings are typically liquidated during the months of December, January and February. FOURTH QUARTER RESULTS (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 1981 1.980 Revenue Net earnings Earnings per share (primary) Average common shares outstanding $24,457 $6,796 948 138 .08 .02 7,354 6,027 Fourth Quarter - 1981 Operating results for the Fourth Quar- ter of 1981 were significantly better than the same period in 1980. Operat- ing income from the Telecommunica- tions Group increased significantly and the results of Shaw-Barton, Inc. (ac- quired in March, 1981) were includedi. for the first time. The Fourth Quarter is a seasonally strong quarter for the Graphics Communications Group (Shaw-Barton). The Display Communi- cations Group experienced a loss for the quarter. Business Segments - 1981 Display_ JI Graphics Telecommunications - 2~4, __ , gc,; 17!%'a i ti h f ~~~ ~~*r ~ ~' ~ d, a~,.r ~' ~, ~ ,f. Revenue Operating Identifiable Income Assets Organization and Management Changes During 1981 a number of individuals joined Heritage, increasing the manage- ment strength and diversity of the com- pany. Laurence W. McGuire joined the corporate staff as Director of Human Resources. In the Telecommunications Group, a reorganization to reflect the major growth of the Group resulted in the promotion of Rodney G. Thole to Senior Vice President-Operations, re- sponsible for all cable television opera- tions of the Company. In addition, Loran J. Schiltz became Controller of the Group, and Dale R. Parker became Vice President of Marketing, Program- ming, and Government Relations. With the addition of the Graphics Communications Group., Jay F. Shaw, President of the Group, became a Vice President of Heritage, and Richard. J. Finnegan, the former Chairman of Shaw-Barton, became a Director of Heritage. 34 Board of Directors ~~-,, '- James MHoak, Sr. (4) Chairman Divisional General Manager, Wheeler Division, St. Regis Paper Co. (Construction materials) r James M. Hoak, Jr. (1) President ~_~,, ~~ ~, '' James S. Coiunre (1) Executive Vice President F L r~~ James W. Callison (2) President, Des Moines Wheel & Rim Co. (Automotive parts) ~~ ~t ,~ ..._ '~'r~' William Friedman, Jr. (3) President, Younkers, [nc. (Retailer) i I ~~ Richard A. Matthes (1,2) President, Genesis Ltd. (Welding and industrial products) _, ~.. ~ ~ --- John Ruan (4) President, Ruan Transport Corporation and affiliated companies (Transportation, real estate and finance) ~'~", `• ~~ iz James E. Cooney (1,3) Partner, Ahlers, Cooney, Dorweiler, Haynie & Smith (Attorneys) ~~ ~;~~ ~~ '~ t ~~ "t James W. Hubbell, Jr. (3) Chairman of the Board, Equitable of Iowa Companies (Insurance and retailer) . "! ~' / ~~,.~-_~ _'-~~ '~ , Kenneth J. McCarthy (1) Senior Vice President, Younkers, Inc. (Retailer) ,'rf~' ~,, ' _ :; ,~ ~ :~ ,~~._ K. E. Westerbeck (1,4) Vice President and Treasurer, Equitable of Iowa Companies (Insurance and retailer) ~.4 1. Richard J. Finnegan (4) Retired Chairman of the Board, Shaw-Barton, Inc. y ` ~~, ,~', / ~; d ~~~, -~ Alan R. Kahn (1,2) Financial Consultant ,. ~. ~~. i~ '' 41 E. O. Roden (4) President, Skyline Radio Network (Radio stations) (1) Executive Committee (2) Audit Committee (3) Compensation Committee (4) Nominating Committee 35 Management Directory HERITAGE OFFICERS James M. Hoak, Jr., President James S. Cownie, Executive Vice President Russell W. Calkins, III, Vice President David J. Lundquist, Vice President Jay F. Shaw, Vice President Wayne L. Kern. Secretary Arlan W [pan Roekel, Treasurer CORPORATE James M. Hoak, Jr., President David J. Lundquist, Vice President -Finance Wayne L. Kern, General Counsel Arlan W. Van Roekel, Treasurer SCOtt A. ButleY, Director of Internal Audit Cheryl A. Marsh, Director of Corporate Communications Laurence W. McGuire, Director of Human Resources ~ t, r ten(.. , i~ ` "~ ~ s - '-; ~~ ~, .~~ ri~~ .''.. TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP James S. Cownie, President Arthur C Hutzler; Senior Vice President -Engineering/ Computer Services/Personnel William J. Riley, Senior Vice President -Public Relations Rodney C. Thole, Senior Vice President -Operations Dale R. Parker, Vice President Marketing/Prograrnming/ Government Relations Thomas E. Reinhard, Vice President -Operations Loran J. Schiltz, Controller Thomas P. Craves, Director of Government Relations Arthur F. Schoenfuss, Director of Engineering Neil H. Haman, General Manager, Heritage Cablevision, Harlingen, Texas Nile W. McDonald, General Manager, Heritage Cablevison, Des Moines, Iowa ,,!`_ r' ~~ GRAPHICS COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Jay F. Shaw, President Harry A. Zink, Vice President -Finance Larry J. Cahill, Controller Fred C. Cuykendall, President, Oravisual Eugene R. Horyn, President, Shaw-Barton Earl P. McConnell, President, School Annual Publishing Robert A. Wilson, President, Braun-Brumfield DISPLAY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Russell W. Calkins, III, President Donald R. Bendickson, Vice President Marc J. Berman, Controller M. H. H. Antonisse, President, Heritage Communications of Dallas and Houston Robert T. Buril, President, Heritage Communications of St. Paul Russell E. Kruse, Sr., President, Heritage Communications of St. Louis 36 ~ ~ .. . ,. f . ..: ~ ~ - .e.- .. .... ... . - ~~ 3. ._ .. . '.j ~' ., .- _ , - ,. ::. - E... i.• r~ M .: .: ~ .. ... ~. ~ .. .. ~ .. ..K:... : Y.. ~ .. . . p •.. ~.~: :. . ~ ~. .. ~ .' .; .. :.. S. :. _. ' ~ is ~.. is i . '... ... +. o . St( -• i', i i:. .. ~. ~. ' .:. ~ ...... _ ....: ~ . .. ... .., .. _ .. ~ . . ;~,a... .. n:: .. : .. . .. .Y. ., :.. ~~' - - .•. .~.~ ~. :.~ .. ~. .. .. .. ' .. ~ ~ ` t. .. C' '. .. .. .. .. ~ ' .- ' '.. :. e . `` pp .... :... ..' r• .. . ~ i P4~1Y.~. ~ .. ~ 2 ` ~ ~ 21~a soli ~vern~e ' " ~ ' ~ , , Des`i~Irnnes;l(~va' 3.1~ ,.. , . .. r ,.~ j•~i~245-785 - 4. ~ , 1~~ ~ . ~ - Z _ .. ` .• •'. • .. 'f .. . :. ~ "~ - O[~L • d . .~ . • . 4 . .. h:. .: _ 2 .• . . : . • :~ ... ' ., .. r+~A.. :..'...: ~.. ~ ~Pt fi/iIT !, f.• . .r: . • .. ...'. . ... :. .. . :. ~ i s... . ~yyyyl r ~ ... -.s a++:': : ... .. - .. . f. N ~ ~;; n .. • ., N Y New Y ew ork, orb ~~ ,_ ~ ; ~-;: .~; .._ .~~ <.~• ;~;•~~,~'.~~:.~.-s.,~;. . .. .. . . ~.,, -:~OTClII1t111IC,IL~ ~OU1 S@~ .f n . . ° 5i(lley $z ~1 L±t113 :~.4s`.::... ;:;;~y..~ ;~, ~ ~ ~ - .. • .. _. . - Wc'iSt~iil]P~tCfTl, D.~. .> . - . . -:.. .. ._. , .. ., ... ~y ;.. ;:. .. '....: .-'.. . ;. . . . ,:.. ,:.: :~U] dtors: .. ..: ..... . .. Peat;. M~T111-~{,:M~cll :~i I;t7.' .. ~ ' .. ~. ". - ''DeS ,MOlr~sx ldwa.. 5 ; ,, '. :. .,,. .: :•: ... ..:. `: ~o~ : io-l~isrnol~~ lean: .. ; - , `ll~e ~Compai~y v~-il[ nuke a~ual1able free of . ' - - -: ~. :` .. ..charge to any, sharetu~lde~' tupgn~ wrl~eri ~ ... ,.: ,: .. •'„,: <~.._ .. . , . .,. ;'. ,'.:.. • . .. .. ;... .. ,.... :. • .. the ~ecuritles and ~rchange Corr missiot~ . '. . . .; ~ .,. : , . ;. ~ .:.. ..,... .. . ,.. ., ~ .. . ' . Such regtres~ ,should l~ acltlrese~ fo: , ,: , . ,: ... . ,- ::, ;•::' - : ::. Corpcuate Secretary .. ,.. I~eritage C:omfriut~icatior~s, Inc. . , ....,. , . , . , 2195 .inger5©11 Avenue ;; ~ ~.. :.. Des Moines, Iowa 50312 . :, .. .,. : . . - • . .... . .. . - ~ ~ •~~ , .. - -. ~. ^ .m3..~_a~..t- _ ~ _ ~ `" DATE: /~ - 7_ ~'~ `i'I'I'LE Alvfi OI~,DINANC1~a ;,'vi[~,i`thING OILDINANCI 25 , (SFI~II?;S OTC' 1.970 } ; I','%~~VIDINC~ A n~10Lr1 ~?TI].D I,`Ll1TE ~;Cl.i1sDLTl~?~;; SI~T'PIiv(; L~'ORTII DE'_['A.LLS Ii:i?~LATLNG TO '1'III? I'Oli.l;GOING AND 0`TIIER RIsLATED l~~lA'1"I'IitS . M 1VI-tL1,.I,AS, the holder of the Cornmt.rrai_i;y Cable Te]_ev.sion system franchise has filed a request with the Town Council to increase the apprc;ved rates f.or the system; and ti4'IIEIIEAS; the Town Council has revi-ewed the said :.rage request; and «'HEREAS, a public hearing was held on. December 7, ]_982, at arhi.clr tune the Town Council received a report from the 'Town Manager, comments from the public and from the franchise holder; and •~tiI-IEREAS, the public hearing wens held after Notice was published in the Vail Trail; and, ~ti'HEREAS, the Town Council was determined that the rate increase request is proper and should be granted. NOS~V, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOPdN COUNCIL, OF THE TOt9N OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Subparagraph B, Section 2 of Ordinance 25, Series of 1979, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: B. Service Charges Effective January 1, 1983 blonthl 1 ,.year 1. Dwelling Units Rates for Each TV Outlet 3 years * 5 yea-rs ~~ $11.95/month. ~;ri_thout 3%~~/$11.60 5%/$11.36 10°%/$10.76 contract (13th month free if paid in advance) Accommodation Units $7.25 without contract 3°~~/$7.0~ 5;0/$6.09 10"0%$6.53 * Discount for 10 or- more bulls units Effective upon availabi:ii.ty of si.x Frt'I s1;e:r•eo channc~:l_s nol_;:i.Ler- than :Tune ~_ , ]_08; u ion ~vri is l.en ~zcceptanc;e b~~ t;lae Town of Vaal. Dwc ]. ]_i-ng TJni_ts 3°,0/ 5`,`0/ $12 . X15/-non t:h w:i. thous: (13 t;h mr:,n t:h :I']"ct` i:f p;:t i.d :in .:,.dvancc~ ) ]_ U i~:~ / ., 2. .L':~i(~11 Ll.::C:Oi-aiY:C?d.kl~.'1 f'?rl 1.~.r71_~t '1 }? !)!~)e bL;1.1.C17.;]E~ 1~~_i_1_:I_c~d i.n C, 1"lc~ account : X7.25 Each addil,:i_onal outlet in dwe:l.1-inf.; unit : $2..95 4. Each additional outl.e,y i_n accommodat:ion unit: $2.40 ~ Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any Y°eason held to be invalid, such decision shall not a_f'fect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and -the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty .imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date thereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action"or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed a.nd reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded un]_ess expressly stated herein. Section 4. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is Necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfar. e "of the `Town of Vail and ~ the inh.abi_tants thereof . INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 7th day of December, 1982, and ordered published in full. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the 1.7th day cif December, 1982 at the reguJ_ar meeting of the Town Counc].l of -the Town of Vai.I, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town . Itiodncy~ 1 S1. :i.1'cr , Mayor ~TTT;S`C~: C~.>L 1 i~c>n ~9 . li a i uc , 'l'awn C 1 e_-•k STATUS OF LOCAL ORIGINATION STUDIO FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL 11/22/82 Areas of progress: 1. Lease of Facilities 2. Remodeling of Old Town Garage 3 . Studio Frn ~ i pn~ent 4. Overall Status Lease A lease has. been signed effective 11/15/82 with the Town of Vail for the old town garage. Space rented is 1179 square feet, which will be adequate for a sutdio. The layout for the studio is attached as exhibit A-1. Remodeling Several bids for electrical and general remodeling have been taken., All bids should be received by 11/26/82, and construction can hopefully be . started immediately afterward. Studio Frn~ipment All studio equipment has been ordered from a Denver firm and delivery is expected immediately after the first of January. The equipment ordered is listed in exhibit A-2. Overall Studio Status With all bids in by 11/26/82, construction starting almost inunediately, and equipment arriving after January 1, 1983, the studio should be operational soon after - - hopefully by January 15th. ' I i ~i 18,x; EXEiIBIT A-1 ~-l~"rv LPI~~IN[L lam' ~~ EXHIBIT A-2 Studio Production System Quantity Description 2 ea. Electrovoice 635A mics 1 ea. Tascam M30 Audio mixer 2 ea. Sony DCM50PS mics 1 ea. Denon DP30LS Turn Table & Stanton 680 EL Cartridge 1 ea. Audio Cassette Deck 1 ea. Yamaha R-500 & JBL 4401 (2) 1 ea. Video Switcher - Sony SEG2000 1 ea. 3M101 Routing switcher I ea. Sony editing system V05850 V05800 RM440 RCCSF VDC-5 1 ea. Microtime T120 1 ea. Sony PVM 8200MB dual 8" color monitors with MB-500 rack 4. ea. Hitachi VM-910 B/W monitors 2 ea. Hitachi V-099 wave form monitors 1 ea. Sony VO-4800 3/4" Umatic portable recorder 1 ea. Colortran Mark II portable lighting kit 2 ea. Sony Studio-1800 Trini.con color video camera w/VCL-1110Y zoan lens, 10:1, f/1.4 2 ea. Sony LO-21 lens cable drive 2 ea. Sony CCQ-25AR camera cable 1 ea. Sony BP-60 battery pack .~ Studio PY Quantity 2 ea. 2 ea. 1 ea. 1 ea. . 1 ea. 1 It oduction System (cont.) Description Quickset 4-74810-9 Samson tripod w/ 4-72852-3 Samson head Sony DR-l0A headset Minccen D2500 character generator Winsted 904 editing console Winsted 910-14 single bay console Cabling and connectors (standard lengths for system quoted) f,-,~..,, ,. ,~ , ~~-~~ r;~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~/~d~ ~s~~~~~~~, Lit:. ~~A November 25, 1982 =,,+:~. Mr. Rich Kaplan, ~-`' Town Manager TOWN OF VAIL ~_"' 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 .. ` Dear Rich: ~. This letter is in response to your request for information.o,n ~~~ Heritage Cablevision service. Vail Associates utilizes cablevision for daily snow reporting thr_.oughout the winter. I spoke with several people in the department who have been closely involved with Heritage Cable- vision on the snow reporting over the past-year. They feel that the quality and level of service with Heritage Cablevision has been satisfactory. Technical problems have been attended to within a reasonable period of time. Ths general consensus• is that, ire recent months, the level of service has, in fact, improved and all indications are that we will continue to have a good working relationship with Heritage Cablevision. Do feel free to call me if you need further information or have any other questions. =~`s~. ~`~:~-' Sincerely, VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. ~,,,:~ S- ~-- , Pam Stenmark Public Relations Manager PS/jb , Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81658, 303/47$-5601 Yk, t i~~ ~ ~, .~ ~~ ~ ~~,,, o/' ~,/ c~ ~~ -io~3 ~~ P ~~~.~ %/9/8~ ~e~ `~ .., r ~~. ~!E.. ~~. ~-~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~~ iy'~""~' G ,~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 5 ~,~,,~,~ r~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ,~ / ~~ ~~~ ~. 2~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ' ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~: ~` ~ VAIL MOUI~ITAII~I RESCUE GROUP Post Office Box 1597 Vail, Colorado 81658 `~ ~~ ;+ fU- ~ a ~,~ ~+ ~~ G„' 9°'~ q~`'' JIB'' ~"'" ~ ~ ~ '-s CENTRAL RESERVATIONS ~,.~~ ~ (303) 476-5677 (800)525-3875 ® ~ i G MARKETING/CHAMBER SERVICES (303)476-1000 VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION Denver Line 595-9488 241 E. MEADOW DRIVE VAIL, COLORADO 81657 DATE: November 26, 1982 T0: Rich Caplan & members of Vail Town Council John Horan-Kates & members of VRA Board of Directors Roger Bloom, President, Rotary FROM: Paula A. Palmateer RE: Visit by Hanspeter Danuser, Director, St. Moritz Tourist Bureau We are honored and excited to have Hanspeter visit Vail the week of December 6 during which we will be formally establishing our sister city relationship with St. Moritz, Switzerland. I Hanspeter and I have been corresponding and exchanging ideas of how to make this relationship meaningful and productive for both resorts. While he is here, we will be calling on you to explore our ideas and to receive yours. In addition to the VRA Chamber Forum luncheon on Tuesday, December 7, when Hanspeter will be our guest speaker, we have several other functions scheduled for him to attend. Immediately following the VRA lunch at the Lodge, we will be having a formal exchange of flags at the World Plaza and a brief ceremony in honor of the sister city relationship. Tuesday evening, Hanspeter will be attending the Town Council meeting. Wednesday morning, he will be a guest at the Rotary's weekly breakfast meeting. Additionally, I would like to invite you to a cocktail party at Potato Patch on Wednesday, December~8, from 5:30-7:00, in honor of Hanspeter. If you have further thoughts about, the week and what we can do to make it beneficial and enjoyable for Hanspeter, please give me a call. We certainly want to give him enough time to ski, too. Looking forward to having you meet our special guest. ~'~$~~ae'~'tn~l. A 20 YEAR CELEBRATION. C. (~ _ fi town v 75 south frontage road department of transportation/public works vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 TO: Rich Caplan FROM: Jon Eberle RE: Traffic Observations over Thanksgiving Weekend DATE: December 1, 1982 These are some observations about our traffic during the Thanksgiving weekend: 1. The westbound island has helped improve the overall efficiency of westbound traffic. No problems here.. 2. During non-peak times of the day the southbound island works better than in the past. The additional southbound lane, without a stop, does improve the flow. 3. It appears that the eastbound off ramp is regulating it- self. Since the first few days of the season, the back- up has not been bad. 4. This past weekend traffic was backed up at least one mile on the westbound off-ramp. I do not believe that was a result of the new 4-way configuration. In the past we've had this problem onto I70, although not quite as bad. As you know, this past weekend there were more cars in Vail than ever before. 5. Both structures filled on Friday, November 26 and Saturday, November 27. Friday there were 400 cars on the Frontage Road and Saturday 450. Over the 4-day weekend the Village Structure was up 31% in revenues and Lionshead 30%. 6. Our new Gondola sign, the addition of one lane without a stop; the relocation of our 4-way sign and lowering the overpass sign have helped move more traffic to the Lions- head Parking Structure. This was evident because the two structures filled up relatively close to the same time. Rich Caplan 2 December 1, 1982 7. The Shuttle ridership was up 15% over 1981 for the 4-day weekend. The outlying routes were up 1030. Fortunately the outlying routes carried some 15,980 passengers this year or our 4-way traffic would have been worse. 8. Our quaint little pedestrian Town cannot handle the amount of traffic we experienced this weekend. I believe we have learned and can do better at some things, but our product will suffer if we have many more weekends with this much auto traffic. 9. Ideas for improvement: a) At least one additional traffic control officer, possibly two or three on these days. b) Assignment of 2 or 3 officers designated solely to traffic related problems. c) Extra promotion for outlying bus service. d) More hosts and hostesses guiding auto's where we do and don't want them. This may present the image we're. under control even if we're not. e) Implementation of the radio information service. I do not feel it is appropriate to redesign our 4-way right now. There is not substantial evidence that anything short of major redesign would have made a significant improvement. /ts cc: Burnett, Duran, Gordon, Motta, Rose, Ryan, Ufkes ~_' /' ~ ~,~ I \~ ~~~s, ~k~`~'fi ~Q ~ ._ -\ ~~ ~t OTTO, PETERSON ~C POST ATTORNEYS AT I.AW POST OFFICE BOX 3149 VAIL, COLORADO 81A57 FREDERICK S. OTTO JAY K. PETERSON WILLIAM J. POST December 1, 1982 Richard Caplan Town Manager Town of Vail Post Office Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81658-100 VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (303) 476-0092 EAGLE-VAIL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING (303) 949-5380 RE: Tract A, The Valley - Phase V Dear Mr. Caplan: Pursuant to our previous telephone coversations, this letter is written to request that the Town of Vail consider the acceptance of the dedication of that certain parcel of land known as Tract A, The Valley - Phase V, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado ("Tract A"). It is the intent of my client Pueblo Associates Ltd., the owner of Tract A, that Tract A be granted to the Town of Vail without return consideration. Title to Tract A is presently merchantable and there are presently no improvements located on or contemplated to be placed on Tract A that would or will require any main- tenance or upkeep. The owner is interested in granting Tract A prior to January 1, 1983, and I would therefore appreciate the decision of the Town of Vail as soon as possible concerning the conditions upon which it is willing to accept title to Tract A. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, .~%~~(- Wil iam J. Post WJP/sjc DECEMBER, 7,1982 TENANT:Hyacinth Boomhower ~~ 30062 South Frontage Rd.~FI. Vail, Colorado. 81657 :SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING, In pertenance to the No Parking signs posted on the S. Frontage Rd in Intermountain. I personally think they should not have beem posted. I have been. living in Intermountain for three years and they were not posted-then, this may pose a large prob em especially with the up and coming Holidays. This parking area is hadly needed in my area.The Dead End is not a thoaoughf~re, people are constantly turning around down there. The State plow onl';y plows the main drive and I have only seen a Town. Plow once and it was plowing up to the Dead enfl sign posted across from the Interlochen sign. Tenants usually had a place for th~~r guests to park, if the cars are parked one behind another they will soon block the main road.There is more than one car per Unit and the Short Term renters also rent cars con~~stantly, where will they park? If the main road is blocked,~he Snow~~plow will not plow. If the sig'I'ns will be taken, or replaced by signs stating,~~Parking between 6Pm. and 8Am.only~~, this may be an answer to the hassle.The people who g'o to work in the morning can give up their spot during the day and~,the plows can do their job. The guests and short term renters can~',park on the Frontage Rd. at night.This is peak parking time in my'area. In my opinion the signs are a double standard, because peak parking in the Town of Vail causes the police to let the tourist park on the Frontage Rd., why!'them and not us? Locals!!:!:!:! If nothing is done, the next step will be petitions, with signatures of the locals in my area who all have received parking violatior},~tickets.~ THANK -YOU ' .~i ~'(~L'~?%~ ~ a ,~' C-l~ ~ ~.~. Vail Associates, Inc. November 25, 1982 Mr. Rich Kaplan, Town Manager TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Rich: This letter is in response to your request for information on Heritage Cablevision service. Vail Associates utilizes cablevision for daily snow reporting throughout the winter. I spoke with several people in the department who have been closely involved with Heritage Cable- vision on the snow reporting over the past year. They feel that the quality and level of service with Heritage Cablevision has been satisfactory. Technical problems have been attended to within a reasonable period of time. The general consensus is that, in recent months, the level of service has, in fact, improved and all indications are that we will continue to have a good working relationship with Heritage Cablevision. Do feel free to call me if you need further information or have any other questions. Sincerely, VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. ~r S-,~,,, m~„~- Pam Stenmark Public Relations Manager PS/jb Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81658, 303/476-5601 ,- ~ '~ ~~ Jy'A"h' ~.~ ~ .. ~~11 A~~c~~t~s, Inc. _ .. November 25, 1982 Mr. Rich Kaplan, Town Manager TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road ` Vail, Colorado 81657 ` Dear Rich: This letter is in response to your request for information o,n Heritage Cablevision service. Vail Associates utilizes cablevision for daily snow reporting throughout the winter. I spoke with several people in the department .who have. been closely involved. with Heritage Cable- vision on the snow reporting over the past year. They feel that the quality and level of service with Heritage Cablevision has been satisfactory. Technical problems have been attended to within a reasonable period of time. The general consensus is that, in recent months, the level of service Yeas, 'in fact, improved and all indications are that we will continue to have a good working relationship with Heritage Cablevision. Do feel free to call me if you need further information .or have any other questions. Sincerely, VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. 5,~- Pam Stenmark Public Relations Manager - ,. ,.~, PS/jb Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81658, 303/476-5601 . ,_< . - r'': ti ~Q~ ~ ~ ~fJG.~~ai v~~ ~ .-~~ ~~~~ ~~u ~~~~ U /L~C /~v` ~ Gl~ ~j J // (~ 1fIZ3~8Z wa r J~~ S~tS~ ~ November 23, 1982 Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: The Board of Building Appeals met recently with Town of Vail Building Officials to discuss the suggested formation of a committee which would hear contractors= grievances. The Board of Building Appeals is constituted under the Uniform Building Code and Town of Vail Ordinance to license contractors in the Town of Vail as well as to hear appeals regarding building official decisions. It was the unanimous consensus of the Board that the Board of Appeals provides a forum to objectively hear contractors' appeals, and that formation of another committee would represent a needless duplication. Ver ly you. s, \: James L. Vi_e1e,,Chairman Board of Appeals JV:df ~ ... ~.~m CENTRALRESERVATIO (303)476-5677 (800)525-3875 ® ~1 II~. tt ~~ MARKETING/CHAMBER SERVICES VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION Derive 3L ne6596~9488 241 E. MEADOW DRIVE VAIL, COLORADO 81657 November. l6, 1982 Dear Council Member: In conjunction with Paula's presentation on Tuesday,°November 16, regarding the VRA funding request, the Board of Directors would like to suggest an ap- proach to the Town of Uail that a) would allow VRA to continue at its present program level and b) would provide the time necessary for the Board to recommend alternatives to the present funding methods. - The history of financial support to the VRA's marketing and chamber efforts spans six years and three Councils. Let me summarize what I believe to be the positions of the VRA and of the Zbwn of Vail regarding VRA funding re- quests: o The VRA's position has been that in a single industry community, where 50°s of the Town's revenue depends directly on the success of tourism, it is appropriate for the Town government to enter into a partnership, along with other business entities, to ac- tively promote the resort, assuring that the tourism base remains healthy even through economically difficult times. o ~.ile there has always been a debate, a majority of Council ngnr hers throughout the past six years have voted in favor of support- ing the VRA request for chamber and direct marketing support with the amount increasing each year. This year, there seems to be a -shift in philosophy that implies that Town dollars ought to be appropriated towards chamber efforts only, not marketing. The dominating position seems to be that it is more appropriate for Town dollars to go towards servicing the guest and maintaining and in fact, enhancing the product. o The Town has expressed concern that there is not presently ado- quate public accountability for Town dollars that go towards the VRA's marketing effort. ~e VRA Board would like to make two points in regard to the shift in philo- sophy and the .concern over the product. ~~~ ~w~Il. A 20 YEAR r~~ CQfIATIrIAI -` Council Mc~nbers November 16, 1982 Page Two . 1) We are prepared to shift our thinking to correspond to this philosophical change we observe coming frcm the Council, but time is needed for use to react and plan alternatives, in order not to destroy our present momentum. 2) The VRA Board concurs that the product is an essential in- gredient of a marketing effort, contributing substantially towards the success of our resort: However, a more direct marketing effort, such as active sales and advertising pro- .^ grams, is evert more important in economically difficult and competitively intense times like today... As you know, the VRA has improved its image and its effectiveness over the past 2z years, thanks primarily to the support of the business community, Vail Associates and the Town of-Vail. An important element of a success- ful marketing effort is continuity. However, an ever present threat to this effort is VRA's method of funding, presently unstable and inequitable. In addition, we feel the role of the VRA as a primacy marketing arm r"or Vail needs to be further expanded if Vail is to remain successful both as a world-class resort and as an exciting and desirable community in which .to live. The number. one objective of the VRA this year, then, is to explore and solidify a stable, equitable and adequate form of mounding. We have con- tracted the services of-Stan Bernstein who is to analyze the VRA's present funding base and alternative new sources. Additionally, the newly elect- ed Board of Directors is committed to studying the issues. Not only the funding mechanisms, but the entire organizational structure and role of the VRA will be examined in the next 60-90 days, with alternatives de- veloped and recca~unendations made to the ccnununity by the end of the next six months. The VRA Board of Directors understands the financial pressures the Town is undergoing in its present budget process, pressures all of us face in our own businesses. The Board also agrees that the present method of seeking funding from the Town, that is a yearly appropriation from the general fund, is not equitable nor predictable ,and cuts into other priorities and obligations the Town has to maintain and enhance the-Vail product and to meet the needs of Vail's pernianent residents. Unfortunately, the timing of our examination of the VRA is not in synch in terms of providing new funding sources that would replace what is now being requested from the Town. An appropriation of $125,000 would cripple the sustained marketing effort the VRA is providing tY~.e community: We ask that you approve the $200,000.being requested with the following cc~nitments by the VRA: ... • } Council Members November 16, 1982 Page Three o Dollars will be clearly earmarked to programs that provide a service to the cananunity (special events and information booths) and show a return on your investment (direct market- ing P~r~) . o The Board of Directors of the Vail Resort Association bring a ccxnprehensive report and reccxrunendation to 'the community for a more stable, equitable and adequate funding source(s) with possible organization structure changes by June 1, 1983 o The recca~mendation, if tax-based, will suggest a source incre- mental to the Towri's present base We look forward to discussing this important issue with you. Sincerely, VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION R. Horan-Kates man -Board of Directors A, JHIZ/kn PROPOSAL TO TOItijN OF VAIL FUNDING TO VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION 1983 -------------------------------------------------------=------- I. Accountability for ;198.2 Appropriation: Amount = $160,000 Programs: Information Booth (salaries and related expenses) _ $ 32,214 Special Events (direct costs of events) ~ _ 25,000 , Advertising - Front Range = 4.0,000 ' Meetings market ~ other individual _. 62,786 160,000 Results: (primary focus,.special-.events and advertising, was for summer months) Bookings placed through Central Reservations, May through October, were u 250 over the same period one year ago. . Colorado's share of the summer bookings made through VRA was u 180. . For VRA, fiscal year, 1981-82, number of people through the information booths increased 340. Summer VRA research project showed: 1) 560 of people interviewed recalled seeing, reading, or hearing advertising about Vail; 2) 19.30 said advertising influenced them to come to Vail; 3) Of those who recalled seeing Vall advertising, 21.10 had read the Denver Post magazine insert; 18.40 of-- those said their reading t e ad influenced them to visit Vail.. Data obtained from Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation shows that on the Saturday of Vailfest weekend this year compared to the same Vailfest Saturday one year ago, 6,300 more gallons were treat, an increase of 740; (based on a'national average of I35 gallons/person to process what comes through the sewage plant, there were 11,000 people in town this year compared to 6,200 last year, an increase of 770). Page Two Proposal to Town of Vail Funding: iI. Key points .concernin;g VRA 1982-83 budget: Overhead - after subtracting the contract for Stan Bernstein's work, general and administrative expenses (allocated to Re"s, I~4arketing and Chamber) increased 6 a . Salaries - during the budget approval process, the Board of Directors of the VRA approved only a 4a cost of living increase for positions that are in place. with an additional 4o remaining in the budget as potential merit increase (tied to meeting revenue projections and keeping expenses within budget). Revenue - conservative figures were used except in group bookings where a 5Oa increase in summer group commissions is projected for 1983, compared to 1982 III. Proposed Contribution for 1983 from Town of Vail: Amount: $200,000 Programs: Information Booths (increased hours so Lionshead is open same as Village plus increasing parttime supervisor to full time) _ $ 47,000 Special Event"s ($10,000 increase in direct expenses with corresponding rev- enue tied to an event of $10,000) Research (a more comprehensive study ~y Gage Davis to correspond to winter study; Vail Associates committed an additional $5,000 in matching funds) Advertising: GOLF (magazine, direct mail and brochure) FRONT RANGE - " ~ Television (summer) Radio (summer) Print (Denver Post,. May) Meetings publications Anticipated Results: 35,000 5,x00 19,300 63,.450 13,700 4,675 81,S25 11,875 2OO,U00 . 17o increase in guest nights booked through Cen~oTlsuinnLr . 50% increase in guest nights in group, summer . Increased awareness of Vail as.a summer destination and of Vail promotional material through research . Identification of summer t~roduct opportunities through the research; increased awareness., of Vail as };o1f destination . '. HOW IMPORTANT IS VRA TO VF~IL'S ECONOMY? Your membership dollars go .to support all programs and efforts of the VRA, with Lodges and VA paying for Central 'Reservations, but you may be asking the question,. what is the return on my dollar.? One way VRA can trace its effectiveness is through its bookings. __ Fact: . Bookings through the Vail Resort Association represent approximately •208 of the community's lodging business. . Vail enjoys approximately 70$ repeat business in the winter season. . Business booked through VRA represents primarily new business to Vail. Once a customer or group has been to Vail for the first time, a rebooking will more than likely be with the property visited the first year or one noticed during the first trip. . Town of Vail bales tax records show that for every dollar spent on lodging, approximately two dollars are spent on other retail sales. Given all of the above: Bookings made through Central Res and Group Sales for 1981-82 = $ 4,957,170 in room revenue $ 9,914,340 in other .sales • $ 392,460 VA tickets $15,263,970 in total sales @4.15$ sales. tax revenue to Town of Vail (including VA • voluntary resort tax) _ $ 633,455 Bookings projected to occur for 1982-83 = $ 5,595,380 in room revenue • $11,192,760 in other sales. 500,000 VA tickets 517,289,140 in total sales (13.3 increase over 1981-82) @4.15 sales tax.revenue•to Town of Vail (including VA •voluntary resort tax)= $ 71?,499 Cost of sales, then, for 1982-83 ($1,114,467 spent to make $17,289,140) is a conservative 6.4~, with no additional credit for repeat business generated initially through the VRA, for responses to advertising that do not go through the VRA res system or for lift tickets sold other than through a VRA package. Not included, of course, in retail sales is the effect this business has on real estate sales and on other non- taxat+to b~lcinac~~+~:. ~»~-n as rrofessionals and ttie service industry. ., 7 ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~~ -~ _ - - - -1~ - _ ___ ~.~~1_' - ~ -- . - - -- --- - - - - - - - y. ..-~. ` n - - -- I O .. _ _ l_._O ~C.i_ _ _~ __ ~- - - - _ ~. ,~ ~~~ -_-- ~~---_-- off' -_., l __ _ ~ ~~ ~, . _ -- ----4 ._ _ - '' __ :~ ~.- ~_ ~ :- r~ErroRAND~+r~ TO: Town Council FROi~~a: Dic6: Ryan DA'T'E : November 10, 1 D&2 SUBJECT: Vail/Beaver Greei< Winter ~ua'lit;~ Research Enclosed is a draft of questions -for This year's t~~irter quality study,.. P1ost of -%he questions in the survey are not avalab1e -for general distri- bution to the town, as they would provide valuable infiormation to oti~er ski areas. Town questions are loo~-ing at expenditures, types of uniics, where the tourist is staying, prei'erences o-f the visitor, transportation issues, evaluation of ser~rices, and a strengths and weaknesses analysis. The Town COUnC11 should review questions and see i-f .there are areas to expand or new questions to add. T+.i!:^,~ i,,,, k.s'.`.2.175-~F`"~~v.1'.`•w/~.sd..x 7P'9t 6.~4.d _ .. {':.~~diyii4Gl;IVO t_P,hDSCAF'f~ AF3C1ii1t=GTUEE 1YlEMORANDUi~ To: D~ir.k Ryan From: Chris Cares and Nolan Rosall Date: November ~, 1982 RF: Tov~n of Vail Participation in the Vail~i3eaver Creek Minter Quality Research Following up on our conversation of F,~ida,y, we have put together the attached list of draft questions. the ar•e assuming that you i~~i11 revie~ti~ the questions, get back to us on•Tuesda,y, and'vre can make refinements in time to get you a draft suitable for presentation to the City Council next week. • You should keep in mind the various kinds of studies that will be done this winter. Ptt the present time it loa{<s like the study will consist of four different elements: ® The Mountain surveys at bath Vail and heaver Creek. a The Mailout survey sent. to all skiers in~terviowed on the mourtains. o A telephone survey of f=ront Range skiers. o Focussed interviews of selected skiers designed to elicit detailed comments and ideas on various ski area activities. We have attempted to place Town of Vail questions in the appropriate place to ensure that theinformation gathEred meets your objectives. The result is tllat same of these questions w~il~l end up being a.skeci on the two mountains; some will be asked on the telephone survey, and the majority an the Ma~ilout survey where a visitor can take a leisurely look back at the entire visit. As we indicated to you previously,.our suggestion is that the toltiii1 budget X5,000 for the winter research, and X2,000 towards participating in a summer program to be inii:iated next summer. The winter budget will allow the town to receive key cra.sstabs on the questions and a short writ en. summary of significant findings. We would also expect to provide you adith an interim report-this winter (in January), with a final. report in June. The budget does not allow far formal presentat~ierrs or workshops but these kinds of activities could be scheduled later if you feel it is appropr~ia~te. Cosi: estimates could be submitted in advance. We would expect to bill Vail Associates for the study. The town, in turn, would be billed by V. A. for your participation. This year, i ntervi ev~~i ng wi 11 bcgi n i n early Der.ember, vai th study days occurring throughout the season. 'The telephone survey wi~l1 be conducted 'in late January ar early February. • Tf t}lore are further questions on i,he approach, tl~e budget, or refinements to the questions, let us i:now. ~~.~L.C1J~° '~t1~tl~~° Dear Recent Vai~i/Beaver Cree{: ~Jisitor: Yc~u probably remember that during a. recent ski day at Vail and/or Beaver Creek .you responded to a questionnaire concerning your-experiences. rrde would appreciate it if you would take about five minutes 'to respond to the fol 1 oa~ri ng questions that are -intended to follo~~r up on the earlier survey. These comments gill remain confidential.. (QUESTIONS 1- ARE FOR OVERNIGHT VISITORS TO VAIL ONLY. 'DAY SKIERS APiD RESIDENTS OF VI1IL SHOULD START THIS SURVEY tJITH QUESTION-i~io. Are ou a: 1) ~] local resident ?) [] day skier 3) [] overnight visitor from Colorado 4) overnight visitor from outside Colorado $ ,.:.~,~ 0 0 0 . Estimate the total per capita per day cost of your recent .trip to Va(I/Beaver Creek during which you answered.i-he survey, exc I ud 1 ng 1°rave f 1°o the area. (Exa;np i ca: i f your trip cost- $1000) you had two people. in your party and arere.in Vai•I five days, the per capita cost was; $1000 :a 2 = $500 and $500 •: 5 (days) _ $100/person/day ._ H~t~,j~ -REAL ESTATE I~Ihat type of unit d I d you s-t-ay I n 1-h 1 s trip? 1) [] lodge/hotel 2) [] condominiurn , ~) [] single family/duplex 4) [] time share. ,". . 5) [] other: What area of Vail/Beaver Creek were you staying in? 1) [] Vall Village ~ - 2) [] LionsHead ' 3) [] East Vall 4) [] West Vali 5) [] Beaver Creek 6) [] Eagle Vafl 7) [] Avon ~ f ~~R REI~!'TERS~: D 1 d you stay ai' the accommada~f~i ons you preferred? ~) C] yes l) C~ No 2a) I f .not, achy? Please rate the quality of your accommodations based on the following: EX Gd Fr Pr DK C~ C~ C~ CJ C~ a) cost C:7 C1 C~ C~ L.~i b ) - ocat i on ~ ~ CJ C~ C_] L~ C7 c) size of un(t ^ C~ C~ C~ C~ d) quality of service C~ C~ CJ C~ C~ e) f ) value of dollar anion (t i.es ( pool , health c l ub, e-i-c. ) C~ C~ C_] C~ C~ ~~ ~ g ) suggest 1 ons for 1 mprovemenl~s Do you own or rent your unit in Vail%Beaver Creek 1) L~ own 2) C~ rent 3) [] time share TRAVE ~~ _For Quern 1 qh~ i s ir„_~„ for s,~, D i d you come to Va i! v i a S-i~ap I eton A l rpor-r? 1) [~ yes 2) [] no' IF YES. how did you get to Vail from Stapleton? 1) [] rental car ?_) [] taxi, van, limousine 3) [~ scheduled: bus, service 4) [] chartered bus 5) [] Rocky i~lounl-aln Airways' 6) [] private car 7) [] other, specify.: How do you evaluate that method of transportation in 9~erms of the following? Ex Gd Fr Pr .NA a) convenience of schedule ^ [~ [] C:~ C.] b) cost-~ ~ - CJ C~ C:~ C~ C~ c) reliability [~ C~ C~ r..] C~ d ) overa l 'I -i eve~l of service [~ [~ [] [] 1=.J ~) advance reservatl ons C.1 ,C~ C~ C~ C~ Any suggest 1 ons for 1 rnprovemen~rs .,. .. .. Hoar wou i d you eva i uate the fol I ow i r,g wh i cl~ ~,~ou have experienced so far during your trip 'i'o !'ai I /L3eav•r Ci°~ek? Ex Gd r r Pr DI< a) quailty of resl-aurants C] C] C] C] C] b) va I ue per do i I ar C] C] ~ ~ C~ C~ c) convenience of parking ~_] C] C] C] C~ d) cost of parking C] C] C] ~-] C] e) bus service in town of Vail C] C ] C_~ C~ C] f) bus service betti~recn_ Vail & [3eaver Crk C] C] C_~ C] C] g) traffic signage in town C] Ca C] C] C] h) condition of pedestrian walkways in town C] C] C] C] C] i) attl tude of emp I oyee~ 1 n restaur•a ni-sp lodges, shops ^ C] C~ C] C~ j) attitude of emp I oyees 1 ri parking i o1-s p structures ~ C] C] C] C] C] I:) attitudes of bus drivers ^ C] C] C] C] directories (or "kiosks") in town as sources of information C] C] C] C] 'C] m) feeling of safety and security in fawn C] C] C] C] C.] STREPiGTNS/6~;EAKNESSES Tf7i nk-i ng about the three Colorado resort co!~!!nuniti es you are mos-i; fami 1 i ar ~~ri th , we'd like your op-in~ion as to ~~rhether one of the three is clearly better titan the other two in various ways. For example.... 'in terms of (READ ATTRIBUTE CHECf;ED 6ELOb;) Raoul d you say: One of the 3 ?_ are equal & Are all 3 i s c;l car'iy better than ~ the same best.; tine third Tours Area ® Base area restaurants o Night life and en-terta-inment ' e Quality of lodging accom!nodations ° o Variety of activities besides --~:-:'`- downhill skiing (cross country, ice skating) o Architectural quality, atmosphere - o Level of upkeep, maintenance a Attitude of employees ~ P1 ace you like the most ® Summer resort ~~U~T~~&~ ~~~~~Y~ 35. Wher_~, is your car par)ced today? 1) [] Not applicable (no car in Vail) 2) [] Beaver Creek 3) [] Golden Peak ~) [ ] Transportation Center 5) [] LionsHead Parking Center G) [] LionsHead North 7) [] 'LionsHead West 8) [) Condo, lodge,- or Dome 9) [ ] k,rontage road 10) [] Other: .....> ...............>...... 11) [ ] Dori' t )cnow 35a. :i:s the cost of the paid par_k:ing fair? 1) [ ] Yes 2) [] No 3) [ ] tlncertain 39~. t~~hich was your first lift today? 1) [ J Gondo la 2) CJ I,i_ft 8 (Lion.sl-lead) 3) C J L;i.f t 1 (Vi1lz~gc) .~ ~) C J Lift 1G (Village) . 5) [J Lift 12 (Go,~l-~er Hilt) G) (] Lift G (Go1.de~~. Peak) 7) CJ Don't k now Ta be d~i scussed on Tuesda}~, Navember l C 75 seufh frontags rd. ~ va+I, coloratin Bi657 ~- (303) 476-7000 ~4,..~._:,~,.__.__ ~.~,W_.-...>:: f'dovember 8, 1982 70: TOWN COUi~CIL rlepartmet~f of eommr.ar~ity developmarZt FROP~1: Dick Ryan, Cflairman of the Coordinating Cammittee of Vai1's Community Action Plan RE: Further Explanation of Im~7~ed-i ate Asti orj Items Sinr_e our discussion last Tuesday I have found out additional i nformati.on that further cl ar-i f•i es status of the ~immedi ai.e act ion items reryarding actions that have occurred or suggested actions. I am l oai<i ng far yaur direction and si can of-f where r~~e are headed with the plan so I can repast back to the Coordinating Cammi ttee and Task Forces. I. The Coardinating Committee has unanimausly approved the "Statement of Purpose" for the plan. I consider that this is an excellent direction for every task force to use as a starting paint in developing tiie~ir goals, policies, plans, programs, facilities, and i~rplcmentation. These recommendations would then be pr°eserlted to the Caord-inatinc~ Committee and major groups for their nevi erR~ and ~to work far consensus . After consensus is achieved we then t-,rould take the C:omrn~?n-ity Action Plan back to all the major graups far approval and to start implementatio;;. Bel a;~r i s the Statement of Purpase for the Community Act.i an Plan . ''.Statement of Purpose" Given its physical configuration and geographical location, its existing programs, facilities and human resources, its recagnized markets and ~i is existing product on entati an , file Vai 1 corrrnuni ty's goals for the next several years should be: ' .~ Page 2 1. To confirm, acknotPrledge, recognize and focus on as its principal community products/services: --Outdoor sports recreation --Social recreation --Fiusi~ess and professional meetings --Education and the arts --The rnounta i n environment --A quality 1 i fe erperi erne 2. To assure through appropriate mechanisms the continuing public and private maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the community's existing major products and foci 1 i t~i es . 3. To develop new or expanded programs in .underdeveloped or undeveloped product areas. 4. To effectively mari;et, publicize and promote all community products t~r~i thin the framework of a communi ty r7rarketi ng program coordinated when possible with appropriate regional programs. 5. To develop, maintain and enhance those community support programs designed to enrich, inspirit and sustain the lives of the en-~ployees and residents of the community.. 6. To conceive and develop the appropriate sponsoring, funding and management entities required to accomplisi~r the foregoing, involving whatever combination of public, private or non- profit organizations is necessary to achieve the desired ends. 7. To create a community action master plan, the purpose o-f which is to provide guidelines for action to accomplish the. foregoing goals, as well as establish procedures for monitoring progress against agreed-upon criteria. II. Immediate Action Items Each task force has recommended areas 4•rhere immediate action should take place over the next couple of months. P~1ost of the list just •requests an organization or person to take responsibility for ge~ttiny the job done. Others require some financial assistance by an organization to insure that the task will be accomplished. The list below are only areas of immediate concern, I am sure that at the approval stage of the plan there rAri 11 be oti7er areas recommended for action that ari 11 have short ter°m and long term positive impacts for Vail. Below i s a 1 i st of action items by task force Zvi tfr ~~rhat i s no~,~ being clone and suggested actions. Again the purpose of this memorandum is to receive Town Council approval of this direction so that I c.an send it out each tack force. If there are areas to delete let me kno~Yr or ~if you have some other° areas to add that need t;o be done now let me knots so I can add i.{l ern to the 1 i st. Page A. Economic Task Force 1. This tas{; force recommended that businesses within Vail know what economic factors might impact-them during .-the year. Action: Economic nevrsletter - VRA vri11 be starting Vail Trends next rnonth to deal with local., State and Natiorl~al trends that could impact Va-i1. 2. Keeping current on changes that take place during the vrinter regarding attitudes of tourists, economic conditions arld how services are. provided, was considered very important, so vru can respond during the si:i season. Action: The 4~linter Quality study will provide monthly reports, if needed, to the Town of Vail on concerns and opportunities noted in the surveys. B. Social/Cultural/Educational Task Farce 1. Recommended by this group was increased communication of what was happening within Vail each week during the winter and summer. Suggested Action.: F1~ve one of the business groups that currently has a publica- tion weekly include this in their nevaspaper~ or magazine. An orgar~iz~ition would need to coordinate the information. URA would. be the collection point for this information. 2. Another suggestion by members of this group vaas an employee training sess-ian. Action: Vail Employee Welcome Week is from .November 12-19, sponsored by the VFA , VA, Toren of Va i 1 and CPYiC . 3. Photo and art shay^~ with opening of •) ibrary. A'1 so photographs a-F Vail to be on display at the Trar;sportatian Center grid Auxiliary Quilding. Suggested Action: Have funds from a coir,n7unication budget available for° Large scale photographs of Va i T as a Calirl71Lrr11 ty a 1 ang with vdi rifer and summer acti v-i ty Also have Eagle Valley Arts Council work on an art show far opening of 1 ibrary. 4. Coordination of Ford Park Amphitheatre Corr+mittee on planes for area. Action: Three members of Town Council and a stafF member are now working on a solution for the area. 5. Awards far people making a contribution to Vail. Suggested Action_ Have a rnayar~'s dinner to honor outstanding people. 6. Utilization of Ch1C Malcr.i.t °Park and Cnscade -Village ~fa.cilit-ies. Aci:ion: Discussion between ~•awn Council and the C~1C boar°ci has taken plar_e. Page 4 7. Display boxes at the information Vail Village and Vail Lions head. in Vail located at the 4-vray sto Design~Tasf: Force discussion.. Action: Display boxes have been aid at the Auxiliary Bu~ildinq in booths and near entrances to both Also to have permanent display poles .~ . This item was part of the Carman i ty installed at the Transpor°tation Center Lionshead. C . Cornmun i ty Design Task Force 1. Recommended from this group were several neighborhood meetings during the winter. In addition, Town Council show support for° the neighborhood program by alloea~ting funds 'in the 1933 Capital ImF;rovement Program. 2. Continue to insure long term affor~dable horasing. Action: There are people arithin Uail working on affordable housing for employees. While there seems to be adequate housing opportunities now, there is no assurance that it wil~€ be long term or affordable. This item has been discussed by othier~ task forces and belongs under the Community Design group. D. Transportation Task Force 1. The problem of ~~rhere skiers can find information on how 'to get to Vail t~ahile at the Stapleton airport eras a major issue of a couple of tas€< forces. Acf;ion: The Council of Governments has a'pr~ogram and funds to study and .resolve the confusion problem at the airport. VRA is participating in the study and solution 'to -insurr3 that the Vail area -is represented. 2. Another transportation item of irnmed~iate concern is that the airlines are not providing the package deals~to Col®rado. Su Bested Action: '~Jith P,ndy Norris arrci Jan Strauch on the VF~A board; this seems t---aT~e- the ,logical organization far this responsibility. ~~I~ ~ ~ ~ Qf C..~~ .~ (~ ~~ mss- j ~~~ ; ~ ~.n'~" ~~~ess ~ ~,n r ~~, ,, I r~~ _ -~ /a l `~~'n can .. Y ~ ~~- / ~3 I ~ - ~ ~ ,, _ _ .- - - - ~ ~-Q..rs~n / ~~ !` 0 i yl /Q~~'~ ~ r I~~ ~C 1 y ~~~.. - ._ - _. ___ __ __ ...---••_. -- -- ~ ~' ~ L.R. ~ .--'--- - _ ._ _ _ 1 ~ f i . r ~ i t a' 1 1 ~ ~_ ~_ ' _ i ~~ ~ __ _._ _ . ~y ~ -- . . -.. -_ /3' , (~~ I) ~ I ~~ ~ ~.~'- I, ' ~~~~ ~~~ . ~~ ~~ ~~ / / ~ "~V ~- ~~~ ~~ \/ :,~ JOhn H, Verr~r~ Box 846 Vail CO. 81657 303-476-2853 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~.R~. ~,~ a. V ,~, . , . , , .. .. .. .. ,.. .q, ~a~ ~9~a. ,~~ .~5. ~r/e dad ~~t ,~ c~~ ~'o~e rte- ~ar~ .9-~ ~ ~o~~' a~io ~~ ~~~ ate, ~~~~-~ ~¢~ ~~i4.~~ec~. ~2c~ z~ G~s~e~~urnl° 7~~0 /~ii~~~,e~,~~Gr~n~ycP~i c~ ~ e~~ ,~ ~e~~~ c ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~,~~~ ~~P ~~u~c-c° ~ ~ra~ ,,~~e~ ~~~~Ze~c ~~i.e..~.ee?e~i~e. ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ c~ ~~ ~ , e ~~e~ ~~ ~s~ ~~t~e,-a~urr2~, ~G~ e~~~ ~~ UU~ ~~ t~D ~G~ ~~~ainc~~~ ~~~~~~~~° ~ecQ ~.~rl~Yla~ G~e~C.~Ge7~ `7D~? 6'n B-l~-e ~ r . ~t4 ~~~ G~ ,T°w' co~^~, I ~ea~s G'acaine P.O. BOX 2051 VAIL. COLORADO 81657 (303) 476-4390 /t~`~ O/O /~'~- ~ ~~ J ~- ~ , / ` v , v ~"" - ~. ~~~~ ~~~ `~ ~~~ .~n~ ~p .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~, ._ .~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ t~,u AGCy vAIL • • r C 0 • >~~ Acv valL e d ~ ~v ti itVFOf~ASTc.R 1 -01 ~%1 Ct~~ '0~ 1 1 /02/x2 3 ~S Ir~:''i1tnKC KSC ~d6&1 11-02 125:x? CST i:AYA TG,'X 9103^cGGs~61 in~U AGCY VAIL 4-C27398S3G6 11/02/&% ICS IPt~f~iT~? CSr 71 66&8630G TL~1T iAST At~'iHERST tvY 1 ~ 1 1 -02 0 1 51 ? EST :~~`~iS TOSd^a COUNCIL Or GAIL CO LO RA LO :ILL GALL UP.IL CO . CENTLE~~iirN, t~'E ARE R>;SILr..".STS GF: F+f~LI; i~•!Ot.~NTAit~~RuAI; ANL ARE O~POSEL~ TO 1iiE SFi=;=L' ~Uf'i?~S ?RUPOSEL Tic:RiI~ie e g ' f~F; ANL Nt:S STi=p1-iL.:N SALLF~t~i1•iA ' • e m C53 ;=ST N 3 135E c,ST ® 7 /~~ i, ~ ~~~~ ~ .~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ .~'~~--tea/ ~t~- ~c~/ j,~~-~~ , ~- ~~o~ s-e~~c T ti% Yom, 0~~~~ ~ e • ~ ~' ~~ • • 0 t 7 c ~r AGCy [ii';IL m • 3 i t,ru IT~1:Gff1~~ T Erg 1-00~~~7~f~~,~o~ 1 1 /o~/~~ I GC I?"'t~:r;AY~C l~>",C G GJ51 1 1 -l~G G749E-: 1.,"_:T }1Ahi-: • . nl; 91 v3%uCCi~l t~Ti? AuCY VAIL 4-GG31 48,x306-GO 1 1 1 /ljc/~~% ~O,PECTEI:. LL~PLiCiTE. 4-G0G3;~GS~iuE: S. A G04 y iC I?e~;.~~fJ~:? Cr.P 1 8627c444 TiJi-"st~i Tf1LG4 Or: ::5 1 1 Cis 1 %24f-~ L::5T P!~'lE~ IGt~iiv CGlif',~CIL Of' ivAIL i:ULGr:ALU' E A'Tf•~ YAT1:`:' F LiVVL r. r. ~~ L".I `! i'ii;>r. '° II LL CALL VAIL CG '81657 ~ c 0 1NL l~~tlllLL LI}~ TG v''t':1_~S GtJH LI~:iAT1r'2'N(.. 11G~U IC'J T1'!L. ~~~EL ?5L71'i!=~ i-!~\L• ~ _ ~ TIFF L~~CATEI; Gfv BFi1rL i~,OLw 1 AI,d f_~4' L. T1-ii= ~ 1 4E~i/ I7' (~r~'> i..I F 1 iC[~~ ! TG ~ ~ I is i~ T Yi E F :ILL t~71- ~ f,i S Ca G i".' C G~ E ~.a E L A iv 1.-1 i°i N F: t= F G F A ~~ L< ~' t; fv ' L ~ F> F: i:~v T a ~ L?I~ic,. LliF,Ii*~G THE BAST ;? `fr_NF?:C Tl-iL°•~ I•:AS 1+,1v%>_F~ `_ E:I~,1i ~: ~~i=LL PPi'1LL1:P~: w 3 ~1~•iGATING Tl-iE t.;aE uF .S^EEL•`. Lct IC~C L L I°i E F? 4~~ A 1'~l L L r? S G fv 2 5 ~: C O A L L~ i•~! G~ i I~ T A I ~i r T: ~~ A I L C G ~• 1 E. ~ 7 T[.iLSA Gf: 741 G5 GJ ~CT .r L ~a G 856 EST E m 3 e 0 c ~ c m m i ~~ -~ %0,4,0 / ~ `e ~~ ~ ~~j2 o v.1' S' / >-- G~/~7'--i oN ~~ fig /.c~~--~L /vl o .~>~S Gc> d w~7P2 L. QaG~~iG~ ~2S ~'`~ ~ °~ c~ 7`~i~T=2 ~i~-~ ~4- G~ /~~.P S~ a~_.2. ~ri2 ~.~ ~ S'~i c/C ~0'~4-~ ~`Uyc G~/' 7`i Qx~ a ~s ~~ e2P~~i.2-e.~'.~ C'o s~rp~.e f.'~ Sv~ofv ~e C'R c~ ~ -S' ., J ~t~~7`~v L- its~G~ ~~es ~ ~~ s~etie2 Q ~ ~}~-P ~.~,~., T~ e ~G s~~L~, fey,, ~ ~ e~ ~~i2 i•~-(- G~/.~~-ems ~ ~ ti~~ U-`i Q,~, ~~Z.~ Cah 7~/C-v L /S ~ CAS'-f' c©' ~ r-~c~ ~ > ~~9r/~ yam, ~~ ~~ ~p~ 33 A T T"; P1R S '.~JO C D ~~ ~ X355 BALD f~1~UNTAIf~ RD , ~ ~© ~ a = V~.,IL CO °1557 4-OC334`~S3O5 11/O1/~>2 ICS IP[~1;~7TZZ CSP GLt~JA 3C33555;OC ~`G M TD^;T GREELEY CO `~9 1 1 -O1 07O5P ES T ~~ T{ r 'JAIL, TO Gl C~[ CO U D! C I L !~TT~~ 'MAYOR ROD SLIFER TOE;; N HALL VA I L CC X 1 5 57 RE SPEc,D BU(~1P, ON BALD MCt1NTAIN RD AS CtJNERS OF LOT ~5 13TH FILIf~G ~+.~E 6~,jOULD LIKE TO REC'UEST YOI,JR CO"JSIDERATICN RE(~IOVI[~JG THE SPEED TRAP Of~] 3ALD i~~OIJfdT~;IN ROADo GCE BELIEVE THIS TO BE A SAFETY HAZARD AfdD I[~1PAIRf~1Ef~T TO f~?EGOTIATINC THIS ROAD DtJRING INCLE~;ENT FEATHER, IT'S POOR DESIGN? HAS CREATED .DAt`1AGE TC~ OUR PERSOf~IAL VEICLrSo GJE THAC~IK MOLD FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATIO[? IN THIS i~1A TTER, SIfjCEPCELY, . ORT;{ODO[aTIC ASSOCIATrS X355 BALD MO UNTAIfJ RD VAIL CO UI657 1909 EST f~1G ,~iCO [~1P hr1G h1 0 c~ t v TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL -FREE PHONE NUMBERS TO REPL~t RV V111~V~~Rs®®'~6'r,p'~,ppC'p~~n®~ryG~~iogpQ~~~S"'`c~~~ ~,",~"]Jc9 r~G~°~ u~~:,_°:=, r~;~e;, ,.,~ ~.~ -,:`~: ®rY ,II ~16Y Y7 6. LL1'Gs WIL ~~4~11'J ~.~~~, a~~~iL ,» 'I ~~~: •r \:~P Jai ~ ~:, i'~n',t'~' ~u:~ r^ I~S~G'!!L'll 'w._~ ~T ~Y~~) l~~W-~n~Tri~-l~rGe `~L (L: /d t~~~T ~@G tau, l~A aIi LYLo~!G~b~ :^IS JI'r ~lC'~~ :' ~ ~ OR OBA9. W ESTERf~ fl9~980Gi!'S ~~C~~6~~,S~i ER S": S u ('Evu ~~i~'«~ ~'~.°?: FR061~ TELEJt .................... ~ n ~~ r~'^,-~.,.~ ~ ~"~'F~ .. ~ , ............ ~ " _ ~ .- - ~, I 4-001219 X303 10!30l~;2. ICS IPM8~~1GZ CSP r-,L~~rF 9184550597 MGM TDSV TULSP, OK 56 10-30 013^+ ~'ST a ~D THE TO'~!11 COUNCIL VAIL COLORADO 00 R OX 1 00 l~'AIL CO 81657 TO THE' TO~~IN COUNCIL OF VP ILa 'CIE !!'OULC` VE'~'v M!!CH LIKc TO HAKE THE SPEED BLIMP REM(~~JED ~PJ aALD M!~UNTAI P! R~?P,D. IA!E FEEL IT IS HA Z:4RDOUS !r'HE'p~) SNOI!! !' ~dP ICF 'ARE "?ES~'NT. P~SPE'CTFULLY, MQ AN~`M.1~S C M00GE 2.620 BALD MOUNTAIN RD VAIL C~ R_1 S57 0137 EST P'!GMC^MP MGM r~ Q ' a TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE fOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL -FREE PHONE NUMBERS r ~~ ~~ ~'® fR~Pfl.~ ~~ i1fd6ABIL~Rr/~~;a, ~~~®i`c(s °e1i~~~:=R2 'fi'r,°~!i9 CE`,9Y1 ~aol~d'~, i~~~ ~'~ ~w~(G'~C~1: ~~P~ V~~D~ ~~~c~~ ~,~C;S~3~~f~', ~'~i ~C'~~ Q,'i9C~u~'~ C'~~L~ ©~ ((rYS~~~=u~~ C6~9 `~~G~~' ~,~'~Ssf~~.' R~~-I~~2-2273) ®R ®~~1~, VllfCsu l~~t'~9 ~fl~CmG'.9'~ Cic".l ~;~V?~',~ri~6~ ~Sl~~'I~E~J~ i~a ~.~~'~~~1: °~R®f69 ~~~.~X . . .................. ~9~3 f~t~~"il(~.1f!(~Y~ ................ x+30 w2~ x232 :~~.i~ 'A NDEpCGn! DFVELnPM~'NT CO °s.~ '' `~'~ ~~~T Q32 E~+ST SKELLY DR } e~ ._ I_ ',TC)LCA OK 74135 _z ~- ; 4-Oo3O1 ~'S3O5 11!01 '~2 ICS IoMR,,,1G~_ CcP OL.!s,!~ 9136272444 MGM T1~'~N Tr1LSA OK 54 11-G1 0700P EST ~D TOr~!~V C~UAiCIL el? I L C O X31 65 7 '~'E '~rOULD LIKE' TO EXP'~ESG OUp PISS?TISE?CTION IN. THE SPEED RL-~1PS AND SP'~;EP DI P~ LCC?. TED ON >3r'~ LL MOUNT? I N POA D. THrY MQ KE I T VEp~' DI ~'F'ICULT APJ~ H?~?°DCUS TO fiLIn1'3 THE HILL t+!}iEN Sn~t~r.,r COVEt?ED AND M?KE r~'OP n VE'~Y ELMF~ t,r. A P,inroc~N %, 550 R? 1.L rOUn1T? I N rD. t'A I L, C 1904 EST MCMC~MP t~GM i • i .-, LJ ~~ 0 N TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL -FREE PHONE NUMBERS ~~ ~® R~P~V ill ~,'~c~,C~.Q~~,~C'Ji, ~?~CmGt9~ ~~d~~~';~~ ~ ~PJOa~Ep9 ~~'V ~C~~, ~s~V ®IR E~16~4~C~: G'~~ 11©11~~3 ~~~~~ 6~f~96~r~~~, ~y~ ~i~l~ 6ti"C~C~= C°~Q~~ ~l~ ti`®~ffd '?~ ~r-~C~~o!~ C~BRym ~ ~:'r~ ~o ~~ !L.k~C=~~i' Cif s~9~l~ ~z°~~~Q~ ~iQ®-~3~-~~`r ~ ) a~ ~9G~E. 9AIC=S~'~~C~,! "~~~GCT,~f'~ ;G~~~fl~6'iS~'~~ ~~9~ i~(~6~JV ~C~~a;~'~~': ~R~Ni Y~L~1~ .................... ~~ ~`~ G'€?©~'~~ F~fU3( ................ 9~! Q cJ20 ~ 2 ~ ~ i • i i November 1, 1982 Mayor Rodney E. Slifer Vail Town Councilmembers Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Dear Mayor and Members of the Vail Town Council: As residents of 2510 Bald Mountain Road, we would like to state our opposition to the speed dip installed on our... road earlier this year. We believe this dip is a serious safety hazard and will become even more so during the winter months with snow and ice on the road. The dip is poorly marked and has caused numerous drivers to approach it without warning, especially at night. We also have children and certainly do not want to see anyone injured, but we do feel that there are other alternatives to be considered and do not feel that this speed dip is of any benefit to children, residents or motorists on .Bald Mountain Road. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Sincerely yours, G.]~~Caster Jr. ~~~ Mary Alice Caster Ronald D. Caster Ralph Hunt David Hunt g ;~ November 2, 1982 T0: Council Members Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado RE: Speed Dip Bald Mountain Road I should like to take this opportunity to briefly address the "speed dip" controversy currently existing on Bald Mountain Road and submit for your consideration what I feel would be a justifiable compromise to an annoying problem. I have discussed this situation with several parties from both "sides"; I have read several letters pertaining to this from both "sides", and I can sympathize with the-ideas and concerns of each. However, in my opinion, the "speed dip" as it currently exists presents both a hazard and an inconvenience to drivers on Bald Mountain Road, and should be replaced with a "speed hump" (as defined in IMPROVING THE RESIDENTIAL STREET ENVIRONMENT Report No. FHWA/RD/81/030 Prepared for FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION) prior to this winter season. I will agree with the petitioners who wish to keep the dip that speeding is a problem on Bald Mountain Road, however that particular section is not the only problem area. I, too, live on a stretch (further west) and observe incidents of vehicles driving in excess of the posted speed. I might add that I have children (aged 13 and 14) who both walk and ride bicyles on Bald Mountain Road, and the speeding problem, together with a blind curve, are of concern to me. But, the "dip" is too "deep"! More practical would be the "hump", both for drivers and for bicycle riders. This would still serve as a deterrent to slow the few speeders that we have, and would be much safer year round for residents. I know that I personally have to come to a near stop in order to cross the dip. I am concerned about sliding down from a near stop with ice and/or snow this season; I am concerned about traction going up with ice and snow this season. Bike riders face a similar problem of being thrown off should they inadvertantly cross the dip the least bit too fast. .. ., 'r ' In summary, I am not against a deterrent measure to slow the speeder down in order to protect any pedestrian, or for that matter anyone operating a bicyle or vehicle for their protection. I am for a more reasonable deterrent measure (the speed hump) that I feel would be safer for all those involved. I feel the RESIDENTIAL STREET ENVIRONMENT REPORT outlines the many measures and advantages of such a deterrent. I only regret that this report was not available before the dip and the bumps (which were continual maintenance problems before they were~f-iha~ly removed) were placed in service. Sincere m n W. Youn a leen E. Young 2415 Bald Mountain P.oad Vail, Co. Nov. 1, 1982 Mayor itod Slifer and Vail Town Council P . O . i3ox 10 0 Vail, CU 81657 i)ear i~iayor Slifer and Members of Council: It is my understanding that the Vail Town November 2nd meeting, will be considering concerning the speed dip on Bald Mountain retention and one for its removal. Since for me to attend this meeting personally, this letter in support of the removal of dip. Council, at its two petitions Road: one for its it is not possible I am submitting the existing speed As a full-time resident with three school age children and as someone who must travel this road several times each day, I believe I am in a reasonable position to appreciate the concerns of both sides in this issue. c~faturally we want our children to be as safe as possible in any environment. However, a residential street, no matter how many speed dips, bumps, stop signs or whatever, will never be a safe place for children. That is why most older residential communities throughout the country have sidewalks, curbs, and other structures which differentiate the pedestrian space from the vehicular space. In my opinion, the existing speed dip, if anything, is encouraging a false sense of security in that I have recently seen several instances of small children playing, unattended, in the street within a short distance above the speed dip. There is no question that restriction of vehicles to a reasonable speed is necessary. This is not a problem unique to Bald Mountain Road. However, the speed dip is not, in my opinion, the proper answer. Anyone who drives over the Bald Mountain Road speed dip quickly finds that the dip is unlike any other in town. Althougiz I do not have personal technical knowledge, it is my impression that the dip is significantly deeper and narrower than the others. I have been informed that it originally was even deeper (at the request of one of the residents of Bald Mountain Road present when the dip was being installed - whose technical competence I am not familiar with). After a short time the dip had to be back- filled to some degree. If this information is correct, I question what specifications are being used in the construction of the diNs in town and whether or not some of these "experiments", particularly the one on Bald Mountain Road, are not beyond the limits of reasonable interference with traffic flow. With winter coming all too soon, I am deeply concerned that this dip will cause more harm than good. The loss of traction on the uphill side and the slipping and sliding caused by braking on the down- hill side are very real possibilities. -2- In conclusion, although I am unequivocally opposed to the existing speed dip, I am in favor of a reasonable alternative, perhaps the TRRL hump others have proposed, perhaps even a dip, as long as it is not as extreme as the existing one. I do not believe I have sufficient information on the alternatives to make a reasoned judgment. However, I feel strongly that the current dip must be removed or substantially modified before the winter storms really begin. After that issue is resolved, I ~;ropose a meeting sponsored by the Town Public Works department to inform the residents of the alternatives available and their recommendation for spring implementation. Thank you for your consideration. ~ncerely ur ~^~'-' ~ J an F. Jaf e 330 Bald Mountain Road ail, Ct~ 81657 ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~- 1 I ~ ' ~' i i i ~ ,~ ,~ ~ I "= I G%"c~~~LG`' -~ % ~G~t Zy'~/ I '7 r,-~~ L~. ".~ ~ -rem=..~s. :,7+ -~9 _~~~ I~! I~~, ~,~~ i r I ' • ~~ i .''r" I ~~ , ~~` ~ I ~ (~ I i ' '' ~-C~ I I ! I ~ I i ~ t I ~ I f I ~G I~~ L~ I ~ ~ I i ~ ~. I r~ t ~ i { I ~,.~/ I ! C_/ Imo/ Il /~ -.-c'-~~--L'~ ~ ~ i / ,i, I II I I `~~Z; Zrl I / ~ /.~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~I - ~ ii ,f ~ I I ~ ~ /i I ~ I / ~ .~~ I ~ I j I ! ~ ~ ~/', i ~ ~ / I I i i V I i ~ e ~~~ ~i i i ( ~ I I / /~/~ ~ ., /. i ' t/ / I v I ,~f I i i' ~ ~ ' /' "; l ~ ~ i ~ ~+~ r I ~~ i ~ . `' ~L, c'tL~!'zG~ ~~c~'- _:-- -~, ~?~-'' .:~"'rZ-t/l%1/,~I° ~ ~, ; c-~~~ ~?'t-~ Za~~' //"~--~~v ~'"`~- ri "G~,."7`-~ I -~ • ~ ` ~-~".''Z..=.~ ~ c,.' V I ~' ~ G ~ I I r! i I ~ ~ I Ii i d!~.., ~._ i i ~ I ~~ I ~ ~ ~/'~~ ~~, r',~.~tc9"~' i '~~ ~"LCr~ J~~ C.~= f>•?,.~`L"C~ ''?i-^~c:-L'¢7...s....l;.:J ~~,~~q..,J'.~~L~/' ~ I ' ., /~ ~~!-/y /~ i ~~'~,~i~l%.-f/,~~s~ i fi ,',~ ~f ~ I .~ ~~~ ~~ I f~L ~ y ~~ls~~~ ~~ I ,~ .~ (//~'i (` ~ ~~ ~L ~ a _ • '' '° I~,C./. ~ Zvi l~~'+ !'~ \+ L 4~'~LC'(~L'~!'~+c._Ju ~G ~..i' f `~~ L'L ~ ..~ ~'~~~% ' ! I ~ ~ ~ L / ~ i ..._.., iii .,~`.~ {fC/.IG/~ _ //L/~i~~ i l'~GrL;~-V I ~- ~..-~/~ >~..~~1•w-~_ - ~~, i,'t„-E~~/j G L~~ j^ ~i' G Imo. ~wi f I f~'1~~;~~,~/~ i y-!~j.; .y ~ ~?-L~.~~-~-tJr ` ~" ~ i , I _`7 ~ ,. I :° ~ (/. 'I i,~%'r ice` ! I ,~' ~ ' / It,'` '` ~ I,f _ s' _~ i ~;~ I V"i ~ I r~ ~'~~-~- . :~~_ . . ~d ~ /`l ~~ ~~~: ~~~ , Sk',; ~. 4 ~~~.. '~ 'k' ~'_ { a~ r E', ~_. .. W: D.-,~ ~~ ~~ "~s r ~ __^_~_r.___~--_.~ " ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~Z~1~~~CL!~~G~ y~.~ia ~~~'~2~~'~-~- ,' ~~~.- `~~ GAG G~cJ~~I C~/~,.• ~ ~G'LG~Z~~~'~,-~ , :, _' ~~~ " ,~~ ~. 9 ) ~~lz c~2C~.EC~-~~~''-~ GZ~~ l~~ h~."~G~-~`f~ -~2~~ ~~~,=~ c l-~~c~ ~ Get ~?~2~. C~~- ''~, ~-_ f ~.5~~~~~ C~ ~ F~ Y ~ ~ .~ ~~ / ~ ~~ z ,, ~~ . ~~; ~ , .-; ~~ ./L,f ~~ .~ ,. J =; ¢:~ ,. ~- a ~r. ~. ~~~. November 1, 1982 J Mayor Rodney E. Slifer Vail Town Councilmembers Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Dear Mayor and Members of the Vail Town Council: As residents of 2510 Bald Mountain Road, we would like to state our opposition to the speed dip installed on our road earlier this year. We believe this dip is a serious safety hazard and will become even more so during the winter months with snow and ice on the road. The dip is poorly marked and has caused numerous drivers to approach it without warning., especially at night. We also have children and certainly do not want to see anyone injured, but we do feel that there are other alternatives to be considered and do not feel that this speed dip is of any benefit to children, residents or motorists on Bald Mountain Road. .. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Sincerely yours, ~~''~`~`~ G.B. Caster, Jr. Mary Alice Caster Ronald D. Caster Ralph Hunt David Hunt Fi'1 ~ ) k ~t t _ - r 3. t.~ \.~ ~ J ..~ ' . ~ t. ~ ~ ~ - 4 7 gg ~ fi ~ - .3 } ~ - w ~._r~.°i ~ "]J.'r. Ti3:'-`~S}i~v~l.'~RS':.:6i'~..'°.~.Fwa :'^"~R.*c'c"~i'~:^_'a,'~°.aF_'?-a`~.,1w'.'v"i xs 'c«.es ~ _ ... ~ A _ ..S .. .w. .._ 1.J_.•vCw.:iu.w .,~._._..w...y,.~A},4. ._.~.._.ab~ .a <.. x'..! _ . /. _. ~.i F: •_`i ~, .-/ c;; 4 4`i ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ r7 n T (` C .~' '~ r.p r.f 'r' •:• a I r .-. r, n i . i 1, 4 7/ t~1 xMt+ .,fir pV»'> _ d _ - I I is , ... Ur'-. I l.. !C+'.? ~. ~~ L;,; r, T ~ ' '. ~_., r' t T ~. th 'i i~ ~l r. ?.. ~.. ~ ~ - i y w, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F I' ~. y t' ._ . r !~, f ; '_ .. `'?" ~~r''.a •~ r~r.t .' it _ Jy V~V X11 1 i~r `fit ~~!'4 Iii - r ~. ~• ,, ~ c n ,3 ~. ' ~ i - , L' ~ 3 I T K : i ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, > )~ y ~ J r ~I r , , ~. _. , 3 , . T Y ~~ , . `.:'. L..I r ~+ 1 r ~ .~. ~~ i ~ !' 3 :l T F f;' ~' Y t n 7 "~ 1 .. . V ' , e !•. ).', `~ S.. { . ~ l inn r..liTJ :r rt r~;~ - ' r rt t, ., y~ 3. ,T ),~ :r`t , ~ tT r , i 1: t- -1.n.~:L ,: 1 _t i4 n~' T r ~( T r ~_ ~~ 1 II ~. }!T , . @ ?` . >ti ,.. . ,_. t'1(11~ ? ~r c~~ ~;, ~3~~7 ~ r. ) I'` 1` 0 1 1. ~ 1 r , r',.~r;,: z ;T -~,I , 111c (',~ \'~t t, ;, ',j~sn,~ `~, ~` T ~~ .~. , ,u..~e ,~., 1..,~:,;•. YC~+s r rG,? y~;rl,~, '~S,~ _ • _~: r C ~ ~ ' ~ r Ir , , 1 ^; . -. ..r r, r. ~.t' 1 G' '~ i ~ Il t~ r y ll; f i~ CrJ J l ~.: i7 _. +~ b' ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ !~ ct '_ ~ s .. . - _ ~ ~: ~' _, 7~ fiFPLl' I3Y fJ;AIl.1iRAflA, S (: RF1I (iaE SIDE F~Or~ 1r'/c aTE;t{N l)Ni1N'$ TUl_L - FR[-[ FFiQNC; fvUPvlf3cRS ~.._.,~ .-" ~-G. ~/~"-11...c - ~ `" ~?%`L.'., "li ~ 1 -) l ~%- ! c. 'GC. , - f~ !u ~,,r'~ ~ L' -i J-~ ~ .,/ r:_ .Z' `..... G~T:-~'~ Gd~"-~'7L.a~`/~ •C~L''G9 G r `.._'L~'C//t ~~, .r~~_-.v:y_-~~--~/° ., :/c._1-~.,G~_,Z- ./~]~-~ , _ ,/,, J / ~ //'mar. , ~ / - - l/ ~. J ..~:--C:.,-.,~ ~ /4 f ~- i~~ ~`l - f / L~-l G-j _~~ ~"G~""Z.z.J-`l G. / G G ^-G ~._,cli, . y'~:-''~ --~ c '~ -tee J C~::/ ~ , / ~--z''~~-<<'-''" - ~_ ~ ~` - - ~' ~°-~ ~ ~' l f~ ~,,j-~~ ,--r--=- ~~ ~. " ~ u. `7= l.. r ~ ~_. ' ~ 1 ,~~ f/ . Z-G`~:i"7i 1.. .--~ , ` ,~• 7i'G:- /~f/~-~ ~ /G~ ---~G-.r' > :..^•c' -.C'-_.s `: `~"`~ -elf -"-~~~-~ C_y _ ( i ~_... f -~ ,.r~'~ ~rJ 1 G- !-'L- L ,,y',~' 'f-,~~~~f ~~g~._.yz*~._~i-..i!7 .. -~ J ~ ' i "-7 , C.J c~._-~"'' ~ r• , :3 "?- L J 2--v "`~,' -'LC--"% .yF' ~. - c. -~::. ~ ~ - ~L-,t ... J ~ r ~-r~-a~ C ''-`/ / J ' Cam' ~ ~ ~ / 111 ~~~J ~-~ ~~-z.- ~~,. ,~-_ "v~ ,/I-,'-l-c,. L..~ ,~ C"c Z.~- L~.~r r ,~c:.1.--uiz`'>,_ . '~' . ~~"~ i _ ~ r-~ Yom. ~.: .. ~T_.. f- ~ ~ .. -~ _ ' _ ' L' /, f - j4-~.-YiG~"Z!;>~ <~J-`"~ '/ ~ .-~%~ v~r ~ %~--_-'- ~'? //2-<-~:•r~ l~.~~___• j'1--~..G~ ?~._/ -~ 2, .C^y ^ / . / ~G' '- _..~~~ i ~ f G.r." 7'~_`.~" ~~ ~=r7--Z-~'~i`-C-'L„_.J~ ;?.. G ~.::.Lr> ~- O 'C`.~-~/'. ~ ,j; ~.~ _ / ~ 1 / I / f' ~ /./ f;, r ~ ~~ ~' -~ ~. ~G~4~ ~..~:~. ~ .~ .• ~.~ ~~::: , `~` ~ -~ . ~ ~~ ;ter. ,~ _~ ~ =~ ;~=-4; -- ~rr v ~ ' f f ~ ~ '"l-~t-,G x-'1.~~-' - n ~ / < c: G`,'a'-~~~. ~l ~ ~' ~~~`' J /_ -7 ~ r__ C __. y -.. _ .)). }---/~___.._c_ 1 7 ' _.... - , - ~- J ,, . ' ~- j ' ,,~,-- ~~~jj+crs~~;. r,~~.a~s~:ti~.~a°~. -~-~-~- -rte :..~aa.~~m~-.:..i:r.Y....~.,.-~~~m.:.r ;,.,~,A.-=........,.. _ _ ..: - ,..,-..,..._:., - _ . - .. _ , ,..._ _ ,_ . _ , _ •.. . .. S,R f,11"i r..~ , c. n nr i-~ Y t i `~ ~ n ~ r~^i i~~ T (` ~1 f _ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~: ~Z% ,.. F.~'~T C.(~" I1I7 ~ i•~ C. I ~ F S ~~~~~~ j l' .'+. 1~,~`v '•{ ~ ~ q .y. I(F ~~.%~ .S''."~Hv`^~'.a.~..x..~.--.....-..~~.efv+~,n?ssn!.a-~:~~~"+.xYV"x+fiF3~,.:Stix'-33.~/..'ur_..li.~.....-<...:u~--,...u=....,.sa.iaw.usu.oT,.'...w..::~A..uwe...u..ti..~.s..s •a.._......-J...S.~.•a~.unu~.,~w...~.ti ... y~.~...... ...._-...... 4,~,. (~_(1~~~1 C ^;nr I l ,~{ll in7 T('•^_ ~D+y!~;!.,1("7 1~C;7 r.L~~i~~ ..::JN 'ter Ol~;~:?79L~G1~ f~(j!Y Tn~r~1 T'f~LCn (',•Y r)Lj ~1-n~ n7,-~n.> 1:cT' ~ ~.. .: ~--~ ;;y Tnt~r,; ~~i,~,; J I ~ -_, r,,r- r,? t1 t ! (,?1 1_ I ., N T n >± X a ^ >i ~ ~ (1 ~1*-? J~ 15 ~ ~~ T I S ~ ^ ~ T I C~ ~! I r,~ T}{ !' ~ P F c n n ~r n~~ c p ~~ cn~cn nT~~ ~,~^r.T~>•y nf~`, ~^,LL Mn!.t^'T~I~•a ~n,n,r. Tu~~' bra}!~' IT ~~.'~~~ nI~'FICI,tI_T ;~.,~~ un~nnr,r,itc T~ ~rrLT~n TuH, PILL r:ri{>^~t cnins~r r~~rs~>,~-, nn!~1 !Y~1(r' ^pr~ p t/c,.., ~, f,~~pLrnc~ ~tT r~cls,~~~ m;ngr.nn^,p r,;n;v! f ~~ ~ t ~~. w. ___. " ~ ~ ~ l 1, • } '~ ` 1."! i tQ REPIY f3Y MAILGRf1Nt, SEE RE\/ifrSE SIC>~ f~Oft 4VESTF:RN UNIQf~'S 1"~l-l FREL' P}~iQt~E tdUMeEf~S `~ • Sf r.. r -_ t rn ,.n,?...,! CIF,? h{ 3 Y...~ ~." a. 1 ~e §' F, 4 5`~ t 1 1 ~ 1 Y ~ ~{ ) i . :. , ..:. . _ ~ r .fi u~ ~~ 1 .. t ~ - Y ._ .. t:-GC121 g `',r13 10; 3~1~2 ICS Ta(v;ti^:tr? rC~.% nt ,,, ~l ~t,55097 ~;~rr TIC ~,a Tr,Lc?. (.'K 5~. 1 C-~', "I 7 t_ -. rc T ~.~~ Tnt,~~! CC~rh,CIL tl(?Il_ C^LC'1?nD0 --_ ~:`aIL Cn x'1657 . ~ . ~... ..~ ~...., _.v~y`s. ;: uc Tnalr.t C~itntC t n~ ,L~ i 'l0 . T:.._ ~ : I ~.. P I ._a ,. t;-n., ~rtC~r LI i~~ TO uA~.r~ Tug CL rn F~i?No Rra r,^nt~~r, np~ ~,~! i~ L.: ~,~~ ,,,nitLt, ~ , H r _. .. n n C I ~! !: (1 t, n n T r /`.^. L;' iJ ^ G~ G' P, T Y^L"'ITAI'a ~'n~.D. t,rF ~ ,_L ?T I~ ?Ia~G,.,n Tt_ u~P.t „P,1:._~~ ^?~. ., -- -- ..~•1... - 2 ~? Q~ A L G Ir C ~? r~.i -r!~ I nj a p `~•~` VAIL C~ `1677 `... ~::^ t~ c T ~1 ~7 k~ x - . ~~ S ,: €~~~ 9~ ~ ~;r, ~, °w3:;' ',Y~: L;i;'~$ ..... ~' a ... r .,+ J` v, ``- • ~ Tp REPLY BY f~hAILGRAPv9, SEE REVEf1SE 51DF fOR ~~i~E:STERN UN{ON'S TOLL - F'RE~ PilpAlf~ NUMBERS .spy. ~~-"~ C~` T~ cG~,~~; f ~e~x~r ~'i~s~c~e P.O. BOX 2051 VAiI, COLORADO 81657 (303) 4764390 _ /~ i ~_l /~ ~~~/ j,~n ~/~-f~- ~~~ ~~~~' •-f~,~~~--~' ~ie~ ,wit-/~'"'-~t--'~~/ .L-~r'~-~ ~ ~i-~ j' "~ _ G ~~~ .~ .~ ~~~~-~~ ~~~ a ..emu-~~_~. ,~, ~ . ~2C-~ L~-~~lt~~'L~ L/lit-1~/C~ x-C~/y-i' ~.~ -%'~i~ -- ... ~;,:. ~ 4 -,., `a `f ~. . ~. , .: $, ; r~ovember 2, 1982 rdayor rtod Slifer P.J. t3ox lU0 Vail, CO 81657 r:athryn S . )'loyd 2610 B~a.ld i~~Iountain. Road Vail, CU 81657 and Vail Town Council gear ivlayor Slifer and P~tembers of Council.: In lieu of speaking at the public forum this evening on the agenda item of :Bald i~Iountairr Road traffic control, I would like to submit my cornrr~ents and concerns tizrough this lei:ter for the official record. iffy primary reference source is a document prepared for the Federal ~iighway Administration (Report No: FH~~1A/RD-81/030) titled Improving the Residential Street Environment, May 1981. I have attaclZed a copy for your perusal. The underscoring and notations are not mine, but I found them appropriate. qty conunents are directed at two areas: 1) my objections to the existing dip, and 2.) my preference in type of traffic control device should Council find such control necessary. i~1y objections to the existing dip are: 1. lack of evidence of need (real or potential, ra-ther_ than perceived, harm to residents from existing traffic conditions) 2. lack of documentation regarding the volume, speed and composition of traffic 3. lack of consideration of or attempt at less severe measures 4, lack of consideration of "essential accessibility" for emergency vehicles 5. lack of prior involvement of all residents in. the planning process 6. possible severe physical discomfort and vehicle damage 7. loss-of-traction hazards due to braking on south-facing, steep slope, i.e. sliding downhill, no forward mobility uphill 8. provision for "point control".only ,:qty preference in traffic control de vi.r_e, should Council determine through points 1 and 2 above .that such a device i.s necessar_y, is the ~1'RRL road hump system described in this report. A less severe measure than the dip, the TRRL hump "ma.intains traffic speed" at "levels reasonable f_or local residential streets". The nu,np does not pose any serious hazards to traffic safety such as those evidenced by the loss-of-traction problems, the severe dis- comfort,.and the vehicle damage of the current dip. The position and spacing of the TI:I~L humps are critical, as natcd on pacJe 10. "Point controJ_" provided by the dip nr by a single hump would not be as effective as the "segment control." }provided by a ser_i.es of humps. However, we reali_zo the fin.ancLal ronst.~~aints of tiro cuz-rent road Midget . In closing, we request that you direct th.e staff. to remove the d.Z>, iflayor Kod Slifer and the Vail Town Council November_ 2, 1982 Page 2 . or to cover it with a TRRL hump, before this winter season. The hazards are the most serious during the next six months; next spring will be too late. In eiL--her case, PLEASE remove the boulder that was placed on the south shoulder of the road at the location of the dip. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, :~, S. ~~ ~ Kathryn S. rloyd /ksf Encl. ~~ rMM~ ~"((~r ~ `k'' ~j ~ 6 gg~ ~' ~ f'~}}~~ 11r,7 ,~ ~BUtlll +~Y~~ G~~F I! ~~ ~~ ~l~ ~~~~q ~~~ ~ {}(?,~ it t~ 11 ~ ` ~ F 1 f~f ;..~ i ~ ~ ~ C•,, ~ ~`~+i t[~D F ~ ~ ~ v U ~ i + C ~ ti .4m ~ tl~l~~ ~~'J~t~~B ~~ 9i1~~~,~~1~~ document is available to the public th; ough the National Technical Information ; rvice, Springfield, Virginia 221G1 Pt r \\ `10 ...---~:;~,'~ Prepared for ''°` FEDERAL NiGI~l~~~Y AOl1~iIPdiSTRi~TIOPJ 1.4,21 ~~1 Offices of Research & Development Environmental Division ~lashinLtnn, D.C. 205f10 ., r,. ;. ,,° ~~c~~~~i~~G ~~ri~r~ar~ ;', /f ~r FOIZ1Jh~0P~I? This report capsulizes the results vf_ state-of-the-art research on a broad rar;ge .of: techniques for residential traffic control or traf: f. is rnanagemerit and specific case study research on applications of the 'Transportation and Road Research Laboratory (TARE) developed "road hump" on United States residential streets. ,I't also summarizes finding of original research on resident prefers=noes regarding traffic speed and volume on residential streets, and on factors which affect drivers' speed choice on residential streets, and rev-i.ews legal consideration in. neighborhood traffic management. This study was initiated as a result of•problem statements submitted for FCP Project lA by engineers in Perkeley, California; Mesa, Arizonia;. Anne Arundel County, Maryland; fiacramento, California and Santa Ana, California. Sufficient copies of the Executive Summary ar.e being dis- tributed to provide two copies to each regionah office, two copies to each division office, two copies to,each State highway agency, and one copy to each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).. One copy of the full report is being sent to each regional office, division office, State highway agency, and Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion (tf1,P0) . The State, division office, and 1~SP0 copies of both reports are being sent directly to each division office'. ~'dw' . !/ ~''~~~ arles F. Scheffey Director of Research. Federal F~ighway Administration No'rrcE This document is disseminated under the. sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the intcr'est of information exchange. The United Stites Government assumes no liability for its contents=or use thereof. The contents of-this report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsib~.e for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitt.tte a standard, specification, or regultltion. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manuf~_tcturei~s' names a~~pear herein only because they are considered c:sential to tl~e object of this document. . Fot sale Ly iho Suprtlutcmlrnt o; lloctsntcnts, U.S. Goc~nunrnt 1'ilnthir: Ui>lcr, \1'~uliluFtun, I).C-. 96101 ~ r v;! ~r • `s..':4 :q ~. ~~ . 'r;., ~~, l~ ~{' >- Technical t:ep.or4 l~ocumctttatinn Pr,r,n .'~. -r.-FlePUll tlo. --- - ' 2.-Government Accession tJo. ~ ~ 7. liccipicnt Coralog 1Jo. _-`-_ _~~ i ~ Ft It; ~~t/ RD-- II .l./0 3 0 _i +-~~ `~ 4. Title and ;/br~rla ~----~~--- i. 1lcport Uoto ,~_--- 1 MFROU I P!G THE RESIDENTIAL STftECT ENV I RONt~tENT - . >`,~ly ] ~81 E>;~CUT I VE SUMIIARY . -- ._ ______ G. PcrForm:n~ Grganitation Codo _ ~ 8. Performin Or i ti Ft: N --` g gon xo aport on o. Daniel T. Smith, Jr. and Donald Appleyard 9..Porrorming Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TFiAIS) DeLeuw; Cather E Company , ' FCP 31A] -724 . P.O. Box 7991 , San Francisco, CA 11. cont,oct or Gronr No. -~rith: Donald Appleyard, Berkeley Planning Associ- DOT-~=H-11- 0 ~~2:tes a_ C DL;S AssQ~l ~ E'S 13. Type o! Fleport and Period Covered 12. $ponsoring A9ancy Nama and Address Office of Research Executive Summary Federal Highway Administration ~ U. S. Department of Transportation 14• Sponsoring Agency Coda Wa h i n n~ n, D_C_ 2 0 ~_`~Q____ _ 15. $~pplementory Notes Contract Manager•:~ John Fegan (HRS-41) 16. Abstroct This Executive Summary capsulizes results of state of the art research on a broad range of techniques for Residential Street Traffic Control or Traffic Management .and specific case study research on applications of the TRRL-developed "road hump" on U.S. residential streets. It also summarizes findings of original research on resident preferences regarding traffic speed and volume on residential streets, on factors ti~rhich affect drivers' speed choice on residential streets and reviews . legal considerations.in.neighborhood traffic manageme~it. 17. I:ay Words Residential Street Traffic Control lfl. Distribution $lotarn ant rlo Restrictions. Neighborhood Traffic Management. This document is available to the public Road Humps, Speed Bumps, Diverters through the National Technical Infor- Traffic Restraint mation Service, Springfield VA ? 2161 , _ . 19. $eevrity ClossiF, (of this roport) 20, $oc~iity Clossir, (or this pope) 21. No, or Pogos 22. Price-..-__- Unclassified Unclassified 14 YOrtn UV 1 t- 1/UU./ (d-7~) Rnproduefion of eomplcle,l pagn outl,orizod i+ f ~~ TAaLF_ OF CONTEr~~rS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page PROJECT DEFI(~ITION 1 .STATE-UF-THE-ART f~EVIEW ~ 1 RESEARCH ON ROAD HUMPS ~ I RES1DEf~l~fiAL STREET SPEED-VOLUME STUDIES 2 STREETSCAPE DESIGN 2 LEGAL CONSIDERATIOi~1S ? SUMMARY OF KLY FINDINGS 2 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE ~I SPEED BUMPS_AND ROAD HUMPS ~,-5 2 V~OONEF-tF ~ ~ 3 SPEED EFFECTS 9 4v 18 ~~7 ~iF^ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IMPROVING THE FtESIDf=1~1TIAL STREET Et~lVIROI'~dMENT PROJECT DEFINITION The project summarized herein is one de- tailing current practice and new tech- niques far control of traffic on residen- tial streets.. . .The terms "neighborhood traffic man- agement", "residential area traffic con= trot" and ".traffic restraint", the subject of this research, embrace the wide range of,. treatrnents~ intended to i, m~rove the residential environment by directly af- fecting traffic, thereby cuttingoff unde- sired impacts at the source. The treat- ments do this by limiting the amount of traffir_ on.the residential streets, usually by restricting accessibility and street system continuity or by affecting the be- havior of drivers. The predominant be- havioral control attempted relates to traffic speedy Neighborhood traffic management de- vices are normally. employed on local residential streets--streets wt~icf~ are predominantly residential in character and which have the sole intended traffic function of providing accessibility to limited numbers of immediately tribut- ary properties. The rationale for neigh- borhood traffic management lies in the .recognition of the breadth and ~ limita- tions of a local residential street's func- tion. Local residential streets are meant to Qrovide accessrG_ ijil.y to rrn-T,fed areas ditect_l~d~p~pden~_up~them; nornor toa-1"1 Jr11x~~.Cs who '~~i, it convenr~nt to use them. And serving traffic, even the o- ca-l-traffic which "belongs". there, is only a part, not the whole of their purpose. The neighborhood street is a place ~A~hcre children play, where neighbors nic~et, an extension of the front yard, a feature which affects the appearance of homes along it grid the quality of life within them. Neighborhood traffic management is an attempt to contra) streets so as to meet rebl accessibility needs yet Keep the traffic service function of these streets in perspective with the other considerations noted above. The study is concerned with responses fo problems experienced on existing residential streets; design of new residential streets is not vrithin its scope. STATE OF THE ART REVIEW. - l-he initial (:>hase of the study involved. a review of current practices in residential street traffic control or residential street traffic management. The review concentrated on activities in the United States but also scanned overseas experi- ence and practices on the subject mat- ter. Findings of: this review vrere tho- roughly documented in a report entitled Improving tf~e Residential Street Envir- onment, State--af-the-Art.lThe State-of- the-Art report identifies devices cur- rently in use for residential area traffic control and presents data on their per- form~nce. It also provides an extensive guide to the. process of planning and de- sign for residential area traffic control and for community involvement in that process. ,. RE.SEARC(-( ON ROAD HUMPS The state-of-the-art search led to fo- cusing asignificant portion of the second phase of the research project on testing and field applicai ion. of 'a form of speed control hump developed by the 1 ranspor- tation and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) in Great, E3rifain. The l RRl_ road hump, also called an "undulation" in some of the literature, differs from "conv~n- tional speed bumr~s" in both its physical .. ,:~r.~ ~~ ¢~;w~. , .. shape (12 feet (3.65m) long in tl-~e direc- ;tion of vehicle (ravel versus 1.5 - 3 feet (.45 - .91m) for conventional bumps) and in performance charocteristics (appar- ently both safer and more effective in cons-rolling speeds than conventional humps). f=ield testing of the device was conducted in St. L.ovis, Missouri, and public street case studies were conduct- ed in Boston,. Massachusetts and Brea, California.. Additional field tests. and public street case studies were observed in Sacramento, California. RESIDENTIAL STREET SPEED AND VOLUh~E STUDIES !~s an outgrowth of the state-of-the-art search findings, .the research team .was requested to conduct an exploratory probe of what traffic speeds and volumes on residential streets rnet resident ex- pectations or acf~ieved broad accep- tance. That is to say, what should the speed limit and volume be on a local re- sidential street? This inquiry stemmed -from the finding in the Phase One re- search that objective tCOffic measures tradi^ tiona.lly_l.~lie.ci=.li~v1. k~~ traffic en- g.in~rrs ~~ 'c~, lentil; p.CS~k1~.em _conditions fC~ntrPnfl~..do not coincide w_it~res`-fice`riT' perceptions of problem thresho as or conditions. ~1-his is articular~y-~irue wr ---- 'L-- __- respect to traffic sp~cLoa~affc vol- ume. - The final report details reseai-c methodology utilized in the probe of re- sident sensitivity to traffic speed and volume, details findings of the research and suggests directions for further re- search on this subject. It also presents the results of pilot research relating driver speed on residential streets to roadside environmental factors. This research, if carried furtfler, may be as- sistive in development of "{>sychalogical controls" on residential street speeding. STREETSCAPE DESIGN Recent- European work in residential street design .crnphasizes speed control tirrough_.k~t_egl;i,ng__l.!~5~.~..i!L°~,~.C.~ in~.~~ty of ~ireet blocks boih visually (t.er.tured pavements, ~ plantings, grouped parking) and through actual curvature around landscape, street furniture and grouped parking feafiures. F,;,~ropean residential street_Siesic,Zr~ treats the street spa ec as an iritegr_ated area_ = a sfScired~space for _niulfiple uses -and eTi~~inates any--Fc:Z7' tares (like curbs) wl-rich sugges areas in ~~~jch motor vehicles have _~orr y` Thesc.~design principles were extensrvefy revie~a~ed in tf-re study effort. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Activity in the residential fraffic control field has led to court challenge°s to neighborhood traffic schemes as well as tart cases involving neighborhood traffic control devices. A review of Ieyal con- siderations in neighborhood traffic man- agement is presented as a wrap-up to the study effort. SUMMARY OF I<EY FINDINGS State--of-the-Art Research The state-of-the-art search included re- view of residential traffic management installations or attempts in over 250 local jurisdictions in. the U.S., extensive review of applications overseas and dir- ect contacts vrith leading practitioners in the field. Major findings of the state-of.- the-art phase of the project are summar- • ' ized below. ® Employment of special traffic control measures intended to mitigate the im- pacts of traffic on the. quality and liveability of residential streets is ex- tremenly pervasive in local jurisdic- tions across the U.S. F_ven chase juris- dictions which have not actually, re- sorted to employment of such devices have almost ~.rniversally experienced some problems or pressures related to ?_ ~~ i~.~ ~#'/ ~1 conflicts between local street traffic and residential liveability. m There has been considerable communi- cation of techniques i!~rough profes- sional journals, professional society work and informal jurisdiction to juris- diction contacts. Ho~~rever, at the time of the state-of-the-art search, the most extensive publications on the subject matter (Appleyard -Liveable Urban Slreets: Mans in Auto Traffic in Neighborhoods and Buchanan - Traf- fic in Towns.) had not reached the im- plementation-level professionals in ' most local jurisdictions. Furthermore, even ~ these \~rorks lack the specificity regarding device design, location cri- teria and planning process guidance which the action-love( professionals need. As a result, actions taken to date at ~ the local level reflect .ifie efforts of individual . professionals oper-sting largely on their own judgment and initiative with limited kno~.vledge of, ' parallel experiences and ~vitliout I<no~v- ledge of the full range of options open x to them. This has produced a wide variation in both methods of control attempted and in the design treat- ments of fundamentally similar de- vices. It. has also led to repetitions of similar unsatisfactory e>periences in several communities and to ~a~asfed ef- forts re-inventing solutions ~afiich have already proven satisfactory sc?rliewhere else. ® The lack of guidance and heavy reli- ance on individual judgment has led to numbers of installations involving pe- culiar geometries and choices of ma- terials and absence of signs and mark-~ ings such that the research team felt concern for the functionality and safe- ty of These particvlor installations. The need for authoritative guidance on the subject seemed clear. ~ Many of the techniques utilir_ed in neighborhood traffic control have not yet been clearly addressed in the Man= ual on Uniform Traffic Control De- vices (MUTCD), parallel state manuals and basic traffic engineering reference texts. As a means of improving tech- piques and fostering conformity of de- sign practices with respect to geomet- rics, .materials, signing and marking of residential street traffic control de- vices as yell as to officially recognize residential street traffic management as a legitarnate traffic control activ- ity, it appears desirable that the sub- ject of residential street traffic con- . trot receive more direct treatment in the MUTCD and complimentary design guides. o Objective measures customaril~vsed by traffic engineers some rimes do not measure, or relate to roblem cen~- 1_ions^.~ei.ce vea -y residents.. or `instance, traffic engineers consider the £35th__perccnti.I_c__s.Reed~r~.e.vs~.l.u_a .tin canformit~to speed limits •~rhile___ _ resident__perceptions of s~eedinc~ _tend _ to he shaped by the speeds of the_f:ew _ _fastest_drivers. As a result of ~ this difference, professionals qnd resic~~.r~ts __fr.equently .disagree .as _to_1ti~h~t_Iter_s~ _ Problem existed and whether__a_ part_i_-,._ . cular device really changed_conditions.. o f=aced vrii~h the lack of official or quasi-official design guidance; con- flicts between traditions( objective traffic engineering measures and resi- dcr,t perceptions of problem condi- tions, apartial I:nowledge of atternpts- gone-wror,q in other communities and the inherent conflict between the philosophy of neighborhood traffic management and the traditionol role of t!ie traffic engineer to facilitate and improve accessibility, some traffic enc{inecrs, public wor!<s grid planning officials have staunchly opposed .~ 3 ~;:~~ _ E.: ,~ ~~~;~°% ~r~~r P residential "street traffic control measures. o A variety of traffic control devices~`~ tiavc been utilized in t}~e U.S. for residential street traffic control or traffic management purposes with some degree of success. Different devices respond best to differing types of problems and differing site circum= stances. No single device can be tab- . bed the universal solution to residen- tial street traffic problems. Many of the devices are physical in the sense that they physically induce or preclude specific patterns of driver • • behavior. Physical devices are nor- mally successful in bringing about the desired change in traffic. E3ut they usually involve fairly substantial en- gineering and construction costs and "" can have substantial secondary . im- pacts, some positive and ~otf~ers ad- verse in nature. 51~-N S Other devices .are massive in the sense tf:>,at they simply command or " suggest a driver behavior pattern but depend on driver choice to comply'. to achieve their intended effect. Since the~yore more ea ilv violated tan -~1~ S .physr~:a.l-"cac~.t.[4~.~~ they tend to ee Tess effective in achievinc~t~iei~"ec- tiv_e. Passive controls generally rn- vo)ve low cost insta ations an usua7ry hnv~.Less..~~~" no dar.y. impacts t ~ari~ys- . _i~~l_controls but do rrequire "some de- gre~ _a.f._enf~rcement . f or, success. An ideal form of control vrould be one which operates on inherent driver. re- spouse patterns to particular stimuli to induce desired driver behavior patlcrns. Suci~ ~sZrcholo ical controls might avoid the cost and heevy-handed secondary im- pacis associated with physical controls and the dependence on drivers' voluntary compliance of the passive controls. Sorn~ attempts at such controls f-rave been attempted but few have proven ef- fective. o A I<ey~blcm_ with oh`fSICC~I dovices is the_need ta_preserve essential accessi- ~~ bility fafar„ err~crgency ve.hio__Y_les. Q .Overseas attempts at residential area traffic management have generplly employed the sdme types of control devices as are being employed try local jurisdictions in the U.S. However, there are two major foreign develop- ments which deserve further censide-. ration in the U.S. One of these is a form of speed control hump or undula- tion developed. by TRRL in Great Britain. The device is a hump of circular-arc cross-section raising 1'o a maximum of faur inches (I Ocm) above the normal pavement surface and having a chord distance of !?_ feet (3.65m) in the direction of vehicular travel Figure I i I lustrates a~ ~RRL road hump and contrasts it with a corn~entional speed bump. TRRL's test track and public street experiments indicated. its speed con- troi performance and safety charac- teristics were sufficiently different from (improved over) those of "con- ventional speed bumps" to 4varrant ~- Throuq}~out this report, tl7e words "traffic control "~d~evic~s" are used in a broad context rather ihan in the traffic engineer's specific definition. Some of the devices of interest (i.e.: diagonal cliverters, und~~lations, cuts-de-sac) rr7ight more properly be termed "geometric features of the road" rather tl.~an "control devices". l-lowever, since these features are introduced for purposes of controlling .the amount and behavior of traffic whici~ uses the streets in the same way os turn prohibitions signs, stop si~7ns or speed limits r~~irht be, tV,e terrY~ traffic control devices is used in a broad context throughout the report. .• 4 .l~ .~ ,~,/~,~ ~~ -- .... ....~... _.. .. .. f n~ ..~ --... _ ~ , . . Conventional speed f>ump. F_ u r` ~n ~ ti r N tf1 ';.: ~ t i . L 8"^~' (~ .20-~, )lm 12' 3.65m p'~,'r~'=r : ' : v' x i'"~ ~.~ ~3" ~ y ~ J ~' 1" "';c' r-°~`~'°'~~`F I ~? E~ 1 ~s' ; " `Pr....°.:a ~'-,a~ , : ~:-~- ="^ •c r' f:' •' di v ' .ti r c. a . ... . -..._..._.~ .. t r.._.... ~ ~ ~ .!8 ~ ' ~ ~.. -.~ .~ +.~.~.ww.y,...a' - " c...n.W;;~~.tL• _ +a._ . , ' '•.`. '~{o~RYS.r. p J . ,- - ' Road hump. ~,.~' ~ / FiOurc 1. SPEED DUPIPS /1h~D ROAD HUh1PS S ~„ r "4r-3+ ' ,r. t~ Y.. e: • r ~~ ('}~~~, c~,{ f`-a~ urea olications of consideration of U.S• aP~ - f to recagniza t}ie systemic nature of th sc f rOblem the 1 RRL_ device. Case studies o s became a major i a group of e p env Ive o}~lerns systemic I: rC"a on such U.S• applicat element of the Phase Two research 1 l~ e o° 11e°~}.~~orrl oodtrc~o~ng.his reasona program. In the Netherlands, extensive efforts ort empt~asr~es . S~sfcmic-tVUnnAoachespto neighborhood have been devoted to development of affic management. t "woonerven" (residential arec;J oner fn r ffic man- . the singular calle .-- volve changes in both the i is at residential tra e Attemp Bred b shortcom- n woonerven hysical characteristics v ehit s t sminrlunderstalndirPg i~ow t conduct a in p v nin r and in the regulations go g Th~sical than es g rocess for tl~~is purpos<' as pla_:T~I'~__.~ crc.d ,y cular operation. involve elimination of any eatures ron ot`Z~ nr rat to the frequenlel~e {~~ovrledgeerelat pg rncornp Shortcamings _ which suggest a sepa "~es of~`tr'affiic-(anc~ harice, priority specific control devices. t d l l\ t y~ __----~._.__.__ or rnotorrzed tra rc) an er ~ asis o v~ wereofo la o collet what data t ning~ t p , features sug~~st ing pules _r!_ans- 5Z3 t re t p s how to in d ~ v ° c o rre 'n .complete access to the cn ical c~iangc.s h ~ the exist- dentify data anti der P roblems, ys ea~ea,. Other p duced to slow traffic include hump to ~nvolve tfdieecommunity and how n changes in alignmc~t, changes ~ti'i 9 " ° d how y p how to d }1OVJ to lt c ~ 7 ~ s pavement texture;- narro treet s planters, tr , . llards b pla s an ve ria alle devela'o i c c l , o of furniture and parking areas to rein-. nd he l chaos haft acigua y happened after li ate w force the alignment changes, .a "rules of ecial ' The s -Ar 1a reportr~~- fr-th n a r h a n . p narrowings. trict road" which apply in a wooner f res e o te St e t Po n llrng I c drivers to speeds no faster than not ers d traffic r~nanagement l for re idenfii rrv walking pace," orders that hinder pedestrrons and that pedestrians ress Peoples' feeiings abor t ~ s r h t aril hamper the prog not ~ unnecess y f a o . p c re th w l environment, partrcu of drivers'. Figure 2 is a view o ical Woonerf,strcet. - - t a e:arancc to traffic and street PP' strong, and .9f,i en extremely yp A woonerf can be a single block or k g Ov , issues, are {~esidentEi?i ~-.. ~~ .f if tl. n s' an a~ ea of several bloc n ted O n have been construe _, actions bene a~6nagement lraff.ic r , t the e>:pens°_ - of `~` ~ ' woonerve - over' the past de- .the Netherlands - some residents a orn'en i ~~ ai ' t n Cade. The concept is also being. ap- nc on ' s re these ~irivers) r. ,For s plied extensively in German>'• •. , , s dential traffic management action r ra- ~, although neighborhood traffic P e arc: usually controversial: ,tannin for residential cessful f g Su b1C17~s ~usvaily manifest themselves ditions and .. c wires conside- traffic management reg l details lhrougii site specific con laints, the fundan;ental problems com rair,cc ration .of many fine-g ~hc ~ ~.rce~lions of i -c l c' p ore as often systemic as they are site ite specific t involv ng r Icts t ehaviar rn uy'~1q ~c .o problems, { p ! l s specific. /attempts a nt actions in many of i ~, the street and precise pliysica c. traffic managei7 the communities ok.~served were not entire^ly satisfactory because of failure G ~`r ~~,, -~ ./, ~,~. ~' . i , ',-", r -'c'am.- ~ 1 r v r -..• -.~ -•r ;,. ~'i++' ' , ~. r . ..,,''-~'' ~ r ~,. l~ ii r r ._ /. ,. J~"_- ~ .~ . r ~ .. l~' I~~r. r ~ : a .ter, ~' r '. ~.',~/ ~l /r//11 ~l f~ ( i i ( ,~ 111 t /ar•,~.~~. .. Q°c~~Faf ~....i.6...raa' ~,:.c..:::..e6t:!<<.:: ay ..::~ 1.-.r.7i..F_'I.-1r.::..1, r i.. ~ . - . . ;'-__'~ ~ -. ~..~i Figure 2. 4100NFRF conditions and constraints. E3ecause of the inherently controversial nature of the actions and the importance of re- sident perceptions and of minute de- tails of usage and behavior I;nown only to residents, comrnunity involvement is an essential element in planning for residential traffic management. Research an TRRL Road Humps As noted above, findings in the.Sfiate-of- the-Art sr~~crch led to interest in the potential for applying the TRRL road humps to U.S. streets. The Phase Two research on this subjeci~ included the following activities. Further direct .contacts were made with TRRL researchers` end details of their installation, site selection and mon- itoring procedures not covered in pub- lished reports were conveyed. Most re- cent reports on TRRL's public street tests of the device were obtained and re- vie~ved. Tests of the devi-ce on a closed si~fe were conducted in St. Louis, Missouri. Case studies involving aE~plication of the device on two pubic streets in Boston, Massachusetts and one public street in Brea, California, were conducted. Fur- ther tests on a closed site and a case study application on a public street con- ducted independently by the City of Sac- ramento, California were monitared by the research team. Alterna#e configur- ations -pairs of humps f 7_ feet (3.CSm) in length but only 3 inces (7.6cm) high spaced 20 feet (6.lm) apart and pairs f3 feel (245m) in length and 3 inches (?.6 ern) high ~ spaced 12 feet (3.65m) ap«rt - were tested at the Sacramento sites. An additional case study application in ttilashingfon, D.C.. was prepared, l-lovr- ever, irnplerrrcntati~on did not take place ai a date early enough for rnonitorin~ in this program. Principal findings of the research on road huizips are sunimarizcd as folloin's: 7 ~~ ~~ €: &`^ ' c: ~~/ ~~ ~ ~` B The humps appear to lx~ extremely effective in reducing traffic speed to 1:eve]_s reasonable for local residential streets. Tor. exarr2~le, a two-~•~ay resident.ial street with a 25 mph (10 krrrph) speed limit had its average speed reduced from 30 mph (4II kmph) to 7.0 n~~h (32 kmph) after instal].aL-ion of the hump. The IISth percentile speed was rcd~iced f corn 3 5 mph (5 G kmph) to ?_ 5 rr<ph (40 }~anph) and the fastest car from 50 mph (IIO!~mph) to 35 mph (56 kmph). This seed bshavior modification occurs even t--? c~giT drivers w`ho w~.sh to_tr_av~ Fast ov~~:,,_t}~e _hum~~s_cou].dldo s-a~a~"~ co~t_,._.,of ~_a- .modest ~leve `bT nuisance discornLort ""°'""`~witlsoGt experien~c g severe_ discomfort' or v_~hicl~~daina~. Figure-'-'3 illustrates tt~e speed l~havior changes induced by the humps. a Patterns of modification of speed be- havior established irnrnediately after the humps were installed cppeared to remain fairly constant over the seven months the case study sites v:~ere mon- itored. There is no evidence of drivers losing respect for the control and tra- veling faster nor of them becoming more acquiescent and traveling slower as the test period wove on. This effect is also clearly indicated on Figure 3. a The humps' induced some ,motorists who had conveni.et~t alternate routes available to avoid tf.~e test streets. F~~i1~~ior~~~raff is volume rancZed frorY~ ?_0 toY1.3 percent o ~e previous- IY -experienced traffic ~n -~ccise .sfuS;x.~tre~~ _~..'' a Na_incidents were observed or report- ~. which would su~~c~sf tl~e humps pos- ed a serious hazard to tra rrc sa qty. n rT~ esporicjin~l ~to~ qucstronnc~ires; a few drivers blamed the need to replace shod; ahsarbers or alignment problems on their vehicles to wear and tecr of repeatedly crossing the humps. t-1ow- ever, there were no accidents or inci- dents of vehicle damage observed„ or reported in which the hur~~ps were clearly a direct causal factor. ~ ~(he humps do have more severe effect on' tong wheelbase vehicles than on passenger cars and pick-up trucks, mo- torcycles and bicycles. Most of the in- tensified impact is experienced to~~rard the rear of fhe long wheelbase vehi- cles. This-n:u~r.~__p.C~nounced j~~gact on long wheelbase vc+hjcles v(OUld~suc~c~ e~ th~~the hu_ m_hs not be used o_n rna~r fire and ambulance access routes, r_~~s._ner.c~yaclly_ -. regu_ntl~ ~y heavy ~~-_u._cks_„~ Qp~ans~t rovi~:s~Tf also suggests that drivers of emer- gency vehicles and other service vehi- cles such as refuse collection be train- ed vrhere the humps are and how to pass over tl-rem safely. c~ In t:he U.S. case str:~dies, the hurr~s weLe tnrrrrinat_cd short __ o„~the__gutier line_to mairlt~,jl~,,gutter flow drainage (by contrast, TRRL ca~ rr ec~ t~e~F u i~ps to the~face-of-curb, building drainage provisions in to the humps. These were elaborate, costly and ultimately- proved to be functionally ~trouble- same). Many U.S. drivers attempted to partially avoid the impact of the humps .by ,driving vrith one set of ~Arheels in tl-~e open goiter pan. This was apparently done for purposes of comfort or caution rather than to go~ faster -speeds of drivers "running the gutter!' differed only marginally from those traveling straight over the humps. E3ut gutter running effected resident pc,rceptions of speed and sat- isfaction with the device's perfar- mance. In future installations, it is suggested that driver> be discouraged from running the gutters by placement of raised "jiggle--bars" on the gutter apf~raaches to the humps. ^Y ~,. ; L ` W i _ _v .-__.~ ~ _. -- Z 30 ' -f--- 7 6 G ' --r - 4 14 ' --4--i G I ~-t H H H. ~'' W'--._., Fastest Car "^•r ~-.• ,,. ~ ° ~ e 4 0 `' ~ V C-_--_ ~ c. 1. n 20 SPccf Limit N IQ H ~- --r- f4 f{ 8>~th Percentile Sneed S O _ -- 40 e 30 ~ ~ ~ Spccd Lire n 20 ~~... ~ ~ :'7r~ N • ~ 10 ft K ~{ ' kvcrage Speed 50 --- 4 0 ..- . . b J'__--_ ___ ___ ~.__ ~ 20 ~.. y,~.~-_ .._. 's~.,•-' ~'..-...,-... ~-'!,^,yi'°f~ `~~ tea.. IQ m ft ~~_-_-'l. FI H 1c~Ph 1.609)kmph f{ IIUr,I~ LOCO t l on . '----~--- 1(t c t - I rtm c d i a l c ._....... AE(cr - ) Months F~~t,<<: 3. ~n r.n~~nnn srf~n ;rri~r~,~ - rro«~i-~nour~o -rrnf-rir, i 4 - i.". . ~ - ~• r*• r TN• t~Sj4... <_..... -. .... f: ... _ .1-'w":-`.pig.-s o If used individually, the humps 4vi11 act o 1-he steepest slope on which humps only as a "point" speed control, similar were placed in the U.S. case studies to a stop sign in effect. A series of ---•--_.._. humps-is-r~caded-t~a-cLrangc.~s ed af-° was 3 percent. TZFZL offers no gui- , t~.n along an entire s~mc:nt o a ~ dance as to the maximum slope on which the humps can be safely ern- str-c.ei` I-~czi p~i~~a~.ed_._~~-lween I60 ~' p(oyed.,... .. ~uriher testing seems de- and~7~U~feet (49 to 229m) ap<rrt wi1T act.~rs_n_ egrnent s s_ollYrol vaith drrvers . siraf~le t~efore humps are placed on any • _ . _ substantial gradients. ~ speeding vp only marginally between • humps and with midpoint speeds sub- ' m adequate signing and marking of each s tantially lower than before the humps hump is essential. were installed. t-iowever, at some spacing •above 750 feet (229m), drivers b i ~ d th " i ~, /-~s a rule of thumb for cost estimating ~f I eg n o regar e pumps as {:m nt purposes an allowance of $500 per `' ~~~ controls" and acclerate back to their . Iwmp (! 980 dollars) appears reasonable normal speeds for most of the distance ' for engineering design and construe- • between humps. Precise threshold t-ion. l-his cost does not incluc•ie separation distance of this transition prelirYrinary planning (i.e., community from "segment" to "point" control has involvement, establishing justification not.been determined. I-iowever, in the for the measure). Sacramento case the humps, separated by distances of 1200 to 1500 feet (366 e No sno~~iplowing difficulties were re- to 458m) clearly functioned as point t I ~orteclVat t ~e _ os on s u s ~fri-t`ti - - --Y - ~-- •-~°- - ~?~,~ ` con ra s . - r v,~ere subject to vrinter snowfall coridi~- v i a Exact separation distanct; specifi- _ f-~~ - cations (i.e., precisely /~00 feet or S00 Q Many residents thought the humps feet (122 or 153m) or whatever) shouted weren't severe enough and that they not be used as a rigid criteria in lo- didn't completely solve perceived traf- cating the humps on a street. Loco- fie problems.. They were irritated by Lion to take into account positions of drivers' gutter-running and a few. eom-- existing features (i.e., drainage inlets, plc~ined about the appearance of the manholes and gate valves, driveways, fire plugs street lighting and tl~e like) , warning signs. E3ut on the three E3oston , is more important than spacing on a and t3rea case study streets, between 79 to 88 percent felt the bumps served precise pattern. ~ ~ ~ a useful purpose, 73 to 88 percent felt o Humps should be osit.i~ >- ~ _~~~ _ ~ti•._,;. hat the>' should be n~~ade permanent on La Canada or at least kept for more dr-+Hers-.cl~no.t_.appr.oact~~f.h~.,fi.Cs~_L~~n1p, testing and 77 to 92 percent thought i~ ~~~,~5~~,.I~b~tu~~. T}lc first hump should be placed relative) close ~ y il~ey should be used or tested on other - --- -----.---.----..---~- o an rntersectron where velircTes must streets. S#g~~ but far enoucal~ awe , f_ o'r= car-ivcr~ fo a (fir-fivers tended to regard the humps os see and react to the humps and re a ec ------~ -•----~--------------- ~ too severe (~ 2 percent rated them 100 -~~~arning...srg;1,- ~n~i_markings. ~-luriips located near an v cu i 'i•c of h i severe versus 4~r percent rating th.crn y r .a or - zontal or vertical alignment should ~~ ~~ ~ obout rigl7t and - percent calling them tao gentle), f3ut GG percent of always be placed so as to allow ade- cfrivc-rs thought the humps served a rate 5rcht distanc:c for ~erce~tion and 4~.__._l-.....___..__,_, ! I useful purpose, 62. percent ihouc~l~t , , react-ion. ii~ey should he made, t~>crmanent or 10 ~i~ r~ g: 1. ~' kept there for more testing and. 75 percent ihouglit they should be used or tested on other streets as well. e The }curnps are not acure-all far resi- dential street traffic problems. They should be applied with- prudence only where sound justification warrants their use. e Noise emitted by individual vehicles near the }rumps tended to increase due to braking and accleration ~- not due to sounds of vehicles striking the humps. [3ut traffic volume reductions resulting .' from hump installation tend to have a cancelling effect. Some 75 percent, of. residents thought noise levels had decreased. a Drivers and passengers in vehicles of differing wheelbase and suspension characteristics inevitably e>;perience differing degrees: of discomfort in passing over 'the humps of any given speed. Th,e TRRL road hump shape ap- pears to provide a reasonable range. of performance for the range of vehicle types which pass over it.. In tl~e re- search team's judgment, it .appears doubtful that significant improvements in performance for the range of vehicles in use in the U.S. can be achieved by. modifying the TRRL shape. .. Implementation Plan for Road }-lumps An Implementation Plan for road humps has been prepared. The Plan recognizes that at t}iis stage in their development, the TRRL road humps cannot be said to have achieved the status of a standard iroffic control device like a STOP or Y1L=LD sign nor can they be tabled as raw or untested. The ~Implernentation Plan recognizes the device as one whic}~ is promising grid with wliicli further exper- imc~ntation is both needed and encour- aged. Ihriih this rc:cogniiion the }'tare puts for~,vard aarefuF yuidclines for furliier test applications rather than a blanl<et endcirserrrent of the device. Speed and Volume Studif,s Residents' tolerance levels of traffic speed and volume were measured by sub- jecting panels of residents to vef•ricles traveling at varying speeds and to pla- toons of vehicles siriiulating varying volume levels. Residents then rated the acceptability or unacceptability of the conditions they witnessed. Principal conclusions of this pilot research are as follows: © The methodology appears to produce results promising epough to warrant more extensive application involving more streets and panels and more rig- orous selection procedures relative to .panel composition. ® Resident opinion of speed acceptabil- ity. shifts frcm almost total accep- tance. to almost total non-acceptance over a relatively narrow range of speeds -from 70 to 30 mph (37 to 56 kmpli). o Even if the vast majority of drivers conformed. to a 25 mph (46 I<mph) speed limit, nearly half the residents might not he satisfied. - ®Speeds which would be cersidered ac- ceptablc by nearly all residents are severaf miles per hour slower than rn~st drivers choose to drive on tY1~~ical residential streets: /achieving~n_e.cc};; uniformly acccp,table to resrd~nts pro.-- bablZ~ redurrc:s estebl~ishn;erif ~~ o 1.lroonc~rf=lil<e conc~i~fion r"Clfiht'!~t11C1n dust enforciri< currents ee iriii~:.--~~-' ©Volur7ie Ic,vc~ls tested in' the pilot stud}~ appeared to be a}~ovc~ the crucial ranee where resident ol:~inion shifts frorrr crc- cc~ptcrnce to non-acceptance. != uturc> r~ .y l41 "~. ~ r.Y rte. y'`.: l i~.. -.:~^. ~~,.. y studies should COles rater tminute range the 0 to 4 vehlc P to 12 vpm (vpt~,) rather thanilat study. range used in the p Studies of the effeenvi°onment ton driver residential street speed choice gave some indication chat the visual "walls" ks curbsideetreesaand t,y but Ing sci~gc similor features can °____;_____~_;_~vever,yfar ences a' driver behavtor• ,sired to pro- more extensive study s ~req duce statistically significant results. rr-•asonable routings fo_r tt,rou_gt, traffic - ~. around-t.hc_f~r~-t F.cls:d.._._..~_.~ - ~c ds of..r.merg~~_C?~Y vehicles and ~_ -~-~ cess n- = - ` ~ubl is in rrlc2~.tr~.te .i~'/_o1~~c~rYient of. ~h~ -i~_ the pl~nnine~~i".ocess. traffic Inclusion of ne~gllborhood radices and devices in the control P c o;~,etric NFU BCD and/or avthori tati~, e g' design references, whichever is roost ap- will give engineers a basis for propriatc, dernonstrating ded fO amctices o~ d texercise and.recot~rn~n p iri liability cases of reasonal'leations of negligence. involving a.leg Legal C~siderations In Residential Traffic Restraint Residential traffic control plans have led to a number of court challenges as to the .and "reasonability' of the authority" acting jurisdiction's progiams, In addi- as arelatively ne~~~ and not fully Lion, r actices, • defined aspect of i-r fficeCCO t ols n,ay residential at"~° li ci~~e- introduce special nuances to neg 9 liability claims in accident Caand reason- . R ~lat;s UC °~uresdUCtions should under- . abil y ecific Ic~gal stand from the ou ~ set what sp ~utl,ority it I,as to control tr fanning pros fashion and should tailor its p to s to the cess and the controls ifi_.emp Y " al authority. ~O provisions of that led actions, _t>i71 na strate rea 9n~~-1_e[1~SS-.-Qj _ ev_I - i~i isdiction_" sho.uld___ctoc_vr>'~en~ _ Q the _.i_______..~- -harm to d~.~~-e,_ of the Weer! for Q ~ ~stin traffic residents resultant from g L~locument th~~un,c-L-com- conditions, .___.__..._.---- ~QSLt.14,~ and percei~l a~ through traffic t ~ci-"Z'`arstl""c5~.t i se or,-=affected _.streets-..~.~_..._.__._--_-.-~~ c.cted ..with_.aQtlc~h.j.1S?[1s. ~'~'_f)ch n,igt~t be _-_,_•f~ -=- ~ ... considering._.the._de.signated ur,ctlon__~.. •the. street .according. to .the_-)~,rtsdic~tion's ~Y1os1_~C_-1-'- 'I)~t?'~cn,on>tra_r1c~~~,t lass sc- vere traffic ,cc?r~trc~1 _ tompted-rn"__consiclerecS`~~~~1« into r.onsid- Y__~.__.__ ____ oration 11~e , tllde~l'11°nstraiei1atlsc.l ~~~i~ct~laf . r estcc~t~ ~ -...... ~ - _.._. 12. •~ .,, -~~~ - , i!U.S. GOV(k1d h4 NT PF IP!!~la:-~ U~~I~1 ', = z -- ~ ~-~~ Mayor Rod Slifer and Members of Council ~ (~'~~~ ~ Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 Dear Sirs: We, the undersigned, request that you remove the speed dip and the set of speed bumps which have been installed on Bald Mountain Road. The street is already in very bad repair due to numerous street cuts and we feel that these obstacles are further hazards, especially at night. Winter driving on our street is difficult and will be nearly impossible with these obstacles on such a steep incline. If there is indeed a speeding problem on our street, please consider enforcing a reasonable speed limit. Sincerely, X614 ~ ~`7 2~ ~ 3 5 U ~~-~C ~'v~- /~~ I ~ ~- t~ `` ' ~ i a> `~ ~ ~. ~Sio ~ ~ c~~ ~ ~~i ~ ~~-x~~( ~~cti~-~ ~~ ,~ -~ ~ ~~` du . I`~, ~~~2 Mayor Rod Slifer and Members of Council Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 Dear Sirsc We, the undersigned, request that you remove the speed dip and the set of speed bumps which have been installed on Bald Mountain Road. The street is already in very bad repair due to numerous street cuts and sae feel that these obstacles are further hazards, especially at night. Winter driving on our street is difficult and will be nearly impossible with these obstacles on such a steep incline, If there is indeed a speeding problem on our street, please consider enforcing a reasons.ble speed limit. Sincerely, ~9 1 4 _~.-. L. -...~_.n -.... ...~ie~,wY..._. ~ .. ._- ~, , ~5~s ~'~~ ~ ~~- ~~! ~, ii ~. ~~ ~n`7 October 13, 1982 Vail Town Council c/o Richard Caplan Town Manager P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81658 Gentlemen: I understand there is a desire by some residents along Bald Mountain Road, to have the speed dip removed. You will probably be presented with a petition requesting removal shortly. I want to emphasize that those of us who live near the speed dip are very pleased with its installation, and do not want it removed. We are those most directly effected by it as we live in front, and above, the dip and drive over it daily. It is the opinion of those of us living near the dip that it is producing the desired result of slowing traffic. I think -this is evident by the petition to have it removed. The dip was installed as a safety measure to protect children walking to school along Bald Mountain Road from drivers traveling at excessive speeds for the neighborhood. The inconvenience to drivers who must slow down should not be reason for removal of the dip. Regarding the comments that drivers are endangered by hitting the dip, I will grant that they are when they hit it at excessive speeds. However, the dip is well marked with adequate warning signs as to its location, and it is my opinion that those complaining about the dip are, indeed, driving over the dip at excessive speeds. There are no complaints from those of us who live near the dip and drive over it at slow speeds daily. Although I have not seen the petition for removal, I would suggest that many of the names on the petition are perhaps those residents with no children, or absentee owners. I think the council should review the names and addresses of the petitioners to determine this fact. Those of us with children, who daily dodge traffic on Bald Mountain Road on their way to school, or skiing, Vail Town Council Page 2 October 13, 1982 by bus will not be on the petition for removal. I think you should weigh more heavily the desires of those parents of children who are living in the neighborhood, and have a great deal more to lose than simply their brake lining, or exhaust system through driver carelessness by hitting the dip to fast, than those petitioners who are merely driving to work, with no children, or are in Vail perhaps thirty days a year at the most, and are less effected by it. In closing, it might be interesting for the council members to ask Mrs. Floyd, who is the prime mover in the removal petition, what her future plans are for residence in Vail. I have heard that she plans to move in the next twelve months to twenty-four months, to Florida, or Denver, and place her children in school there. It would certainly be a travesty if the speed dip were to be removed at the request of someone who is not going to live in the neighborhood much longer, at the expense of those of us who will remain, and are very interested in its continued existance. ~u s cordiall b t M. Kend pb 9~x ~~~ W¢lf9l~., Chius~4 u~~ o,G~,~s~v ~i//pan c~ ~`'s`~--. ass's - ,~ ~. ~ cos r~,..ee~ yam„ kd. .t ro s ,8a.te. ~xz. ~.c . 2sC~-~--M-nI-Q,~o.,. ~ . z/~sa ~&.Cd~t ieoac(.. ,2G5o ~a/~L.mt.~cad- ~,~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1 ~ ~~~ 2~~~ ~~L~ ~ T~ i ~~ ~r ~~'~~ ~u~,-rte ~-o~ ~`-~o~ ~~ -~~'P~ `. - _ ~ _. ..,.. a ,. John H. Uemon Box 846 Vail CO.81657 3~0,~476-2853 .~... ~ ,o.,Y.... ;,~,, ,, ~- b ~ , ~ ~~.. 1 ~- ~ p} E . 1k=`. ~F Nov. 1, 1982. Mayor itoci Slifer and Vail Town .Council P.O. i3ox 100 Vail, CU 81657 near i~iayor. Slifer and Niembers of Councia: It is my understanding that the Vail Town. Council, at its November 2nd meeting, will be considering two petitions concerning the speed dip on Bald Mountain Road: one for its retention and one for its removal. Since it is not possible for me to attend this meeting personally,, I am submitting. this letter in support of the removal of the existing speed dip. As a full-time resident with three school age children and as someone wno must travel this road several times each day, I believe I am in a reasonable. position to appreciate the concerns of both sides in this issue. l~faturally we want our children to be as safe ,as possible in a-X. environment. However, a residential ,street, no matter how many speed dips, bumps, stop signs or whatever, will never be a safe place for children. That is why most .older residential communities throughout the country have sidewalks, curbs, and other structures which differentiate the pedestrian space from the vehicular space. In my opinion, the existing speed dip, if anything, is encouraging a false sense of security in that I have recently seen several instances .of small children playing,. ~ . unattended, in the street within a short distance. above the speed dip. ,There is no question that restriction of vehicles to a reasonable speed is necessary. This is not a problem unique to Bald Mountain Road. However, the speed dip is not, in my opinion, the proper answer. Anyone who drives over the Bald rlountain Road speed dip quickly finds that the dip is unlike any other in town. Although ~I do not have personal technical knowledge, it is my impression that the dip is significantly deeper and narrower than the others. I have been informed that it originally was even deeper(at the request of one of the residents of 3ald Mountain Road present when the dip was being installed - whose technical competence I am not familiar with). After a short time the dip had to be back- fill~d to some degree. If this information is correct, I question what specifications are being used in .the construction of the dips in town and whether or not some .of these "experiments", particularly the one on Bald Mountain Road, are no t. beyond the • limits of reasonable interference with traffic flow. With winter coming all too soon, I am deeply concerned that this. dip will cause more harm than good. The loss of traction on the uphill side and the slipping and sliding caused by braking on the down- hill side are very real possibilities. -2- - In conclusion, although I am unequivocally opposed .to the existing speed dip, I am in favor of a reasonable alternative, perhaps the TRRL hump others have proposed, perhaps even a dip, as long as it is not as extreme as the existing one. I do not believe I have sufficient information on-the alternatives to make a reasoned judgment. .However, I feel strongly that the current dip must be removed or substantially modified before the winter storms really begin. 'After that issue is resolved, I propose a meeting sponsored by the Town Public Works department to inform .the residents of the alternatives available and their recommendation for spring implementation. Thank you for your consideration: 'ncerely- ur - ~'-- ~` . J an F. Jaf e 330 Bald Mountain Road ail, CO 81657. :;. . ,. x Q ~ J X1,7 \ -T .. .. ~.r •n ac?~ i `.' S.- '~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ^ ~ . .. ~ .~ l 1 .... _ ~ (~ I . T ~.. /~i r r ~ ~}~ _... ~. v ~ ," ~ ,'- F, i. /~ _ - ~ /. ._ ..Y..__. _.... _1.__._e.~_._. _ ._.. / ~ ` J\ ._-.~_._... 1. w _ _.. _ .. _ . ~. 1 ~•~' Y ~. .. _. .. . ~ ~ C "" _ _ _ . __ __ .__ _ . _ .. __ _ _ _ . . f L /~ S Y .~ ..I ~.___.__~ ..~.~..._~ .Y....~J~ V_ ...~_.____..__.__. ~_.__ .__~._._. ~ ~ ~_ _.r~ _._.__.y-. ~.~. V_L--l___._.~.. -_~_._... ~. ___. _. r~ r' 1 ^~ ` ~~_____ ____;_ y~,_5_T._~.~_____-_._-__.__.~________ _ _ ___ ____._ _ ~. San ~ ~. ~.. y s_ _ ~ _.___ _ ___~2_~._ __ _ ._ .---Sc~cPQ~._h.o`_._ _.________._._____..._ __ _ ---------~____.__ _.__ __.. .~ ----~2- ~' -- - ----~._ -~-t~. ~- ~.~ _ -- - --- --------- --_ -------- . ---- -- ___ _ - - ---~1---- ___~~co~~.~_--.-.-----.-------.____...___..__.---~ ~ _ ~_____L-~-1-~..r __---.----- ''--.._--____ _ . _ :: _ ;; . ~ - ~~ { ''' v. T0: THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL DATE: November 2nd, 1982 FROM: Patricia Hodge P.E: Variance Appeal by Jan & Gail Strauch of 2865 Apsen Lane Vail, CO This letter is in support of NIr & Mrs Strauch's request for your approval of their appeal to the Planning Commission denial of their deck. I am the most effected nei¢hbor as the deck in question is directly adjacent to my property and highly visable from my entrance and windows. Overall I strongly feel that the deck has greatly enhanced the visual design of their duplex, it has added to the value of the neighborhood, and its removal or modification to meet the 22" inch required additional setback would be entirely detrimental. I have reviewed all the options of moving the Strauch deck to another location on their property, and agree that the currect location, size, design, and color are the very best and provide the optimum benefit to us all. Granting their appeal would not be providing them with special privilege but would be a meaningful and logical variance. ~~ ectfully submitted, .. ~ Br1~n O'~e111y t~ttorney nt Lew Ms. Coleen Kline Town of Vail Clerk P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81658 September 20, 1982 Dear Colleen, This letter is being written pursuant to the provisions of sections 2.20.030 and 2.20.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. As I have previously indicated to you, either I, or my wholly owned professional corporation will become a 20 shareholder of Hospital- ity Investments, Inc., d/b/a/ Denali's, upon granting .of a hotel and restaurant liquor license to the corporation, which obviously gives me a direct financial interest in that liquor license. It would appear to me that my resignation is required pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code. Should such be the case, please consider this as my resignation from the local licensing authority; if this is not the case, I would continue to sit upon the board. Very truly yours, Brian O'Reil y Vail National Bank Building P. O. Box 2911 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476-2535 \_\`, T0: TOWN COUNCIL ~~ . y!y Iowa o uai '~ box 100 vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5613 department of community development MFM(1RANnIIM FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1982 SUBJECT: WINTER CONSTRUCTION IN VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD Yesterday, the Town Council amended the policy regarding construction in Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. The new policy is to permit interior construction during the ski season from November 24 through April ll. The only exception is outside repair and maintenance on a structure during the ski season. Below would be~.the rules .f or .construction in Vail Village and Vai 1 LionsYiead 1. No storage of materials or equipment outside the building. 2. All work must be conducted within the building. 3. Parking is restricted to the loading zones within Vail Village or~legal parking areas on the site where construction is taking place. 4. Deliveries are restricted to before 8:30 a.m. and between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m..and between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. 5. Working days and hours are Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m, to 7 p.m. No interior construction or deliveries on weekends. 6. Parking restriction in Vail Village will follow the normal rules for winter access and control in the core. o~~~~~~~ ~~ 188 eas4 goes creek dPaee ~aiB coBorado 81657 (303) 476-2266 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Co 81657 Dear Sirs: Tha_s ..s to provide notice that 'we wish to appeal the ded?:si:on. of the Vail Planning Commission concerning their- denial of a variance of our. deck wYiich is 20'' too close to our property line. The property in question is at 2865 Aspen Lane, Lot~'$, Block ~, Resubdivision of Track ~c Vail Village 11th filing. Please let us know when we will be on the Town Council agenda, or any other information you may xequire. 3ESikk 27 October 1982 e ely Eric rauch o°0 000 ° o0000 00 0 0 00 0 ~~~ ~ ~ 500 Lionshead Mall ~~ ~ Vail, Colorado 81657 303 476-3051 October 7, 1982 Town of Vail P.O. Dox 1UU Vail, CO. 81657 Attn : Steve Patterson Dear Steve; May I nominate the new grand staircase in the lobby of the Lodge at Vail, for consideration in this year's craftmanship awards program? The general contractor was Hyder Construction Co. and the subcontractor for finish woodwork .was Aren Design from Eagle-Vail, Rudi Neumayr in charge. Sincerely, m LNilliam J. Ruoff Ruoff/Wentworth Architects AIA, PC WJ R /st f ~ ,_ ~;~; ~~ ~ ~~ -~. William J. Ruoff Kenneth S. Wentworth ~J/'~J '~ ~~ ~} ~,,r`s John M. Perkins/Architect, AIA/Vail Run Resort, 1000 Lions Ridge Loop/P.0.B.266/Vail, Colo. 81657/303-47fr3515 18 October 1982 Mr. Steve. Patterson Building Official Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Steve; This letter is a request for consideration.of Mr. Robert Lepper for the Town of Vail Craftsmanship Award for his work on the new doors at the Christiania Lodge. Mr. Lepper's efforts in glass and iron are extraordinary and certainly deserve recognition. ~ n~rx~r.~1 NORTHWEST COLORADO iv ~~-e~ Holiday Center Building, Suite 200 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Posf Office Box 739 -~ Frisco, Colorado 80443 ~ Frisco 303 668-5445 Denver Direct 303 573-7611 September 17, 1982 Mayor Rodney Slifer Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail; Colorado 81657 Dear Mayor Slifer and Members of the Board I am writing to request financial support from the Town of Vail for the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' (N WuCOG) 1983 Quantity/Quality Trust Fund (QQTF). As you know, this fund was established in 1979 to support research, litigation and technical assistance activities related to transmountain water diversions planned within the Region. This support has resulted in significant victories with region-wide impact. We won the first round of the Grand County/ Williams Fork case in Federal Court when Judge Kane ruled that a. proponent of the project must comply with the Grand County 1041 and zoning regulations as a condition precedent to the Forest Service issuing a permit. This ruling has been appealed to the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court and is expected to be heard during 1983. In the. case brought against Eagle County by the Denver Water Board, we were again successful and won a change of venue from Denver District Court to Eagle County. Other water development scenarios such as the Homestake II, Little Snake Three Forks;-.East Gore, Straight Creek and Eagle-Piney as well as water exchange proposals all will loom large during 1983. NTniCCOG requests a total of $20,000 from the Town of Vail for 1983; 100 percent of which will go to lawyers and engineers to continue to address these important water issues. This total is identical to that requested from you during 1982. I understand the difficult economic conditions facing all municipalities and have made every effort to contain costs and hold the line on funding requests at 1982 levels. Eagle County: Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn. Red Cliff, Vail, ~ Grand County: Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs, Kremrnling, Winter Park, ~ Jackson County: Walden, * Pitkin County: Aspen, Snowmass Village, ~- Routt County: Hayden, Oak Creek, Steamboat Springs, Yampa, ~- Summit County: Blue River, Breckenridge, Dillon, Frisco, Silverfhorne •. t I hope you will be able to continue to support our vigorous efforts on your behalf. Obviously funding reductions in this area would hamper the development of creative and aggressive west slope solutions to this difficult program. I appreciate your attention in this matter and would be happy to visit you and your Board at your convenience. Sincerely NORTH ST CO ORADO COUNCIL OF OVERNME G ry Mar~inez xecutive Director /sg n ~~ ~ To~Uw ~~~ ~~~ i ~ 3 b v~ Y'~ c asY~+ne~~^'~vln 15 '~ ~ 01 ~ D OD -_~- -1,- ! _ LETTER OF GRIEVANCE Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council: We, 'the undersigned, wish to bring before you what we believe to be an intolerable situation. As members of Vail's construction industry, we have experienced, in the past three years, an excessive enforcement of Town Ordinances pertaining to municipal building codes. We have suffered unwarranted abuse of authority by representatives of the ]suilding Department:, Bureaucratic arrogance has turned a blind eye to the problems we face as contractors. There has been a loss of the "Spirit of Cooperation" to resolve problems without excessive conflict. Our jobs are as viable and respectable as the Official's job and we deserve to be treated with respect. We believe we are being treated as "second-class citizens". Building codes should be a helpful guideline for the mutual protection of the contractor and consumer alike. There is presently such a myriad of ordinances that it is impossible for a contractor to complete a job without being in violation of ai. least one regulation. In addition, current administrative policy is to initiate full enforcerneiit powers at the first hint of a problem, rather. than to mutually pursue a solution with the contractor involved. We ask that the Town Council declare its position with respect to Building Department policy. We request that a general reform of administrative procedures be undertaken. These reforms are a matter of urgent concern to our industry and important to the well being of the entire community: Respectfully, ~~~~s / ~ `f7l -~6s3 a C ~ ~i •r~ a'? p '~1 t r~EMo To: Rich Caplin, Rod Slifer From: Bi 11 lJi 1 to Date: October 5, 1982 Subject: Contractors Grievances On the morninn, of October 6, 1982, I spoke with. George Schaffer and David Floyd regarding ,your letter of grievance we received at the Town Council meeting of October 5. Both men stated they did not have any specific ~ ., grievances and, in fact, had not read the entire letter. David Floyd said that he had some very good exp"eriences lately with Steve Patterson and George Sc~~affer stated that he was upset over his initial contracts with Steve, but that lately their communication had imporved. ~Jeither man had any complaints about the way codes or ordianaces had actually been enforced. rJeither man felt that the existence of Building Appeals Board was well knoa~n among contractors and perhaps the town could do a better job of publicizing the Boards existence and function. Sincerely, / Y _ B & B EXCAVATING, INC. . Drawer 249 . - ~ ~ - Vail, Colorado 81568 949-4799 926-3311 October 8, 1982 i Mr. Steve Patterson Town of Vail Building Department Vail, Colorado 81657 - Dear Steve: This letter is in regards to the recent petition concerning the building department. B & B Excavating, Inc, did not authorize our name on the petition, therefore, our name should not appear ,on the said petition. Sincerely, _~, /~-•-~~/ `Sidney E,..,-:'~Blandford III Vice Pr~`sident SEB/llh CC: Town Council Members ~ ~ - - Colmfp n`y '~-=- October 5, 1982 Dick..Ryan Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 Dear Dick, Pursuant to our conversation this morning please withdraw the request by Bridge Street Restaurant Associates to appear on the agenda of the Town Council meeting on October 5, 1982. Sincerely, BRIDGE TREET RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES Don H. Galgan pm 230 Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657 (303) 476-2421 `,- - :.~;; town of uai ~ ~r.~-~ y 3 ~ 30 Personal Memo from .. . Mary Alice Caster t~ t~ ~-{ s~ k~ `fie s ~ ~ s ~ a ~ ~ w oi^ k s~•d ~p rya.-~w -~.- U p ~ s rh-c c-~; 01 ~s .Mw~,,,~ , ~ s 1~.~~ Gov til << I ~ t.d, C.~~' ~ Z~..I:L Y ar ~-, c ~ P ~~Ia~,. X74. ~ ~a48 `~ •^ ~s ~~r 8~ .~.~ .~ ITEM N0. _ C --~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~° ~- ~; ~, ~~ , y-?~-4o4~3~s»%n~2 ~~ C~ ~ . pA.2i-r~F~2. ~ ~--.. ~ t~G~ S-r¢Q~-~ 6~~-S-i. A55c~c. ~... l ! ~_. t LETTER OF GRIEVAi~ICi; Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council: We, the undersigned, wish to bring before you what we believe to be an intolerable situation. As members of Vail's construction industry, we have experienced, in the past three years, an excess''ive enforcement of Town Ordinances pertaining to municipal building codes. We have suffered unwarranted abuse of authority by represent'~!atives of the Building Department. Bureaucratic arrogance has turned a blind eye to the problems we face as contractors. There has beei'~a loss of the "Spirit of Cooperation" to resolve problems without excessive conflict. Our jobs are as viable and respectable as the Official~,'s job and we deserve to be treated with respect. We believe we are being treated as "second-class citizens". Building codes should be a help'~ful guideline for the mutual protection of the contractor acid consumer a like. There is presently such a myriad of ordinances that it is impossiible for a contractor to complete a job without being in violation of at least one regulation. In addition, current administrative policy i°s to initiate full enforcement powers at the first hint of a problem, rather than to mutually pursue a solution with the contractor involved. We ask that the Town Council de'',clare its position with respect to Building Department policy. We°-request that a general reform of administrative procedures be un'~~dertaken. These reforms are a matter of urgent concern to our industry and important to the well being of the entire connnunity. Respectfully, Dudley Holmes Jim DeMartin David M. Floyd Byron Hoyle Milt Skeie Jack Bishop Jim Kemp Sid Blanford Horst Krebs Jack Baskin Frank Propernick Larry Mullin Steve Boyd Heini Larese George Shaeffer PACKARD ENTERPRISES, INC. DeMARTIN EXCAVATING FLOYD CUSTOM BUILDERS HOME BUILDER IN PROGRESS SKEIE CONSTRUCTION, INC. ONTARIO LJEST h0E &~ GROW, ITJC. B & B EXCAVATII~fG ALPENHAUS BUILDERS MOUNTAIN .LANDSCAPE GROUP I( DUGAN CONSTRUCTION COi~iPANY MULLIN SE1zAFIN BUILDERS BOYDSON CONSTRUCTION ~~ ~ LARESE CONSTRUCT10T1 COMPANY GENERAL COTvTR~ACfiOk G~ • ~•' g~ ~' o~ a ~ o ~ ~: ~0 ~~~~ ~~ 0 ~~ ~~~ ~ 500 Lionshead Mall ~VaiLC303a47683051 August 4, 1982 Mr. Richard Caplan, Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Caplan: The owners of Performance Ski, Charlie's T-Shirts and Vail Mountaineering would like to appeal to the Town Council the July 26, 1982, Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of their application for modifications in Commercial Core 2, specifically Lion's Pride Building. Sincerely, ~~ === _~__E Allen F a oya, AIA Architect William J. Ruoff Kenneth S. Wentworth r' Memorandum T0: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 198 2 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the store front expansion at the Lion's Pride building in Lionshead. Applicant: Steve Sheridan. . SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS: On July 26, 1982. the Planning Commission denied an application to expand the ground floor store fronts into Lion's Pride court. Planning Commission members. objected to the expansion because it brought the Lion's Pride building closer to the Lifthouse, lacked recessed facade entrances, and because the upper floors of the Lion's Pride building was not addressed in the plans, the commission rejected the application 5-l. The applicant appealed. Planning Commission minutes and staff memo are enclosed. MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Application for exterior modifications for the Lion's Pride Building in Commercial Core II. Applicant: Steve Sheridan DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The project is to remodel the facades of the ground level retail. stores in the Lion~':s Pride Building. Three stores, Performance Ski, Charlie's T-Shirts, and Vail Mountaineering, are increasing their enclosed floor space by moving their store facades out a few feet towards Lion's Pride Court. Charlie's T-Shirts and Vail Mountaineering are moving their store fronts out about six feet, and Performance Ski is moving out approximately 18 feet. I. SUBAREA CONCEPTS The Lion's Pride court is mentioned in the sub-area concepts: f..= Court opened to free access to Lionshead Court. Planting area reduced, relocated~to about Lionshead Arcade Building to °- provide screen buffer for restaurant and force traffic flow out of shadows into sunny area of court. Sculpture focal point. The key phrase here refers to the flow of pedestrian traffic- in relation to shadows. The current store fronts are hidden away under the second floor balcony-- the store windows are often veiled by shadows. The remodeling would take the store fronts at least part way out of the shadows. II. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Architectural Style The Design Considerations state that the "challenge in Lionshead is to develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale within a contemporary archi- tectural expression." The project generally meets this controlling criterion. The design does not pretend to be a foreign architectural style, it Greats visual interest with the awnings and materials, and is oriented to the pedestrian. 2. The second design consideration encourages "a series of connected plazas... occasionally linked by a mall..." The application does not disrupt this pattern. PEC -3- 7/26/82 4. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCII District in order to :expand Fie first floors ops in the Lion s Pride Building.. pp icant: Steve Jim Sayre reviewed the memo explaining the sub-area concepts involved. Alan Tafoya, representing Ruoff Wentworth, the architects on the project, showed plans and eleva- tions. Corcoran reminded the members that the actual facade would be considered and discussed by the Design Review Board. Trout, nevertheless, stated that he felt the design was poor. Donovan pointed out that in this case there was a fine line between the decision of the PEC and the DRB. She felt that the elevations should have been presented showing the second floor, as the appearance of both floors together would influence her decision. Tafoya felt that a pedestrian mall was created. Donovan disagreed, and felt the effect was a negative one. Corcoran agreed with Donovan in that there was a closing oft of the mal"t space. Viele asked about the overall design plan for Lionshead and was told that a bond election was in the works for the next spring to complete the improver,~ents in Lionshead. Jamar pointed out that there were not plans for that building, but that Study Area #5 would go into effect, meaning that this building would eventually be torn down. Tafoya stated that this was to be an interim measure. Viele questioned the life. of the building and hesitated to approve a stop gap measure. Tafoya answered that it would depend on when Bob Lazier cou'Id afford to implement Study Area #5'. Tafoya stated that the shop owners were w filling to spend the money to improve their stores. Piper fei.t that it was important not to look at the changes as though they were interim only, for many so-called interim measures in Vail were still standing. Morgan felt that the parking fee should be paid by the landlord, and Corcoran replied that that was something that could be settled between the landlord and the tenants. Donovan was opposed to the request, because it totally closed off the openings between buildings. Tafoya replied-that as one approaches°the building, one`s attention is drawn 'to the shapes. One sees the concrete wall, cars, and trash. Piper moved and Morgan seconded to approve the request as per the staff memo dated 7/20/82 with the condition that the applicant will not remonstrate against a special development district if and when one is formed for Vail Lionshead. The vote was 2 in favor, and 4 against. The motion failed. Trout moved and Morgan seconded to approve in concept the request for presentation to the Design Keview Board and then indicate to the Design Review Board several concerns of the PEC. Corcoran replied that it was not in the realm of the PtC to suggest specific design. changes. Patten agreed and pointed. out that the PEC had to act on the specific proposal, ana that if there were any significant changes, the applicant had to re- apply, and that also the applicant could ask to have the request tabled. ~Jilto agreed with Patten. The vote was 1-5 to deny the approval with Trout in favor. M,,"%p'4' ~ ~~i o ~ ~ S ~~a~' l~'/ aW . 0 ~~/ ~ 0 ~~ ~~~ ~ 500 Lionshead Mall ~VaiI,C303a47683051 August 9, }982 Mr. Rich .Caplan, Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission's .Decision Lodge at Vail Conditional Use Permit -Swimming Pool Enclosure Dear Mr. Caplan We hereby give you notice ,under the Conditional Use Permit provisions of the Vail Ordinances of an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission on Auguste 9, 1982, when the Planning and Environmental Commission denied the Conditional Use Permit for a temporary air-sup- ported structure over a portion of its swimming pool. We would appreciate anything that could be done to place this matter on the agenda of the Vail Town Council for its August 17, 1982, meeting. Sincerely, A`~len F!/ Tafoy ~AIA ~'~~ Ruoff/Wentwort Architects; AIA PC ajm Copy to: Mr. Thor Loberg Mr. Ed Drager William J. Ruoff Kenneth S. Wentworth s ~iENlORANLUi'~ TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development . DATE: August 11, 1982 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision concerning an air-supported bubble to cover half of the swimming pool- at the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Summary of Proceedings: At the July 26, 1982 meeting of the Planning Commission, the Lodge submitted a proposal for a bubble to cover the entire swimming pool at the Lodge. This proposal was different from the proposal originally submitted to the .staff which called fora bubble covering half of the pool. Sensing opposition to such a sudden change in plans and opposition to the bubble itself, the applicant tabled the item. At the August 9th meeting the Lodge returned with the original proposal, with the bubble covering half of the pool. The Planning Commission, citing opposition to air-supported structures anywhere in the Village, and its visibility from the Plaza, denied the conditional use permit for. this seasonal structure by a vote of 3-2. The applicant appealed. Enclosed is the staff memo and the Planning Commission minutes concerning the bubble. ((VOT APPROVED) PEC -3-. f3/9/~2 4. Request for conditional use ermit in order to construct a temporary winter time enclosure over the Lode at Uai~l sy~rimming pool.- Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Jim Sayre repeated the explanation of the memo for Scott Edward's benefit, because Edwards had not been at the previous meeting. He added that the applicant had gone back to his original praposa'I, to cover half of the pool with a bubble. Sayre asked the commission to look especially at G.. "Control quality of construction ..to maintain the existing character of the area." Sayre stated that it eras the staff feeling that this area 4vas isolated from pedestrian movement and was depressed as well. He then discussed item H."Effects of noise, odor,.." and added that the mechanical area of the pool but~ble would make noise, but that the staff had been assured that there wouldn't be much noise from the mechanics, but that the staff recommc~nded that this be one condition of approval. Ed Drager representing the appl-icant answered that since bubbles are expensive, the Lodge was interested in maintainence of the bubble. Bill Ruoff, architect for the applicant added that a large percentage of noise from swimming pools came from children running and shouting, and that the bubble would muffle that noise. He mentioned that there was a condominium owned by Knoblock that would be affected by the view of the bubble. Ruoff added that with snow on the white bubble, it would not b2 noticeable in the winter. Trout stated that he had no sympathy to4rard a bubble, but might possibly change his mind if he knew that the other buildings proposed for the Lodge were going to be built. He added that since Harry's Bar has not been built, people buying ski tickets could view the bubble. Edtivards was in favor of the bubble, feeling that it would serve a function and was not very visible. Donovan was confused by a statement made by Ruoff that people would not be able to continue to use the a]ley. Ruoff compared the bubble at the Lodge to the one at the Racquet Club in east Vail, but Donovan pointed out that this bubble would be in Commercial Core I and would be very visible from the Plaza. Ruoff stated that it would be below the eye level of the second floor balcony railings. A greenhouse type structure was mentioned and Ruoff pointed out that the pool was on the north side of the building and would not get much sun. Donovan felt that the bubble would have a very negative effect on Commercial Core I. Piper pointed out that one positive effect was that the bubble would be removed in the summer. He felt that if the snow vrere allowed to pile up around the bubble it would blend in well enough. Ruoff added that it was-the Lodge guests. who would see the bubble. Corcoran agreed with Donovan that the bubble could be seen from the Plaza and added that he would like to see the control of noise as one condition of approval, but felt that CCI was not the place for• a bubble. Scott moved and Piper seconded to approve the req-nest fora conditonal use permit in order to construct a termporary winter time enclosure over half of the Lodge pool as per the staff memo dated 7/15/82 with the one condition the staff suggested and with a second condition, Item G, Qua7it,y Contro] be added, and Item H, Complaints of noise, would cause a review of the conditional use. The vote was 2-3 (Piper and Edwards in favor). The motion failed. .Ruoff was reminded that he had 10 days in which to appeal the decision. ,. APPROVED MINUTES 5. PEC -~- 7/26/82 Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI District in order to remodel the second floor office s~ace~for Christy Smarts in the Pla_a Lodge Building. Applicant: Christy Sports Peter Jamar went over the memo with the cammission, and added that although the applicant wasn't doing anything encouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan, they were also not doing anything against it. The use of the room on the west side was discussed, and Ray Story explained that i.t would hold a table for lunches for the employees. Piper and Viele stated that they saw no problem with tyre proposa"I. Donovan objected to further enclosing Hill Street, since it was already small and narrow. Corcoran stated that he was always opposed to enclosing decks. He added that the Plaza Lodge Building had come in 6 or 7 times with small changes, and wished to see one overall plan. Story agreed, but added that the lessee would confine to propose changes indefinitely until the owner finds it economically feasible to comply. Brad Henry, manager of Christy Sports, stated that he was not creating an obstacle. Corcoran replied that the addition further closed down the space on Hill Street unti.i it would become unattractive to walk thru. He added that the owner of the Plaza Lodge building had stressed in previous applications that this was a very busy street. Story .replied that the Urban Design Guide Plan points out that the canyon-1 ike effect could contribute to .the streetscape in certairi areas grid ti~at it was not necessarily negative. Piper moved and "trout seconded to approve the application per the staff memo dated " 7/20/82. The vote was 4 to 2 with Corcoran and Donovan against. The measure F'" +. passed. 6. Request for conditional use permit in order to construct a temporary winter time enclosure over the Lod eat Vail swirnmin pool Applicant: Lodge Properties Jim Sayre explained the request and the two sets of conditional use criteria. Ed Drager, representing the applicant stated that originally the applicant had planned to use a bubble they already owned in Italy, then found that that was not feasible.. Now they wanted to change their application to have a bubble over all% of the ~ocil. Eskwith.questioned whether the applicant was asking to amend the application. Sayre stated that he would like to see the application be resubmitted with ~che ci~~anges. Patten agreed and added that the staff had studied the application from the stand- point that the bubble would only extend half way over the pool in reviewing the views from public spaces. Many of the meiiibers felt the same way, and after much more discussion of this point, Drager asked to have the application tabled until the August 9, 1982 meeting. Morgan moved, Trout seconded to table till August 9 at ttre applicant's request. The vote was 6-0 in favor of tabling. MEMORANDUM 4 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM:. Community Development Department DATE: August 4, 1982 SUBJECT: Application to erect an air-supported structure to be used as a -winter-time enclosure over half of~the Lodge at Vail swimming pool. Applicant: Lodge at Vai 1, Inc. The Lodge at Vail is returning with the same proposal that they submitted at the last meeting on July 26. The staff recommendation remains the same and the memo dated July 15 is enclosed. MEP~IORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Depart-nent DATE: July 15, 1982 SUBJECT: Application to erect an air-supported structure to be used as a w inter- time enclosure over half of the Lodge at Vail swimming pool. Applicant: Lodge at Vail, Inc. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE:. The project is essentially a bubble to be placed over half of the swimming pool at the Lodge at Vail. The dimensions of this structure are approximately 40 feet by 50 feet by 15 feet high. This is a seasonal recreational structure which will be erected the week prior to Thanksgiving and will be removed the week following ski season each year. The bubble is a white, translucent, vinyl .coated. polyester.. PROCEDURE Planning Commission review of this project is subject to the criteria outlined - in the conditional use chapter of the code, not the criteria outlined by the Urban Design Guide Plan--the bubble is classified as a temporary structure which does not count as enclosed floor space. Section 18.04.290 defines "seasonal use or ''~~- ~ structure as: . A temporary covering erected over a recreational emenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, for the purpose of expanding their use to the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more ~ihan seven consecutive months of any twelve-month period. For the purposes of this title, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure shall require a conditional use permit... Since a seasonal structure is not subject to bulk control standards, such as enclosed floor area, it is not subject to the Vail Village Design criteria. However, the Commercial Core I district does list several special conditional use criteria in Section 18.24.070. These criteria are listed below. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA I. In considering an application fora conditional use permit within Commercial Core I district, the following development factors are applicable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I district The bubble has no direct influence on traffic. Lodge Bubble -2- 7/15/82 s • B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I This project will not reduce or increase traffic in the Commercial Care. C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking. No influence, D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles.. No influence. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. The bubble is not adjacent to any major pedestrian way. F. Continuance of the various commercial, .residential, and .public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the existing chara~cter,of the area. The bubble will not interfere with the various commercial, residential ar~d public uses in the Village. The bubble will allow a recreational use to be continued throughout the year.. G. Control .quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existing character of the area. The quality and design of the bubble should be carefully reviewed by the Design Review Board. Also, the continued quality of this structure over the years will depend on maintenance procedures. The applicant should not allow the " bubble to deteriorate. '-~..~. H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the. environment of Commercial Core I district. The bubble will not produce any odor, dust or smoke. The mechanical systems which support the air supported structure are fairly quiet. II. The conditional use criteria, as outlined in Chapter 18.60, should also be used to~~avaluate the pool bubble. Upon review of Chapter 18.60, the Department of Community Development recanmends approval of the conditional use permit based on the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. The code has provided for seasonal recreational structures as long as they meet the conditional use criteria. A properly designed pool bubble will enhance the amenities of the Lodge. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,_.a~rk__s and recreation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other pu lic facilities and ,.-~-..~ up bl is facil ities: needs. `~-=' The bubble willl have slight to neg ligible influence on the above factors. " .. •~ Lodge Bubble =3- 7/15/B2 Effect upon traffaic with particular r°eference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuvera- bility, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Lodge maintenance crews vrill have to periodically remove snow from the perimeter of the bubble. Effect upon the character of the area. in which the proposed use is to be located,. _including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The Lodge bubble will be fairly inconspicuous. On three sides it will be sur= rounded by the Lodge, and faces the rear of the Lazier Arcade on the fourth side. The bubble will be visible frorn the Village Plaza; but the bubble will be tucked away so it will by no means dominate the views from the plaza. If Harry's Bar is built, the bubble will be entirely screened from the Plaza. Such other factors ,and criteria as the commission deems a livable to the propose use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the. following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious. to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The staff recommends that one stipulation be attached to the conditional use permit: 1. That the structure will be erected the week prior to Thanksgiving and will be removed the week following ski season each year. /~a:l. VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION 241 E. MEADOW DRIVE VAIL, COLORADO 81657 August 10, 1982 Mr. Rod Slifer, Mayor Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Rod: ~ ~~~s~. ~. ~~. J ~ TRAL RESERVATIONS (303)476-5677 (800)525-3875 MARKETING/CHAMBER SERVICES (303)476-1000 Denver Line 595-9488 ~ip ~1j1'~ev ~ (~ C~~ 1~ ~USG~s~ < ~ lIr ~. ~SS~~~ R,~ As Chairman of Vail's 20 Year Celebration. Committee, I have been fortunate in working with many enthusiastic and dedicated local residents in planning pro- motions and events around Vail's 20th birthday, In addition to the many committees working on alI aspects of the year-round celebration, Vail Associates has offered to provide the foundation work for mounting of an original Vail gondola, if an appropriate spot can be provided by the Town;. the suggestion is that the gondola be a permanent reminder of Vail's history and that the location be named "Pioneer Plaza". The dedication of "Pioneer Plaza" would bring media attention which would further promote the celebration. I look forward to talking with you and the Council further about this idea and possible location for this site: ly, Jos~~hairman 20-Y~ar Ce ebr ion Committee JS/ cc: Rich Caplan Vintage ~a~l. A 20 YEAR CELEBRATION, January 26, 1982 Department of Community Development Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 Dear Gentlemen: I would like to become a member on the Town of Vail's Design Review __ Board. I am a registered architect in the State of Colorado and I hold two of the following professional degrees: B. Arch. - Univer- sity of Kentucky;. M. Arch. & U.D. - Washington University. I have worked in Vail with Pierce, Baldwin & Associates for the past four years. The follaaing brief resume represents examples of my pro- fessional work in the immediate Vail area: Project Architect for the Following Projects '. - Vail Place Number One (formerly Village Plaza Building) Vail, CO - Pepi Sports Shop Addition Vail, CO - Golf Course Duplex Lot 16, Sunburst Drive Vail, CO - Northwoods Building 'A' Remodel - Units 10 & 12 - Northwoods Building 'C' Remodel - Units A, K, O, P, R, S Architectural Contributions to Following Project - Potato Patch Club Development Vail, CO * Other projects or references are available upon request. My main reason for applying for this position is quite simply to serve the Vail community in evaluating building projects and assuring that the town's design guidelines are maintained. As a board member, I would offer my expertise to help perserve and improve the architectural fabric of our community through a systematic design review process. Sincerely, . ~ ,~ Kurt A. Segerberg P. O. Box 2125 Vail, CO 81658 Home: 476-6246 4Jork: 476-4433 ~. _ , .. - ~._.._. ~ ~.~,.~._.~.._~ __ .~ ~ ..~...~,a~._..,...~....____,.~a.n_.._ _..~.v. -~_~_---~ General Contracting and Design February 3, 1982 TO WHO:f IT MAY CONCERN: My name is Steven W. Caswell and mq company is American Consol- idated Development. I would like to be considered for a position on the Town of Vail Design Review Board°. Being a Vail home owner myself and planning to be a long term resident of Vail, I am interested in keeping all new construction up to the highest standards of quality and aesthetics so that although Vail grows,. it will continue to be a beautiful place to live and visit. I feel that I will be able to contribute to the board because of my experience in building and design. I am very knowledgeable about all aspects of construction and design and I am familiar with the special problems encountered with building in a mountain area. I have enclosed a folder of information about my background and some of the projects which I have been involved with in the Vail area. Sinc ely, -- Steven Td. Caswell Post Office Box 3669 ~ Vail, Colorado 81658 ~ Telephone 303/476-3088 Town of Vail 29 Jan. 82 Dear Sirs: I am applying for a position on the Design Review Board. I am - ari architect and have lived 'in the Vail for the past five years. I have worked for Gordon Pierce and recently for Snowdon and Hopkins, both local architectural firms. I am currently starting my own firm. I would be happy to talk to you further about the DRB position, • S'ncerely, ichael L. Sanner ~ PO Box 667 Avon, Co. 81620 827-5587 ,, ' ,~ T0: Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 2, 1982 RE: Parking fee ordinance Enclosed is the new ordinance concerning parking fees and the current section of the code concerning the fees. The first sentence of paragraph B has been changed to clarify which zones in town are "exempt" from on-site parking requirements. Subparagraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 have 'been added in order to clarify the administration of the code. ~. ,, . for a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; - ~ . and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities - shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and pro- ~ - - ~ jected needs generated by all uses in the area to be ' ~o ~ exempted. ~ ¢r- '' - U. Within any area exempted from on-site parking and; or t ~° :. ~ . loading requirements, property owners or applicants shall ~ $~ &.. be required to contribute to the town parking fund, hereby ~ ~ ~ established, for the purpose of meeting the demand and ~; ~ . .. ~ " `"' requirements for vehicle parking. At such time as any # ~~. ~ - ~` - property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or ~. ,• redevelop a parcel of property within an exempt area h ~- - _,;,=;., .. ~ e which would require parking and/or loading areas, t , . owner or applicant shall pay to the town the parking fee ~ ~; hereinafter required prior to the issuance of a building ~ ' r a ,,.:,- :. F permit for said development or redevelopment. TI , ~ ~ 1. The parking fund established in this section shall _ receive and disburse funds for the purpose of con- ducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of ~ parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, ~ T ~"`"~ ,> the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking ' g,~= ~ facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. - _ _- - 2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant ~ ~ a= ` ± shall be determined b the town council rovided in ~ ° ~-: ~. ~ :'~ ; - ~ ~ no event shall it be less than one thousand dollars per ~~ ~ ~..: .'. '~,:_. space, and in addition, that owners or applicants : ;: r' t; `' t...,. _. ,.~;. similarly situated shall be treated equally. If any payor's .. ; ~ ~ . '. - funds are not used by the town for one of the purposes ' ~ ~ 1 specified in subdivision 1 above within five years from ~ ~ 'r the unused pgrtion of the funds the date of payment ~ ~ .', .- , shall be returned to the payor upon his application. ( ; r ~;' . 3. In accounting for the funds expended from the parking ~ ~ ~- fund, the finance department shall use a first in/first ( ~ ~ `' ~~ , ;~ .~ ~~ out rule. ~ ., ~ . - 4. If any parking funds have been paid in. accordance with ` ~ .;.. . ; this section and if subsequent thereto a special . or - erieral im rovement district is formed and assessments g P ; ~ ` -~ ~ levied for the. purpose of paying for parking improve- ! ~ ~ k ; - T meats, the payor shall be credited against the assess- ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . ~. = meat with the amount previously paid. ' j : . (Ord. 47(1979) 3 I ;Ord. 8(1973) ~ 14.800.) A:.; 443 w~ti z•sr> ~ a . ~ ~ r i ~ s ~. ~. r ~'' F .f . F ~ ~ ~ „ .' F, Y +.T...~.-.~-- - cx- .. - -?T.vi'.. . ~'a•,.n.~.VAR:`-~..,...,....~e~+o.q:-+--~>*-+as.r,....rm.ar.-,t-~~t++~'r. _ ~.-.m`n.-.y,. ~ .. _ ' ORDINANCE N.O. 30 Series 1982 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENr'1GTING SECTION 18.52.160 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE, WHIC H ESTABLISHES PARKING FEE RATES FOR VARIOUS USES WITHIN THE TOWN, OUTLINES CREDIT GIVEN FOR EX- PANSIONS INTO EXISTING SPACE, CREATES AN OPTION WHEREBY THE APPLICANT MAY PAY THE ENTIRE FEE AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT OR MAY PAY THE FEE , OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, AND GUTLINES THE PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING FEES FOR FRACTIONAL PARKING STALL REQUIREMENTS. WHEREAS, Section T8.52.ib0 of the Vail Municipal Code, which outlines the regulations concerning areas exempt from on-site parking and the application of the parking fee, needs clarification, and WHEREAS, the Town Council deems that the. parking fee may be paid over a five- year period with interest, and ~ WHEREAS, the clarification of Section 18.52.160 will facilitate the administration of the parking fee, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT SECTION 1. Section 18.52.160, Paragraph B of the Vail, Colorado Municipal Code be repealed and reenacted as follows: B. In Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II property owners or applicants shall be required to coritribute to the town parking fund, hereby established, for the purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for vehicle parking. At such time as any property owner or ,other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel of property within. an exempt area which would require parking and/or loading areas, the owner or applicant shall pay to the town the parking fee hereinafter required. 1. The parking fund established in this .section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, con- struction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services. relating to parking. 2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant shall be determined by the town council provided in no event shall it be less than one thousand dollars per space, and in addition, that owners or applicants similarly situated sha17 be treated equally. If any payor's funds are not used by the town for one of the purposes specified in subparagraph 1 above within five years from the date of pay-nent, the unused portion of the funds s1~a71 be returned to the payor upon his application. • -2- 3. In accounting for the funds expended from the parking fund, the finance department shall use a first in/first out rule. ~- 4. If.-any parking funds have been,pa,i,d in,accordan.ce.w,ith this. s,e_ct.ion and if subsequent thereto a special or general improvement district is~formed and assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payor shall be credited against the assessment with the amount previously paid. 5. ,The parking fee for uses listed in Section 18.52.100, with the exception of dwelling units or accommodation units, shall be $3,000 per space:' The fee for dwelling units and accommodation units shall be $5,000 per space. The Town Council will establish fee rates for uses not listed in Section 18.52.100. 6. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use. that wouldincrease the total number of park ng spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the en tire,building or use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant or owner. ~- 7. The owner or applicant has the option of paying the total parking fee at the time of build ing permit or paying over a five-year period. If the latter course is taken, the first payment shall be paid on or before the date the building permit is issued. Four more annual payments will be .due to the Town of Vail on the anniversary of the building permit. Interest of ten per cent per annum shall be paid by the applicant on the unpaid balance. If the owner or appl icant does choose to pay the fee over a period of time, he or she shall be required to sign a promissory note which describes the total fee due, the schedule of payments, and the interest due. Promis- sory note forms are available at the offices of Community Development. 8. When a f ractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (Section 18.52.100),. the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction: ,This applies only to the calculation of the .parking fee .and not for on-site requirements. ~,F('TTf1N 7 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereto regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,. sections, sub- sections, sentences, clauses or ph-rases may be declared invalid. _3~ SECTION 3 The Town Council -hereby finds, determines: and declares that this- ordnan~e~ is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of , 1982, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this ATTEST: day of 1982. RODNEY E. SLIFER, MAYOR COLLEEN M. KLINE, TOWN CLERK INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED .PUBLISHED th i s day of 1982. r RODNEY E, SLIFER, MAYOR ATTEST: COLLEEN M. KLINE, TOWN CLERK ,4 AGENDA 'LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 1982 1 pm . 1. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL EVENTS LICENSES: _ VAIL INSTITUTE - SUMMER CONCERTS - Arena and Tent BOfH aPPiZUVEil • SKI CLUB VAIL - JULY 10 Dobson Arena 2. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF STOCKHOLDER CHANGE FOR THE FOLLOWING PREMISES: B~JTH APP~~OVE~ SAFEWAY VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. • 3. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MANAGER REGISTRATION FOR THE FOLLOWING PREMISES: VAIL ASSOCIATES - Hungry Skier - registering Roy C. Jones a~-~ APPi~OVEi) STEINGARTEN - registering Joel Ri pmaster PLAYERS PUB •- registering Jonathan C. Kelley 4. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXPANSION OF PREMISES aPP ~VEJ FROM THE CHRISTIANA LODGE tra~~I,~U FOZ FILE 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING FOR RUMOURS - John McCoy 6. PUBLIC HEARING OF REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF NEW LICENSES FOR LIO~JSHEAJ LE PETIT RESTAURANT LIONSHEAD AND LE PETIT RESTAURANT VAIL VILLAGE ~adIEy Requesting Hotel and Restaurant Licenses - Mr. Ron Silber YIL11~uE PiJSTPJ~~~ . -advisement to the Authority of Lodge at Vail premises statement filing $. Any other matters the Authority may wish to discuss AGEPlDA TO'v1N OF VAIL LOCAL LIQUOR LICEfdSING AUTHORITY REGULAR f4EETING 14 JULY, 1982 10:00 AM l). Request for consideration 'of approval of _ ~$~Pt~i~~ Stockholder Change for Cafe Del Sol. 2). Consideration of request for approval of Stockholder ~~Z~'~ change for Vail Associates, Inc./Vail Food Services 3). Consideration of request for approval of Change of ~i-IPPi~JVt.-J Ownershi p for Potatoe Patch C1 ub Restaurant. 4). Consideration of request for approval of Expansion ,aPPi~~JE~ of Premises for Potatoe Patc h Club Restaurant. . 5). Consideration of request for approval of Expansion APPr~UV~ of Premises for Alpenrose Re staurant. 6). Any. other matters the Board may. wish to discuss. AGENDA TOWN OF VAIL LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING August 11, 1982 ~ ~ ~. .. 10:00 AM ' ' Report to the Authority on Special Events License-.Dodson 1) Consideration of request for approval of ~1PP~JVF~ Manager Registration for The Crest Hotel (Registering Daniel Lee Eckert) 2) Consideration of request for approval of . ~PPRJVE~ Manager Registration for Talisman Lodge/Mariachi's (Registering Geoffrey Wright) 3) Consideration of request for approval of Stockholder change and Manager Registration APP~JVE~ for Steingarden, Inc. (registering Ros Cleaver) 4) Consideration of Request for approval of New APPRJVE,~/ui~~ Notel/Restaurant Liquor License for the Cascade Lodge /6Jestin Hotel 5) Consideration of request for approval of new gPPr~JV~/u~ZAi~TEtJ Hotel/Restaurant Liquor License for the Compass, Rose Restaurant 6) Consideration of request for approval of .~ ~I~i~JV~ Stockholder change and renewal for The City Limits 7) Any other matters the Board may wish to discuss ~. ~ ~ WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANT P.O. BOX 58 ~« DURANGO, COLORADO 81301 ~ PHONE (303) 247-8813 April 23, 1982 Richard Caplan, Town Manager Town of Vail P.0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Richard: Enclosed is a copy of the Final Operational Seeding Report for the 1981-82 *.ainter Central Mountains Weather Modification Program. It you have any questions pertaining to these operations, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC: V~ Lawren~. Hjermstad President S, INC. WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH FORECASTING CLIMATOLOGY CONSULTING METEOROLOGISTS TO BUSINESS - INDUSTRY - AGRICULTURE - GOVERNMENT WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC. P.O. BOX 58 * DURANGO, COLORADO 81301 Mr. Richard Caplan, Town Manager Town of Vail Post Office Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Rich: * PHONE (3031247-8813 May 5, 1982 Enclosed with this letter is our cost estimate for a three-month cloud seeding program over your ski area for this coming winter season. We have prepared this program estimate earlier this year to assist you in your fiscal planning for your next ski season. I will again ask for a November 1, 1982 starting date for the pro- gram this winter. This year's program will continue the same generator network with a couple of changes. An additional seeding generator will be in- stalled near Redcliff to seed .the Copper Mountain area. Two other generators will be relocated to new operator sites to improve the reliability of the generator operations. .(See attached map). Along with the additional seeding generator we have increased the seeding hours to 280 for Copper Mountain. The'seeding hours were also increased by 80 hours for both "A-Basin"--Keystone and Winter Park. These two areas each utilized last season's estimated hours in approximately a two-month period. Again, I would like to remind you:that thesE cost estimates presented would represent the maximum of what. this .winter's program would cost. Any additional winter cloud seeding participants or activities under- taken by Western. Weather Consultants that could reduce the program cost will be passed along to each of the .participating ski areas when this winter's contracts are finalized. I should have the program permit application ready to submit to the State by the end of July 1982. Your help in providing economic data relating snow conditions to ski area revenue was. a major factor in securing our November 1 starting date last season. I would suggest that you maintain your economic records and update them with each season's snowfall and revenues. This information would be available to present at future permit hearings when needed. WEATHER MODIFICATION * RESEARCH FORECASTING * CLIMATOLOGY CONSULTING METEOROLOGISTS TO BUSINESS - INDUSTRY - AGRICULTURE - GOVERNMENT WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC. I will contact you near the end of June to finalize plans for this winter's program. If you have any suggestions or questions concern- ing this proposed program, please contact me at your earliest con- venience. Sincerely, WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC. ~~l - 1%a Lawrence -A2. Hjermstad President LMHjamh Attachment CENTRAL COLOF,ADO ~-AEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM TOTAL COST ESTIMATES 21 Generators Operating for 2,380 Hours between November 1, 1982 to January 31, 1983 Permit Application and Hearing Costs: Including publishing of legal notices, legal fees, witness and travel expenses, .public relations, professional services, liability insurance, permit and fee $18,736 Program Field Preparation Services: Including site selection expenses, site leases, tank sets, CNG leases, CNG intal- lation expenses, propane tank rental, pre- season maintenance, including travel expenses, replacement parts, CNG take out expenses, and professional services Facility and Equipment Charges: Weather data, travel and meeting expenses, reports, coordination, phone expenses, public/program relations Professional Modification Services: Including daily forecasting, management, operation analyses, implementation and control Seeding Operations Services: 2,380 hours Including costs for silver iodide, propane, generator operations services and communications Field Maintenance Services: Including maintenance services, travel, supplies and travel expense TOTAL PROGRAM COST ESTIMATE 14,340 11,068 11,154 26,289* 5,663 $87,250 *This cost will be billed on basis of actual total hours of seeding operations. CENTRAL COLORADO WEATHER b1ODIFICATION PROGRAM TOTAL COST ESTIMATES BY PARTICIPANTS FOR 3-MONTH PROGRAM DURATION Estimated Seeding Estimated Participant Hours Cost Vail Assoc. Inc'. and Town of Vail 560 Beaver Creek Assoc. and Town of Avon 560 Copper Mountain Inc. 280 "A" Basin and Keystone 500 Winter Park and Town of Winter Park 480 TOTALS 2,380 $22,650 22,650 9,650 16,450 15,850 $87,250 ;;,~ ~ 1 -v t-.o~.; L ::1., - v:rr,acetwyauey rear _ J l 0 lotus rs ~. ..'- ' ~ Fs I ,' ~ t ~ ~' ~' rlNDln'•1~ FC1hSC -" i , . \ r olfoid ~'' Butte ~ I '^, '~ '~, ,' W Mln 1 - R , I pt ~ ' ~,~ O U 'L... Q ~ 'J,82 1 R ~. ~ ~l f " ~ .1.\ '~.~ , A ''" Granby Tv ~---r ~.i I ~-•- ~ , I , r 1 - i ' ' ~ ` _. _ ~~,.,, ` ' ~~ ~ICOtTi .' `Wa c ! .lee Ndl` p.. aV.__._L _._-' ----\.._\ I .. ~-~~ , ~ ; 1 I .Hot Sulphur i`" ~ r ~~.1;. ~-L]' s ~ --~ ' Q Id~Hill ^. /. -_ ~"' . ,' ; ~.' ~ Flat , ( ~ • ' }-~'~ ,; G Pzss ,Ulvsome I Spr nos r Iwa pk ' ~~ ', - Krenunli 3~~ ~ - ... V ' r" 1 ' ~ .. S n rcl U, , ~` I , c Crisman , r ~ t I'a rshell - f ~ ~ I ~~ r.in:: - .._~ ti al .. I ` u~ • I. y ~~ ~ ` - f~ Su63rloafLo~ ~D ER l ... ,. 1''34610 r 4 7 ~ r..'.' l ~ 83__ _l.r-- r3~ `1, ~~' 6, ,.~ 8 -:; '7j,._.. e ,' 77 ~ G ~ _ '~2- ci~a(:nolia ---- {: ... - t -r--~OLaI1G 1 / 1 \ C[ribooU } 1 ~r~ ~ ~ ~ I ro~. ~Craler . ~ fJ.-. ~ ~•~ U•i ~ ~;SlieeP Mln ~ ' ~ 1 `~ - ~ ~ t ' 1 ` ~ ~ ~ , v'~~ .,n-' \ U Fra9~ ~ ~l Idur-t 1 ulr:yhite I ,:_- 1 rFt,ad1u11 Sheeplt rn C - i~.. 1 __ l>J -~ ~ ,I L ; ~ J I ` cu:,r.: ,;.1'_•Rollms~l '~~.~1' a`~~..~~C ~ !; `~ `, Mtn ..\L ~ ~•t as ~Nlondely, ' \ t~+ , ~ y Copper Sp `~ ~, ~,.r" 1'' S ~ J ~~. w 1c, r` ~` East 'urtal '„~yrii S ~i.~'~ ~a £ \, ~...-'•-,--t-~~1' i~ ~ 1i ~`~ Q~~~ G-%~ lint Q4"Ik Ia:iil • ~~ s \ t `` ~~:. , Y„ Byers J ~ - , / .. r ~ ~.(~ ~ , ©ond ~ , ~~~ 1'` ~ 1 \ 1 rlHr2neY ,`~l~ -' I `,\ l i' `^ ,\ . f Apex 1 2 ~ ~: " ~\ p 1y ~ '•~ \ I ., ~. L ~ i:J ~ ,( ~ the •,r ,S /} 8 1 ~S ' to ~r d~ e +~~ \ :. ~!__--r v r~ ~ .273 •S- \ \ I(•t~~~ ~ W. •. : i 1• ,--- ' [ GOLDEP. Gi • , r '\,` tt: of 8W; ~ \ ~ ~ ! ~. `~,~ ~ - \ - "1 ~ \ ,\A~f~A PEA L '\. s:~' \ I ~ \ --- ~ ,: SIn1r: ~nR - --.. _ t ~__._.._. I ~ \ \o .~eY\ - J /~ '` ,'1~ ~., ~ ~.~~~ ~MtNystrom s•t ~ Aral~Ity• ~F3,lackHawk l I 1 ' I f \\~ ~ \ Pe k - \ /?~ ~W ~ \ ~ { -_ \ \~ ~es~ r t anvel. U 3 teos~l ~ ~ 1.>5 .~~ ~~ ~S 11 ~. /`~~/ (w Y \ \ 1 ~--_. _,_ ;:' .J •. .Rus ell`Guleh t ~,I ~ ~ W j ~ _... [, ~S, 1 ~ ~,~ 1v~\r,~\. ~ I~Q~ ~ ~- ~ ~\h al s s Lawson l)u Wont ~ 1 c„It ,'~~ I •,,:,•, , \ ~ ~ J L.L' F En, ire - ,-. ^"• ~ ,, ~ \ ~-.,:~ ~.. 'fit«s r ~ ~ ~ id NtA _ _ .~~ _ ,,,~ ~,I ~ Ida io S rin $ Q_ ~1 __ ' T r"r_ T N f 1 ~~ I __ CJ _ . _. _I _ ~ \ - - =- .. __ .~. .. _ ~ i ~ 6 ~ f , Woods.MtPa S '' : r ' n •.. ,. ., } . US. ~4~. 1 ;-~~ Q \ ~: ~ ~ ~,A ~ /~~ ,aFian Ir_ ,~ cVta Fe ',_ ~. `; _ "' \ -~.I~ `\\~ i~--.`' \ ~ "~ •' ~`''~ ~ ~ ..~/ ., Lieorf,etown ~~ Mtn ,~~ ! ! I ` ~ ` ,~ ~_ j'' ~ ~ `l,~ ~ _ _.C €--A' - C iR E E ~~r ~r~ ,rn AEI F.ar ..i - ` .... ~. - o , -~ ~_. `R~ and Whtl'e Mtn ~; `, ~ ~~v'~ r _ ~...__ ,-i -~~, \ Itr9J '\~!`.,\ ~, .`~ t ~ j/~. ~ \;,\ 0 ~~ / /'i Ifvf:Ll'lurl~ ~ f .. ~~ , Mt loser tj ~ ttredge 1 ~ * ~ ,Bald Mtn L` t., / ~ rosol ~ c, [-' I V 1 1 p. ~ 7 J \ 2 E ~) ,sue 'q '''~ \~ \ 4~/ / elan ass.. ~ - ,l I _ 11 ,,' ~ Cirookvale t~l __ ~• ritglr- ~----V,rdr Y~!~.__.` II t r',. Pk _ r~ I ~, .. ~ i -_- ~ ~ _ Y 1 ~ 'l' ~ 1 i I. u l .°c , s\~.. 1~ ~ W ` ~~\ ~Dn ,.., W25 ~~'' -- C~ I Sily rlltorne/ ~ 7" ~1 ' ~ I~ tdl W loox '(~ ~ . r c I ,y, ~ / ~ - s ~.' \ ! 'Y/ f~~/ ~ 1 one' , ~"_._ ~ ~ S E `sws -1 n l .d uncGOr I I ,C~ t [siust;uft ,j...~ IIJJ • 1 ~ a(r ,f O Mmt In \ ~ ! I y t / ' a tezur~a _ - - \ , (7F3 7, - . ".~O , ~tISUQ ^ W ~ Gat ~ ~ '~_~ {SG 11;11 V .. J ,u rr ~~ .. ~, ~~ r' ~~~ Mt1 `-{` r '_ O • \~ ~ :`t \~' ~ ~ InC1~ ~ ail/ ~~ ~ / 1 -2. 'p . 'a ` o,reo 6 ~. Ul ..1~ Conifer G _~,yx\',~% '~,,' \ ,~sn \ ! C~ s~ ~ ~ -... ass i' ~ L,! ~ ..~~'. ~ -' _ -: , '~ iarriq Farr. r .. Ei59~1 ~ . ~.. - , t=, sigh and a I -~ ( ~ ~ ,, '~._ ~' I ~ ~ ~ / ~ ' - Hornsilve MU •'', Whale k - _;~ ~ .' `. ,~, or :,\ ,~~ ,~.- `F `E~E~T „src - ~rclkrnriclEt \~_ lr Lnlcc li ~ t~o~v - ---~ ____-~--- t1Vtf7~~ - 1' 1JA1~ - `t - --. - Glenelk . tJ'~ _v- ~.-._ `.-r-~ __- , -. __._ Sitve- Spnnc p ~ ~ $b . ~ `~ Q Mt of the ~., \ • ~ 1 /' ~ d Ici ,r,., ~ ~. _ 9 Y SIn leton ,~ ~~ ~~ f ~ `0 • Holy Cross r .Pando '\lac k L Ba d Mln ~ i~ •,~ E I _ ' •^- ,` t~~. A`r,. ~ I n ,,::,~ U ,~R; rl '131ue tivCr~ _ t..~ nee ~= .(:leiu;e I I `Fme _ _,, , ....._I_._< .. ..Ur,,,~..... .- -- -~---._'._I~__I_ ` Via. ~~. _s_,-.~. 1.. .. -1--~- -._ ~'.. .._ - ..._.-._._ ~~~_ _-~ - -- hloorect,~le " U Wiley ~l.i-,. `,?J .1-~ MAP OF 21 GENERATOR SITES FOR THE CENTRAL COLORADO PROGRAM FOR THE PARTICIPATING SKI AREAS ).,I !IL .1'!_.1LL ti"I~KE I~.T J11~ Rti ~L:eI ~),.._; ~1Vlonday;-7une 14, 1982;:; ~' Raillla~a~r~ ~~ar~~ hilts In~udget~lnidl~oubt 5 ,~ ~.- - '4 l~hulitClt)111~ tiee~1111 ~, s b ~'c»ttinu~ d P+ro~r~ Pa~1r .l ._ i `:: 5wzrs,w~th~grcat c1re:~"'The s?cond r~lieri '~ .nlent`did not,coufirrn-th'e ftrst~exh~;~;,,e~~t in ~I' accordanee .with .the,-gruimd 'rule ~, ,we:' set` ~ ~ ~50111~'lhln° ' r~down.`' ~~~~iis,ically: ~:an~~way: b went ~~,i„ r„ something serious en ~ ~~h to compromise ,tt1e once and~for all i roof that I~~iid`-'seedp~g'-rt'illy w<brks. What wenf•1e~rong-was a ~~I~ni~Jhlu~s~ giver the `test .area `on July 'y .~=19ir,. ~Cli, r.in urges filted.~,~On that'~div %Mi 11~~~,,il~~~ ~ ~,~ ~m.~had:flo~i~n into the <h~nii.,. ~ii~~~i~Enn~ ~aitsters Mtich latzr;~ h~ ~'~ '~ t~rl~1 J:~° ,~ ~U~;illy « ~:,~ ~lr~ppi~ng sandthat day. - i T1tr s;~~d-seeded cloiidbiirst had a `devas l.~t~ina _ effPCt on the ~statistics~ for the whole three -v~ ~ r 'period • of FACE IL L.eare out July 2y, • 197h; knciwm as 'the. big ~3ay" _ among` rueful" statisticians _]iere, and. the__ three;year~ eiihanczii7ent of -rainfall esti mate'd_from real silver iodide-seedin~~ wasp . 28~%~.'in .the ~eiit~re ~fest area: If the sand;„ seeded 'bid .1'a i irr~ ,~]^d; the rafif~il in- crease foi•`th~~ I In rr ~ r ;n ~~~~is only ,i, ~ i11r. 1ti~~r~dl~~~ s liu:i! i~~uort~ is,due°~next f~IL To soften the effect of whit m~y;hlve'• been -the ~"big~day" flii].E .his an tl~hc term: , is trying to reconstruct the morning weather portents during the test period; to see if sil ver iodide seeding actu illy produced morel ~ i,~n,that.would have tieen forecast.' .However, .the weather scientist :clearly . ~ r. grets his decis~ou to fly at'all on July 29;. ~~ 1978,'-since that days mission by itself opened the _hiige' gap; bete~~een the', rain#a11, statistics of ~~ the two FACE,- test periods.: "Had` L_not gotten „out ,of ..bed that ilay~`the f~bui~es would have, .been very sirriilar, ~' tie' says,., Government Rainm~.kers Face Budget Cuts l~s Research Casts Doubt on Cloud Seeding By ARLEN J. LARGE SfQ,(fRepOt'CeTO,r THE WALL STREET JOURNAL BOULDER, Colo.-Government rainmak- ers are in the doldrums. Weather modification is the fancy name for what they do: They have tried to be re- spectable and scientific about it. But budget- ary pressure from the Reagan administra- tion may end most of their research. Per- haps worse, serious scientific trouble en- gulfs one of the most elaborate attempts to prove that cloud seeding really does en- hance rainfall. The problem: a single day of heavy rain in Florida. Just four years ago, it was a]] rainbows and silver-lined clouds for the weather-modi- fication people at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where much of this work is done. One of those ever-present panels of experts reported in excited tones that weather changing "is scientifically pos• Bible and 'within sight." Optimistic Forecasts Cloud seeding could increase rain and snow by 10°I° to 30%, said the Weather Modi- ' fication Advisory Board, headed by former State Department official Harlan Cleveland. Hurricane winds could be reduced by 10% to 20%. Hail from some storms could be cut by as much is 60%. The report, proposed a dou- bling of federal weather -modification funds to $37- million the first year, and a further rise to $90 million by the fifth year. The Carter administration showed inter- est, but never followed through on that scale. NOAA's weather-modification budget has remained just below $10 million a year. But next year, the administration proposes to .cut that sum to $4 million, mostly for weather-reconaissance aircraft. Future cloud seeding would be "zeroed out," as [hey say in Washington: All of this is just part of "the attempt to reduce the budget in line with getting the economic situation in order," NOAA's presi- dentially appointed chief, John Byrne, has told Congress. Some in Congress are trying to restore at least part of the agency's cloud-seeding money. The House Science Committee has approved a bill authorizing NOAA to restore $4 million for weather-modification activi- ties; the Senate Commerce Committee wants to put back $5 million. "NOAA's cur ~ rent program in weather modification is on an appropriate course and should be contin- ued," said the House committee in a report accompanying its bill. No Easy Solution But these measures haven't reached the floor of either house,"and there's no assur- ance afinal bill will pass or be signed into law. Anyway, a separate bill actually appro- priating new cloud-seeding money still would be required. Meanwhile, the cloud-seeding spigot also has been turned off at the Interior Depart- ment, where the Bureau of Reclamatign has been conducting weather-change experi- ments for years. A summer cloud-seeding operation in Montana, Kansas and Texas has been "mothballed" by the administra- tion, says Bernard Silverman, a Reclama- tion Bureau weather expert in Denver. Though truncated, the initial attempts to make clouds rain with silver iodide injec- tions when they otherwise wouldn't looked promising. "All the evidence pointed to the To justify cl®ud- seeding budget cuts, government officials have questioned the research ®f their ®wn weather scientists. l~lariy pr®jects claim success but "are not geared t® document their claims scienti f i- cally" apolicy paper saysa , fact that the hypothesis works," says Mr. Silverman' - For more than a decade, researchers have been trying to show they can make winter .clouds moving over the Continental Divide in the Rockies produce ~ more • snow, thus enhancing spring runoff waters into the Colorado River. Mr. Silverman estimates the streamflow might be increased by 10°l° to 12%. Money Problem The Interior Department is offering to start an eight-year seeding program to dem- onstrate this, but under current administra- tion rules it can't be done with general tax money. The $11 million cost would be fi- nanced by a special fee on customers (or, electricity from three federal dams on the ~ Colorado River, but there have been local objections,; and the snow-making project is in limbo. Government weather modifiers generally. insist they're not trying to do regular rain-. making to help farmers' crops; that's the, job of private commercial cloud seeders.'. Rather, the government people have cloaked themselves in science, hoping that success- ful weather-changing techniques will teach them more about how the earth's atmos- phere works. Casting Doubt In trying to justify the cloud-seeding bud- get cuts, NOAA policy rnakers have dumped on their own weather scientists' progress. In answer~toN a question from Congress, one NOAA policy paper says: "To date no U.S. project 'has clearly demonstrated that cloud seeding can produce significant quantities of additional water on the ground. Many opera- tional projects claim success-and in many cases their sponsors appear to be satisfied with the results-but these projects are not geared to document their claims' scientifi- cally." Starting in the 1970s, NOAA weather sci- entists devised a supposedly foolproof rain- making test to prove their theories once and for all. The test area was South Florida, where from 1970 to 1976 summer cumulus clouds were seeded with silver iodide. This theoretically caused a cloud to heat up and merge with nearby clouds, increasing the chance of rain. At the end of the first Flor- ida area cumulus experiment, known by the acronym FACE, the scientists said it ap- peared that the 4,800-square-mile test area south of Lake Okeechobee received 23% more rainfull than if the clouds hadn't been seeded. In 1978, NOAA started FACE II, a three- year effort to nail down, absolutely, the re- sults of the first test. On 51 days during that three-year period, William Woodley led a team of small-plane air crews into the Flor- ida sky, flying right inside the clouds to dump canisters while rain gauges in the sugar cane fields below measured the result. To guard against experimental bias, Mr. Woodley's team wasn't told whether the can: isters contained real silver iodide or inert sand. ' Differing Results The seeding. ended in 1980, and'since then Mr. Woodley and his statisticians have been analyzing the results at NOAA's weather modification headquarters here at the foot of the Rockies. And what is the result? Mr.. Woodley, a short, peppy man, an= Please Turn to Page JQ, Column 6 THE WEEK .AHEAD Major events and economic re- ports scheduled for the coming week (some dates are tentative) MONDAY Supreme Court meets to issue or- ders and decisions. TUESDAY.. Industrial-production ' report for May. WEDNESDAY Housing-starts and factory operat- . ing-rate _reports for May. ' ,THURSDAY Balance of payments, report on a current-account basis. for the first quarter. FRIDAY Personal-income report for May. ~~^~ ~ -r erated at 69.7°7° of capacity in the first quar- ter, the lowest level in ~at least 21 years, Sta- tistics Canada, a federal agency, said. The first quarter performance compares with capacity utilization rates in 1981 of 73.7% in the ,fourth quarter, 78.9% in the third quarter, 82.4% in the second quarter and 80.5% in the first quarter. Statistics Canada said the operating level in the 1982. first quarter was the lowest since at least 1961, when it began compiling quar- terly data on capacity utilization. The transportation equipment industry showed one of the lowest rates in the first quarter, operating at a 50.7% level, off from 54.4% in the fourth quarter. The chemical industry worked at 64.7% of capacity, off from 67.7% in the fourth quarter. On the economy's demand side, Statistics Canada reported that retail sales remained weak in April, totaling $8.05 billion (Cana- dian), up 3.2% from $7.80 billion a year ear- lier. The increase was significantly below the country's inflation rate, indicating a de- cline in real spending. April sales by motor vehicle dealers ,and by household furniture stores showed the sharpest fall, .both dropping 16.4% from a year earlier. ~ . wi~tTi it~~ U ~u,aries, (;ie. Bruxelles Lambert ahd Financiere du Ruau. GBL has scheduled a shareholders meet- ing on June 28 to vote on a merger, which would make the two companies part of'GBL. The holding company announced that stock- holders will be offered three GBL shares for one share of Cie. Bruxelles Lambert and one •GBL share for two shares of )~inanciere du Ruau. Financial analysts said the transaction is aimed a.t increasing the sfake~ in GBL of a group of four concerns. The four companies, Pargesa Holding S.A,., of Switzerland,, and Cobepa S.A., Gevaert Photo-ProducteN N.V. and Frere Brougeois S.A., all of Belgium, announced in January their intention to ac- quire one-third control of GBL. Since Cobepa and Frere Bourgeois each hold approximately 17% of Financiere du Ruau, the merger riow being proposed to shareholders would give them a larger'inter- est in GBL, financial sources said. Finan- ciere du Ruau is itself a subsidiary of Cie. Bruxelles Lambert. An attempt earlier this year to give the group 35% of GBL through a capital in- crease ~Nas unsuccessful, because too many stockholders exercised their option to pur- chase shares. ' - i . ,~ W ~rld ~r~efs ' Japan's Economy Posts guar. ter Growth of 0.~% In Rebound From Decline in Previc~~us (quarter JAPAN-Japan's economy grew at an in- flation-adjusted 0.8% 'in the quarter ended March 30, rebounding from• a revised 0.7% decline in the previous quarter, the Econom- ie Planning Agency said. In the year ended in March, the economy grew an inflation-adjusted 2.7%, far short of the government's 4.1% projection. Among reasons cited for the' slowdown in the fiscal year were sluggish personal spending, which rose 1.9% in the most re- cent quarter; a depressed housing market, in which new housing starts fell 1.3% in the most recent quarter and for the year-were, at' the lowest level in 14 years, and ;. slack capital spending, which rose 0.7% in the year. Exports rose 0.7% in the most recent quarter and rose 16°o. in. the year ended in March from the previous year, but only kept pace with the~.prevous year's 16.6% growth rate. ~ Although Japan's growth rate is high for many recession-p1a~Tued industrial; coun- tries, it is comparatively low for the;JapaN- ese, who are accustomed to high growth. The.gavernment is expected to be forced to seek fi•esh stimulative measures. Kuwait Boosts Capital;of ®~il-~nvest;ment ~Jnit KUWAIT-Kuwait boosted ,the capital of its world-wide investment arm, Kuwait Pe- troleum Corp., to $8.75 billion from $3.5 bil- lion. The increase was approved by the Ku- waiti parliament to enable the company to "implement a number of projects, including an aromatics complex, expansion of refin- eries in~ Kuwait and development of oil wells.' = _ Switzerland Auto Sales BERN, Switzerland-New car sales in Switzerland fell 5.9%'in May from a year earlier, to 28,011, the- Association of Swiss Automobile Importers said. ,r The company already is involved -in a number of acquisitions of major concerns throughout the world., most Notably the $2,4 billion purchase last year of Santa Fe Inter- national Corp. of Alhambra, Calif. It' also is involved in exploration activities on joint venture basis in many areas of the world. Kuwait expects l:o earn $10 billion an- nually from its global foreign investments by the end of this year. , Austrian wholesale Prices' . VIENNA, Austria-Austria's seasonally adjusted wholesale prices were up X0.4% iN May from April and rose 6.1%. from the year earlier, the government reported. I r.,;. , ~D 4'e .n ~~r $ ~ r ~ ~ A>re ~ See ~Pd -,c~~e V ,jL ~- r .# ~ ,x [,~ ~ .,a C ,^ee k ~~~un !~ ~~ (jgn ~-fin ~jv_ .~ D1 r. )\) L L Lt /f l v r~ ~~ RY $.~JGt~: WA}Zr S~:c... t/rl'T8r' /J: ~~.: ~~rl~ ~ C,.: /~ 7_r M S~~w w~ f ~Z r 1 _ ~ i I M ~ mT ' ' "'"' / „' ..l_ C p ~s3o ~ i 3c~ i w s w :~ , ~ ~~~ ~ k ~ . j , , , ~~ , t .> ; ~ j ' ~~~ ' ~ ,~- ~ ~ ~ ~, ~.I ~I i I ~mI - . i ~ ~ I ;~ ~ ~ ~ , m ` i'rl f m~ I ~ °~ ' I ~aoc ~ ;Sis ' ~ w /9 ~o ~,~~ ~I - ~I ~ ~ ~ ~~oo I , 0 WNw /~- ~ ~ 10 2~.. m~ -. ... _ -_ .~ 3'L .. .. .. ~ ~ e a ~ ~~ oo ~ ~ .7 i rl 1 2y ~ .. as ~ m~ .. Z~,o I o~~ - ; ~~ _ _. . ,, S.. r ~ ' _ _ _ _ ~ z _ _ . _.. .. . ~ o ~s ,,, - _ -, ~ f ;g~ Nw .~ _ ___ .. . _Sno..a °c~o.~rse d~ /VD . _ ~ ... A.yF-r,:1~4.~ _ ~e.. .. _ C.t~~ C.9r D ~ ver .. ...... .. ... .> _ _ ~ 1 .~r~.~ .~ r _ i L z _. ~ - .~. ~ - DG>~em 6~(~ ~ j r ~ ~ C~~pz~ /7~1"e r~ .fee d.ed cr~~e C ~R ~ - C ~-e e k /9'J ~ ~' %' ~"'' r fi N [ a ,'. C .SE+Et, - n GL ~ n. ~-. ~f.,, ~'~' S~ ~. s:.ro~...: c~a,e~ sn:c'u, urn~'er 8~ ~~)~ ~.: +~1 L t'''t ~" • :ZO ('' ( ~ ~ ~ I l l5 ~ ~-oo ti' Lt) ~Z m ' I' • ia' u 3 , i ce I i I r S i l i ~~ jC M ~ ,r ' ( ! ~ ocm~1 ~ LtJ I -~ I~ ;, jl i I ~ ~ ~ O 7JU j~, ~ , „ . SS ~ y" yc ~ ~ ~ m ~ n - rC ~ (CCC ~~ j7 ,,~ i ~ , I { t ~' 2/ ~3`' l,So ~3" i.oo ,r 3 3 J a93c T i I /~t`a i 2 ~ T '/~~~ .r ! ~y s. as ~3~~~ , ~o ~~, sy y„ , 3s _ ~ s , - .~ ~ m 9 % e - ~ p 3 / ~~~ 3~ 9,, , 6~ ~'' >3S i3e- ~ t'~. . Sn-o ~s c-.~~ rsc /11 'O vL~- ~ ~/J b ~e -- _ _. .._--- ----.___.-- ~nd __ ~no.>a -._ _ . __ ._. _ __ _ _ . _ - co~YS ~- _ _ ..- ---- . ----.. .- ---..lV~A__- ~~~ .. ... _ _. _ _ _~ _ _ _-- --- ______._.... ._. r.. _ ~. - -.--- . - _. ~ _.... :, , .: .. . . ~~ ~ V~Ur'tr b Z- ~,re -~ .fee de~ IjeAve r LiR I.' ~~pzr # ~ '* C rem k ~?~~'`'^~+, ~ Sid C ~ i` v ., ~'~' eZ =./ .S~ .~ 5 .~ i~~ i( /~ 1i ~ `1 /J~ l~ /7 f -3 /~ 70 2I 2~ ~3 ~y .2S ~~ .2 T .~ ~9 3 G ~ / R . ~~ ~ le 1 i~ r91 Tr rrt E ~~.,_! ~i r'. ~',ebraRr~ ~z " r Cope-~ f}~r'e r~ .fee d.ed ~~Av 1: ~~~ I e 1 Gree k /~ ~ ~1 `^`~~ S/i ur (iAR'Y c,v ~~~..: cUA~'er .SNr.:, t/A~7~er' ~~ r. !/: I, r1i~ ~.., - :, A ~~„ _ Ja ~~~~ ,~S ~~r ,~s ~ ~ y ~ L" ..Iv J ~' ~" .a7 ~ ~ L S- _ ~ ~ S I / 1 ~ e 1 I i . ,, ( ~ ~ ; i L~ I ~ G q . ~~ , .T ~ „ i ~ T 1 h _ .. ~~ 3 ~r f `~ I.Z ~ ~ 1 !/ i-S- f /~ ~, ,~ ~O 2~ z~ 2~ ~~ ,~ S 6~rI .6~ ~ yrr , ~~ ;,, ,' i y" I , ~s i S s ~~ ~! h d e d ,. _... _ _ L L~;a ~f ~' c~ S •~ ,~ I~ , ~; /? ~.~ i~ /J !~ /7 ~~ /9 70 ~/ 2~ z3 ,. `' y ~S ~~ ~7 ~7 ;~ ~9 ~o f/'AY~ -- Co~p2 ~. ~} ~r' e r~ .~e e d•2~ 1?cr~v'e~ r 'v~R ~. J ~ C fee ~ ni r. Su~w L:ATL'r , ~.~rJ'.A. wA~z~ .71~:!_~.[• C/r.~C/~_ _ . . 1~I~1 .. (wit •Yo ~~ ~'~ ~ !IL J /o i~" • 3S g'~ , 8v 5" • ~~ 1~`~ ~~, ,iZ ~ /" ,03 _ ~'-1 . ja 3w , ~o ~ , ,, r -~- .r, , / ;~ Z ~n ,qD a 9~' . s~ 1 6» ~ f oI 6" , yo ` m ~ ,3 ,.1 i F I v2 7 :~ Gi ~o i~ C~ . ~/y1,~r~~ /~~ t 98 Z /~ .it~~ °~ I ,25, Cc1NW WNW w n~ ~ ~ 07 37 i I j t i i ~ ~.. FINAL OPERATIONAL SEEDING SUMMARY REPORT for CENTRAL MOUNTAINS WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM Conducted for: Vail Ski Area, Vail Beaver Creek Ski Area, Vail Tos,m of Vail, Vail Town of Avon, Avon Keystone-A Division of Ralston Purina Co., Keystone Copper Mountain, Inc., Copper Mountain Winter Park Recreational Association, Winter Park Denver Water Department, Denver Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Loveland Colorado Springs [dater Division, Colorado Springs City of Aurora, Aurora November 1, 1981 thru March 16, 1982 Conducted by: WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC. Durango, Colorado April 16, 1982 FINAL OPERATIONAL SEEDING SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE CENTRAL MOUNTAINS WEATHER r1ODIFICATION PROGRAM WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC. submitted an application for a permit to augment natural winter precipitation in the Central Colorado Mountains, to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, on August 28, 1981. The seeding areas requested for the 1981-1982 winter snowpack augmentation program were the drainages around the Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper Mountain, Winter Park and Keystone/Arapahoe Basin Ski Areas, and the upper drainages of the Blue, Colorado, Homestake and South Platte Rivers. This application was discussed at a public meeting held on October 21, 1981, before Mr. Monte Pascoe, Executive Director, and Mrs. Barbara Welles, Weather Modification Program Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, at the Dillon Town Hall, Dillon, Colorado. WESTERN L,IEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC. received a Weather Modification Permit for the drainages around the ski areas granted effective November 1, 1981, and in force until March 31, 1982. The permit for the remainder of.the Central program area, i.e., the upper drainages of the Blue, Colorado, Homestake and South Platte Rivers, was granted effective December 1, 1981, and in force until March 31, 1982. One of the stipulations of the permit was that no generator should be operated under conditions when the plume might be expected to reach Leadvlle, Colorado. Other stipulations . related to seeded area boundaries, the selection of weather systems suitable for seeding, and program suspension criteria. The program was operationally ready by November 1, 1981, with 20 ground- based cloud nuclei generators in place to seed the Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper Mountain, Winter Park, Keystone and Arapahoe Basin Ski Areas. An additional 11 ground-based generators were subsequently installed in preparation for seeding the remainder of the program area after December 1, 1981. All of the generators were manually operated and utilized silver iodide as the nucleating agent. The first treatable weather system for the 1981-1982 winter season moved into the Central program area on November 7th. Seedable storm systems frequently moved across the program area during November and December, resulting in 13 seeding events before the Christmas holiday season. A storm track remained over the area during the December 25th through the 31st period, resulting in new snowfall each day. However, due to strong winds aloft, poor travel conditions, and an increasing avalanche potential, no cloud seeding operations were conducted. During the months of January and February, 1982, seeding operations were temporarily suspended because the Soil Conservation Service reports for snow courses around the program area indicated that the water content of the snowpack exceeded the established suspension criteria.' In early March, 1982, the cloud seeding suspension was lifted by The Colorado Department of Natural Resources due to the late February snowpack observations indicating that the water content had dropped below the suspension criteria. On March 3rd cloud seeding operations were resumed for the Vail and Beaver Creek Ski Areas. The remaining ski areas had either already used up the number of hours budgeted for the 1981-82 program, or were satisfied with the existing snowpack. The last day of cloud seeding operations was March 16th. .Because of the heavy snowfall during December, 1981, resulting in a significantly above average snowpack, cloud seeding operations were not conducted in the upper drainages of the Blue, Colorado, Homestake and South Platte Rivers. During the period November 7, 1981 - March 16, 1982, WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC. seeded 16 selected weather events covering portions of 28 days. The operations for the Central program amounted to 1,702 hours of generator seeding time, which dispensed 15,595 grams of silver iodide. Soil Conservation Service snow survey information for late March 1982, indicated that the water content of the snowpack around the Central program area averaged about 114% of the 1963-1977 average used for comparison. This was slightly lower than the 118% of average computed for observations made in late February, 1982, prior to the lifting of the temporary suspension of cloud seeding operations. -2- The following table lists the individual seeding events and gives the number of generators operated, the ski areas seeded, the total number of seeding hours, the seeding rate, and the total output of silver iodide in grams. This table is followed by a presentation of precipitation events to seeding events with accompanying changes in monthly snowcourse measurements. This presentation is provided for informational purposes only, no .quantitative statistical evaluation of the seeding effects from this program will be attempted. -3- CENTRAL MOUNTAIN AREA WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM Number of ~ Total Seeding ,Total Grams Event Operat ional Generators Seeding Rate Silver Iodide No. Dates Operated Seeded Areas Hours- (gms/hr) Output 1 November 7, 1981 3 AB/K, V, WP 19.50 20 390 2 November 18, 1981 6 AB/K, V, BC, CM, .WP 35.75 5 180 3 November 20; 21, 1981 5 AB/K, V, BC, CM, WP 61.00- 10 610 4 November 22, 23, 1981 4 AB/K, V, BC, WP 55.75 10 558 5 November 25, 26, 1981 5 AB/K, CM, WP 60.25 5 302 6 November 27, 28,.1981 3 AB/K; WP 40.50 5 203 7 .November 30, 1981 8 AB/K, V, BC, CM, WP 56.25 5 _ 283 329.00. 2,526 8 December 1, 1981 9 AB/K, V, BC, CM, WP 95.00. 5 476 9 December 10, 1981 3 V, BC, WP 21.50 10 216 10 December 13, 14, 15, 1981 15 AB/K, V, BC, CM, WP 436.50 10 4,368 11 December 16, 17, 1981 9 AB/K, V, BC, CM, WP 198.75 5 996 12 December 19, 20, 1981 8 AB/K, V, BC, CM, WP 175.00 10,20 3,258 13 December 21, 22, 1981 16 AB/K, V, BC, CM, WP 221.25 5,10 1,765 1,148.00 11,079 14 March 3, 4, 1982 4 V, BC 112.00 10 1,120 15 March 11, 12, 1982 3 V, BC 85.50 5,10 595 16 March 15, 16; 1982 2 BC 27.50 10 275 225.00 1,990 TOTALS 28 days ~ 1,702.00 hours 15,595 grams ~, , ....~-~- _, ,~~ d,~ ~~~~~. ~~ Vail Associates, Inc. August 11, 1982 Mr. Richard Caplan Town Manager, Town of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, CO 81659 Dear Rich: Vail Associates, Inc. requests that the Town of Vail join with us in the proposed cloud seeding program for Vail Mountain during the 1982 - 83 ski season. The cost of the proposed program is $22,650 and we request that the Town of Vail split the cost with us as in the past. Please pass along this letter and the enclosures to the members of the Vail Town Council ._ I will attend the Town Council session on August 17 „1982, to present the proposal and to answer questions. Vail Associates, Inc. looks forward to working with the Town of Vail on this critical project. Sincerely, :~ ~~~~~ ~ oe ~ acy, Mana er Vail Planning & Technical JM:rm 050/82/061 enclosures Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81658, 303/476-5601 ~' INC. P.O. BOX 58 * DURANGO, COLORADO 81301 Mr. Joe Macy, Ski Patrol Director Vail Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 7 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Joe: ~ PHONE (303) 247-8813 May 5, 1982 Enclosed with this letter is our cost estimate for a three-month cloud seeding program, over your ski area for this coming cainter season. We have prepared this program estimate earlier this year to assist you in your fiscal planning for your next ski season. I will again ask for a November 1, 1982 starting date for the pro- gram this winter. --This year's program will continue the same generator network with a couple of changes. An additional seeding generator will be in- stalled near Redcliff to seed the Copper Mountain area. Two other generators will be relocated to new operator sites to improve the reliability of the generator operations. (See attached map). Along with the additional seeding generator we have increased the seeding hours to 280 for Copper Mountain. The seeding hours were also increased by 80 hours for both "A-Basin"--Keystone and Winter Park. These two areas each utilized .last season's estimated hours in approximately a two-month period. P.gain, I would like to remind you that these cost estimates presented would represent the maximum of what this winter's program would cost. Any additional winter cloud seeding participants or activities under- taken by Western Weather Consultants that could reduce the program cost will be passed along to each of the participating ski areas when this winter's contracts are finalized. I should have the program permit application ready to submit to the State by the end of July 1982. Your help in providing economic data relating snow conditions to ski area revenue was a major factor in securing our November 1 starting date last season. I.would suggest that you maintain your economic records and update them with each season's snowfall and revenues. This information would be available to present at future permit hearings when needed. WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH ~ FORECASTING CLIMATOLOGY CONSULTING METEOROLOGISTS TO BUSINESS - INDUSTRY - AGRICULTURE - GOVERNMENT ' WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, INC. I will contact you near the end of June to finalize plans for this winter's program. If you have any suggestions or questions concern- ing this proposed program, please contact me at your earliest con- venience. Sincerely, WESTERN WEATHER CONSULTANTS, TNC. . e ' ""~ ." Lawrence M. Hjermstad President LMH/amh Attachment ~•. CENTRAL COLOF.ADO Z~9EATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM TOTAL COST ESTINLATES 21 Generators Operating for 2,380 Hours between November 1, 1982 to January 31, 1983 Permit Application and Hearing Costs: Including publishing of legal notices, legal fees, witness and travel expenses, .public relations, professional services, liability insurance, permit and fee $18,736 Program Field Preparation Services: Including site selection expenses, site leases, tank sets, CNG leases, CNG intal- lation expenses, propane tank rental, pre- season maintenance, including travel expenses, replacement parts, CNG take out expenses, and professional services Facility and Equipment Charges: Weather data, travel 'and meeting expenses, _ - reports, coordination, phone expenses, public/program relations Professional P•lodification Services: Including daily forecasting, management, operation analyses, implementation and control Seeding Operations Services: 2,380 hours Including costs for silver iodide, propane, generator operations services and communications Field Maintenance Services: Including maintenance services, travel, supplies and travel expense TOTAL PROGRAM COST ESTIMATE 14,340 ,„ 1 11,068 11,154 26,289* 5,663 $87,250 *This cost will be billed on basis of actual total hours of seeding operations. ,: T ... CENTRAL COLORADO WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM TOTAL COST ESTIMATES BY PARTICIPANTS FOR 3-MONTH PROGRAN~ DURATION Estimated Seeding Estimated Participant Hours Cost Vail Assoc. Inc'. and Town of Vail 560 Beaver Creek Assoc. and Town of Avon 560 Copper Mountain Inc. 280 "A" Basin and Keystone 500 Winter Park and Town of Winter Park 480 TOTALS 2,380 $22,650 22,650 9,650 16,450 15,850 $87,250 ~. faro S ii { \ `~~ , ' ' V: ~-i : i t r, ~ I :udUlgW ,,I:,\ oJii iiJestp,a,!. , :' t. I .~ I I \ Vlollu d Mln D; \~ ~\_ ~8 . ' a: ;~ f -- I ': R -Z ~ I ,__~_ 4 V, _ ~ -- ~',~Y ` r . --wILiJL-Tt ?. s .-+''t . Wit I r - ,-.Lee F111, __._ ~ ._. ----- ' , I ,L ' ~., ~.._ f ~_ rte,' I - .~ F.IiG ~I ~~.) Hot Sulplnrr _ ~ .. ~,--~ /] _. ~IJ iii;l ... -_. '= , .. , ^7 ~ ro '. ' ~ . I' ... . _ Gr Vass ,-y„rblesonre - ,•~ ~ . I ~ Sp' 'y;, r' iwa ~Pk 1 td .-..,.~ I I(1'Clnlni .L .I ,~/, ,~' ~ '. .',' nn .,~//a ".I rlL.rI5p1Bn i .... . . I ar;hall .~ L I .. ~~, ~-~S,~ nseto'~;:--1' l rt ~ • ~ y . ~ I .~ ~i 1 I ~, ~_" - `~c - r;..-~ snxarl~al~ O~J LDE 83' `t32` ~O./' 1 ~ 7~ 8 ~`~~,''.~~,, }_' G" q, %3' /2-... ,7 \'i+k,.no -A:ure:', ~ ~; ~~~~ ~ (lbern~ish~ ~' , ~ n C: Whoa G . / r 1. =~ • •^• s ~ f v . blr~k ~'tn ~ -~ \ . ~~ j ..~ ~~ ~ p+y.rY1 ~ ~'~ NedeSj~rn~~, r , ~ s. r Crater ~ •'~ Ln~ , \/O t+" i g" - ` ' ' - '••, + p p • •~ .ruins' ' ~ ,'.h_Jf ~<u,rr ~ Fra:ou.~ ~J Idora - ..~Pine~hffe ~j•,"~ f Radio, i ~ Sh2C hrrn i i \ \ ~ ` - lu•s/lr r CtuSCe; I ~ Mln . \yL r ~:.. W ~'" ': -~ _ I\ ., '-it ollinsvi i ~ -i~'r~".y rt' ~' ~ i , ~rl; J - ~ }"~lll~ ~ ~ ~ ~ te. a~ ~rY/Onder n i : ~(~y. ~~ - ` 5 w \_ ` ~ -' r ~~.,~ - .Z ~~;'•, i ~deawa• ,,rk S~llatlfl-- r -~---'t". C~CopPer Sp ''1 `'1 ~ S ~, `,'1~ d ~ W .,,f1[ P- East 'orlal ~yrir .leu:~ ".~-r p k • r-r. i q _ '_~~~ ,, S -\ " _,..1- ..-.^,.I I'~ , . ~ '~7 tj~ ~' ~ ', 1 ~ ~ O ~' G i~ Jintn ' r ~ ~ ~~ " • ~ I J~ \~'. ` ",1 (_~ \~...~ •., .• l ~ I~ ~ ~1 \ ~ v,~ '~,~ '~ / dal ~ V~ I ,~, \o ~.. \` Hc3neY y " SS ` 9Yers p ~ Rui, "~ ~S le,fsrid~ e~~s \ ` ~ ~ '~. l •- -r'v / ~ \ a75 ~~ 1 1 '\ w' '"~ ~ ~ !~,~•: r.~ J •. ... tsesntl-- ~,-" 1 "~ ,.i~E:~ ~ I u: n, 6 w ~ ~ ~ •. ~/ / ?' . ~ ~ V1 ,I ~ ~ f~ A P A % \ I - - ------~-"- - ~F.Zt; t ~ - - ' ~F ~ '~` • ," ;~ 5,,,E , ---" __....-- --i .'` ~..-s'o ,~eY ~\ ~' J /~ . ,, ~. lJ !., \,, ~ ~~ ~ /W ~MlNysirfom `ss~) ~ Cu trallLdy ~ -,UI;ckHawk I - I ~ ~~~ ~ SII \ Pe k ``- \ t) ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~• ~ ~ -1 \ ~~ ~ss~ : ta~oa, U 3 u3osr, ~ - `~ ~J 1. ~ ~ Y . \ `~ ~--____ ;. Rus. elf Gulch t . • ~~ ~ ._ '' ~\ .1 .'_ Bert b- ~~ulnont Caiilr PI. ~ -`l I __ ~-~ ~ D"J / ~\ •,\ ~U 1 'j~. -. \\ _ ~ \Fal S _.. .., .. ' G L iwi~ ~, t --~~ _ ~. ~~~. -. \ `..., ,;,~.~ ..-:. '' i j~ ~ _ N1~ 7-I N ~ ~ - ~ F O R E S T h,~ .,, Itla io Sprln~s~ ~__;~~' ` j .. ` \ I,....,. .----. ------r- - G~ j ` ,. ~ Y .WoodsMtp.r.: ~~ ~r._._~ n 'J Vv • ~j ~ ~ ~ i / "' . ~~~`~ls~ ~ ~ clown C ~ Mtn e _ ~,~~,.rt\ ._ `. .o. ~" ~ \ ~ .> C3eo s,zi ti erge •a . • , ~ , Y`~- -- •\ Rai and Wtute Mtn ` 1 \ k,, ;~~ C 1~E--~ `~R E E --L urv~%s ,, ` fo ~ v f~ ~ ~/~ ~ -` fv1rJ'lumc ~ >>~~ i` \ _..~`'~`' 'I r ~ •` ~ I ,bald hltn .~ I ~ ~ `,~ V / -~ r ,enr;l r~ I ~~ . Mt Judtc. K!ttrec' ' ~~ J ~ 2 ~" E ~) Was ~ `,\ ~ I`>~/ ~ / / elan ass -~-~ S__ ro.rw - ---V- -~:f ,,•ic-- -V~ihr.e•2 `~ ''\` V,II ~t--~ ~_--- i - -' J Brnokvale~. I V 't' ~ 1 ill'~{t 1 r;.' Pk I r ~,~ Ed a• s~ ~~~ C r Sily rthorne I' ~-/`r- ,// ~ 1 u~ ~ West _ ~ F I / r Mt n' Icon • ~ L " l`~ . •C~~. ~ , r ,: ~ ~ ` ~ - . ~ p L L • , ~i , ;-f' •"~ •' ~~ i" r ~ I ~ I td~,rshdale ;~ r ~ ~ ~./U~~. ;~1uncUor ~ ~~ ~ • lyr y `Ill l4ic•i s1;~AI (rn . . / Mint m ~ ~ U (~ ~ ~ - Eirir~~ r'e ~ 1 n' ~~ . ~~~ \ / \ .. , ~t7 ,. ~~ru,\ \ i \ v~i."{+.nl ~ O l:. ail ~ ~. i/ rr ..-~'Z. '~j a ~~o~ G - ~ uL..ll Conit~: lll/// ;~ ~t~ 1 ~ r~,." I ~ \ d ~ ~~,\ '` ' ~W~dcldL~ as ~ ~ 1 r`1~ \ ~~ ~ n - ai rls Perk I , ~_ F I u ~ : _' IlomsiPoe Mh ~/ ,,// Whale L _. rl. ~ __• .~- ~\ ~~ \~s ~ } r•snr `` ~ % . Lmcc n crlne k __- - \\ F. _ - . '° --~NEFZ ~lftl Idr~l . U~ ~ F t)tZF ~ f 'i ~rcr~,E•iYi idgi - --- -- - --- ---- - - u " ~~" .~ ~ --'C- ---l-- V -\ .~. ~` J''~7~ i ~ a --Gt,rnl~~ ~ 5i`v~•• Slxni~%-f,• >Glrn ~ - 5 fj 0 I i V Ml of the ~...' 1. U r.,s;:,, -. I "... _ .,o--_ •\ r.oc;•Rol Cross Pando`'~ ~\Jacni 'k/ v I Sin felon ~- . 't,~~,,.0~` ~ I , ._ ' _ m '131ue tivCr ~.- l ~ I ,,::mce~= t icrJslc 1 Pine - -'-"- -- I ~ Pr{uorenale ~~' 'i ;,riluy..- I _ ' ~,>?~.:~~ MAP OF 21 GENERATOR SITES FOR THE CENTRAL COLORADO PROGRAM FOR THE PARTICIPATIPdG SKI AREAS MEMORANDUM August 5, 1982 T0: Rich FROM: Dick R ";~_>~ SUBJECT: Parking fees for Commercial Core I and II In .May of this year the parking fee for commercial space in Commercial Core I and II changed from $3,000 per space to $5,000 per space. Town Council approved that change only for two years, and then it reverted back to $5,000 per space. Peter P., Jim and I talked over the fees and recommend the following: 1. The cost to provide structured parking definitely is greater than $5,000 per space. Therefore, the following recommended fees show an.' i ncrease over the current fees. 2. 18.52.040 Additions or changes. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parkin s aces required, the additional parking shall be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the entire building or use. (Ord.;19, 1976, Ord 8, 1973) 3. For residential space which includes condominiums or accommodation units, the parking fee per space would be increased from $5,000 to $6,000. The Urban Design Guide Plan promotes additional commercial activity in both villages and does not directly state additional residential is needed. Therefore, there should be no inducement by reduced fees to promote additional residential space. 4. For all other permitted .and conditional uses that meet #2 noted above the recommended parking fee is $3,500 per space. 5. For fractions of a required parking space, the fee would be adjusted. 6. If a property owner or tenant has their record of paying a parking fee in the past, the fee for a change in use may be adjusted. 7. I am not recommending a five year pay out at no interest for several reasons: 1. Difficult to insure payments are made each year. 2. We collect no interest and it takes time to process. The fee would be due at time of building permit if there is a permit required or before a business license is issued where no building .permit is needed. J DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS FOR THE TOWN OF VA I L DECEMBER 1981 PREPARED FOR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PREPARED BY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONTENTS J Page Description of Study 1 Summary Tabulation of Development Statistics 2 Section I. Multi-Family Development 4 Section II. Units in Single Family and Duplex Zone Districts 15 Section III. Accommodation Units 19 Appendix A - Special Development Districts 21 Appendix B - Time-share Units 23 The purpose_of this study is to update the existing and potential development of the Town of Vail in terms of numbers of dwelling-and accommodation units. These figures represent a ~'a?rly accurate count of the number of units in the Gore Valley today, as well as providing an approximate account of how many units could be built. The contents are divided into several sections, according to type of development. The first section deals with units located in multi- family zone districts, the second in single family and duplex units, while the third in accommodation units. Two appendices focus on Special Development Districts and timeshare units. A summary tabulation of all development existing and remaining preceeds the individual project and area statistics. The charts .begin with the units located furthest east in the Town, and move to the west. The summary sheet combines multi-family development, single-family and duplex units with the lodge rooms for Gore Valley totals. The appendices are provided for your information, and those figures were counted in the main body of the report. Some condominium projects in Town are not listed as such because they are non-conforming uses located in duplex zone districts. The units are counted in the second section of the study. "Existing" units are those constructed or under construction and near completion. "Potential" or "additional units possible" are units in the early stages of construction or that could be built under current zoning. In some cases, especially for vacant lots and the Vail Village area, potential .unit figures should be regarded as estimates only. It would be an almost impossible task to compute 100 percent accurately }iow many units could be built on every lot in Town. Natural hazard and other regu- lations- affect the number of units finally built on a lot or parcel, and these computations have not, in most cases, been done for this study. In the Village area, there are a number of commercial properties which have residential zoning rights, but were listed for no potential units because it would be too laborious a task to compute such statistics. An important constraint to remember is that in no respect does this report indicate any development right or statement of allowable or legal units. In duplex zone districts it is assumed that a secondary dwelling unit for employee housing will be built on lots containing less than 15,000 square feet. Many thanks to Jo Caple for her large contribution in this lengthy and detailed study. Information Sources: 1. "Condominium/Townhouse Development Statistics for the Gore Valley", Jo Caple, November 23, 1981. 2. "Initial Zoning of West Vail", Department of Community Development, February 26, 1981. 3. "Inventory of Dwelling Units in West Vail", Department of Community Development, February, 1981. 4. Extensive phone communications with lodges and condominium projects throughout the Town of Vail, September through November, 1981. ,- 5. Department of Community Development records, files and property list books. -1- SUMMARY TABULATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL DECEMBER 1981 DEVELOPMENT TYPE 1, .MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT A. South of Bighorn Road B, North of Bighorn Road C. Booth Creek D. Golf Course E. Vail Village F. Vail Lionshead G. Glen Lyon H. Potato Patch I. Red Sandstone Area J. Lionsridge K. The Valley L. General Commercial Core 3 M. West Vail South of Frontage Road N. Eagle County Enclaves # of # of Total Existing Potential - # of Units Units Units 697 102 799 309 52 361. 68 0 68 109 40, 149 1144 35 1179 700 27 727 60 236 296 44 48 92 217 45 262 557 288 $45 42 90 132 76 40 116 .244 69 313 143 98 241 TOTAL 4410 1170 5580 Mufti=Family development is 79 percent built-out. 2. UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX ZONE DISTRICTS (See Section 2 of report for subdivision breakdown.) # of # of Total Existing Potential # of Units Units Units 1364 1164 2528 SFR, R, and R PjS zones are 54o built-out. -2- 3. ACCOMMODATION UNITS - No. of Rooms # of # of Total Existing Potential # of lJnits Units Units . A. Vail Village Area. 797. ~ gl ggg B. Vail Lionshead Area 322 233 555 C. West Vail Area 174 0 174 ACCOMMODATION UNIT TOTALS 1293 324 Accommodation units are 79.9 percent built-out. .. TOWN OF VAI L Type of Unit Multi-Family SFR, Duplex Accommodation TOTALS Population Assuming 2.56 persons/unit.2 Assuming 5.21 persons/unit.3 BUILD-OUT FIGURES # of # of Existing Potential Units Units 4410 1170 1364 1164 6471 162 6421 2496 16,437 6389 33,453 13,004 1617 Total # of Units 5580 2528 809 8917 22,827 46,457 A. Overall : 6421 - 8917 = 72 a built-out B. Multi-Family: 1. 4410 =- 5580 79% built-out 2. Units with no building permits issued., not in approved phased projects and have not had plans submitted for approval: Timber Falls (Future) 40 Bighorn 3rd 8 lots RC zone 29 Bighorn 3rd 5 lots LDMF 11 Bighorn 3rd 1 lot MDMF 2 Getty Oil 8 Gold Peak Base Area 1 Skaal House 6 Willow Circle HDMF parcels 25 Hall Parcel 8 Carnie Parcel 9 Lionsridge #3 2 lots MDMF 30 The Valley Phase 3 10 Lot G-4, Lionsridge 30 Vail Commons 40 Casa del Sol (east) 2 Stephens parcel 11 262 units These figures change current build out to 94.4% (4410 -; 4672). C. SFR, Duplex: 1364 ;- 2528 = 540 D.. Accommodation:: 647 _ 809 = 75% Footnotes: 1., To compute number of dwelling units, accommodation units are converted on a 2 for 1 basis. 2. 2.56 persons/unit is the latest figure given for Eagle County from the 1980 U.S. Census. 3. 5.21 persons/unit is the figure found in The Vail Mountain/Gore Valley Capacity Study for occupied units during the ski season. Note: The summary sheet figures are estimated to be within 5o accuracy. _3_ ~~ lc~il~ ~~ ~~/,L -~ 7~/~~~ i~~~ ~~~.~~"P~~~ .~flT~ ~' DEC 1981 ~ u c. ~, d .~ BIGHORN - SOUTH OF BIGHORN ROAD ~ Ui ~~ ~ ~ u ~. ~ p ~~A ~ BIGHORN-~40UTH OF BIGHORN ROAD ~~ ;~ ~ ~i~OT~CT ~ U y ~- ~iPG1T~T ~ U -~ ~ ~ ~c~~cT ~~9.~,~,tr ~~M~ sT~r~s ~~ ~rar,~r~~~1 Rc.~~- ~tl•4~I~' ~T~~r~s ~ ALPEN GLO COMPLETE 6 0 6 RIUERBEND COMPLETE 22 0 22 BIGHORN CONDOS COMPLETE 16 0 16 STREAMSIDE TOWNHOUSES COMPLETE 7 0 7 BIGHORN TERRACE COMPLETE 26 0 26 -, SUNDIAL COMPLETE 21 0 21 BIGHORN TOWNHOUSES COMPLETE 8 0 8 SUNWOOD COMPLETE 12 0 12 `' PHASED .CEDAR POINT TOWNHOUSES COMPLETE 9 0 9 TIMBERFALLS (PRESENT) coNSTRUCTION 105 17 122 COURTSIDE TOWNHOMES LAST PHASE RECENTLY FINISHED 44 0 44 TIMBERFALLS (FUTURE) NO APPROVAL U 40 40 CONDOS IN GORE CREEK MEADOWS #1 COMPLETE 11 0 11 UAIL EAST TOWNHOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION 44 8 52 HEATHER VAIL. COMPLETE 18 0 18 WREN HOUSE COMPLETE 16 0 . 16 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS COMPLETE 36 0 36 TOTAL 227 65 292 LAST BUILDING RACQUET CLUB CONDOS UNDER coNSTRUCTIO 273 0 273 ~ RACQUET CLUB TOWNHOMES UNDER coNSTRUCTION 23 37 60 ~ SOUTH OF BIGHORN ROAD TOTAL 697 102 799 TOTAL 470 37 507 _4_ i SECTION I ` •• DEC 1981 o . , c~ d ~ + ~ BIGHORN - NORTH OF BIGHO RN ROAD ~ ~`~`I~ ~ ~~~{ : ~ BOOTH CREEK ~ ~ -~~ ~ ~ar~cT ~,q~~. ~~M,~ ~1~D.T,~cT ~ U ~ ~ sT~rvS ~ ~ _ f' aT,~xr~~~9Rc,~~- ~cl~~~" ~iPGIT.~T ~ U . ` ~ ~T~rvs ALTAIR VAIL COMPLETE 24 0 24 BALD MOUNTAIN TOWNHOUSES COMPLETE 16 0 16 BIGHORN LODGE COMPLETE 16 0 16 BOOTH CREEK TOWNHOUSES COMPLETE 35 0 35 BIGHORN 3RD 8 ~oTS, RC ZONE NO APPROVAL 0 29 29 ~~ BOOTH FALLS TOWNHOUSES COMPLETE 17 0 17 BIGHORN 3RD, 5 ~oTS, LDMF ZONE NO APPROVAL 8 11 19 BOOTH CREEK TOTALS 68 0 68 .BIGHORN 3RD, 1 DoT, MDMF ZONE NO APPROVAL 0 2 2 ~ COLUMBINE ROAD COMPLETE 18 0 18 -, GETTY OIL SITE NO APPROVAL 0 8 8 I j PITKIN CRE PITKIN CREEK TOWNHOUSES COMPLETE 24 0 24 RIDGEVIEW SQUARE COMPLETE 20 0 2U I VAIL EAST CONDOS COMPLETE 37 0 37 ~ J WOODRIDGE 2 FOUNDATIONS REMAINING 6 2 8 I ~, NORTH OF BIGHORN ROAD TOTAL 309 52 61 -5 f ~ i ~n lc~,~l ~~ l/~/,L -' 7~"i~~l~~'.~ .: /S~ .~~T/sT~r~ .~~r~" ~~ DEC , .1981 C~ o ~ ~ u ~-'~ d ~ GOLF COURSE ~~ ~~ ~ ~iPoa',~cT ~ U =~ ~ ~c~,ECr ~~~~ ~~M,~ sT~r~s ~ C~ o ~ u ~-'~ d ,~~'A ~ ~ VAIL V L G ~~ ~~ ~ ~,P~-,~T ~ U ~ ~' ~i AT,~~~i9Rc.~,~- ~l~M~ ~T~r~s ~ VAIL GOLF COURSE TOWNHOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION 38 40 78 ALL SEASONS COMPLETE 38 0 ~ 38 FALLRIDGE COMPLETE 71 0, 71 ALPHORN-BUILDING A COf~PLETE 18 0 ~, 18 GOLF COURSE AREA TOTAL ALPHORN -BUILDING B-SCORPIO COf~PLETE 30 0 30 APOLLO PARK COMPLETE 37 0 ~ 37 BELL TOWER BUILDING ~ COMPLETE 3 0 ~ 3 CASINO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 0 3 3 CHATEAU CHRISTIAN COMPLETE 8 0 i 8 I COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING COMPLETE 1 0 ~ 1 CORNICE BUILDING COMPLETE - 5 t '~ 0 5 CREEKSIDE BUILDING COMPLETE - 4 ~ 0 ~ 4 TOTAL ,, ~ 1,.144 ;, 1 3 ~ 147 ` -6- ` .4~~~; VAIL VILLAGE. (CON'T) C~ ~o~ ~\ '~ uy t d -~, -~ ~iQ~A ~ VAIL VILLAGE (CON'T) ~~. ~~ DEC 1981 C~ o ~ uy i~ o-~ -. ~, ~G~,ECT ~i~~,C.. ~~1M~ ~i~OT,~CT ~ ~ ~U ~ ~ ST~rv.S _ ~'oS,~~f r4Rc.~,~- ~l~lM~" ~~dT~T ~ ~ -~ ~, ~ ~T~~~S THE CREST COMPLETE 19 0 19 LODGE AT VAIL,-LODGE SOUTH COMPLETE 99 0 99 CROSSROADS CONDOS COMPLETE 22 0 22 MANOR VAIL COMPLETE 123 0 .123 EDELWEISS COMPLETE 20 0 20 :, MILL CREEK COURT BUILDING COMPLETE 13 0 ~ 13 GASTOF GRAMSHAMMER COMPLETE 7 0 7 MOUNTAIN HAUS i - ~ COMPLETE - 75 0 ~ 75 GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE COMPLETE 20 0 20 NORTHWOODS COMPLETE 89 0. ! 89 GOLD PEAK BASE AREA COMPLETE 0 1 1 ONE VAIL PLACE COMPLETE 5 0 5 GARDEN OF THE GODS COMPLETE 1 0 1 PLAZA LODGE COMPLETE 8 ; 0 8 --,- HILL BUILDII~NG COMPLETE 2 0 2 RAMSHORN LODGE COMPLETE 1 0 1 HOLIDAY HOUSE COMPLETE 27 0 27 RED LION INN RETAIL AREA UNDER coNSTRUCTIo 2 0 2 IPANEMA COMPLETE 9 0 9 RIVA RIDGE NORTH AND SOUTH COMPLETE 28 0 28 ,T LAZIER ARCADE COMPLETE 9 0 9 RIVERHOUSE COMPLETE 10 i ~ 0 10 TOTAL 136 1 137 TOTAL 453 ~ 0 45~ ~7_ .+~~'t~id .' ' 11611 1111 1 ~f,F ff'f1N'Tl C~ ~o~ ~_ u d ~-~ Z~ ~ H~P~A ~ VATI Vil I Af,F (f(1N'Tl ~' .' D_E_C 19.81 C~ o ~~y i~ °~ - - - - - ~crr~cT ~,q~~. ~~M~ ~iPpT,~CT ~ ~ ~ U ~ C- ST~rvS _ ~aT,Err~~~Rc.~~- ~tl~fM~' ~i~'Gtr~r ~ ~ U ~, ~ ~T.~r~s RUCKSACK COMPLETE 2 0 2 .NAIL TRAILS EAST COMPLETE 25 0 25 SITZMARK LODGE ~ COMPLETE l 0 1 NAIL TRAILS WEST COMPLETE 22 0 22 SKAAL HOUSE COMPLETE 6 6 12 -. , NAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE 3 UNDER CONSTRUCTIO 29 0 i 29 SONNENALP COMPLETE 1 0 1 UILLA CORTINA COMPLETE 25 0 ~ 25 TALISMAN COMPLETE 17 0 17 VILLA VALHALLA COMPLETE 4 0 ~ 4 TEXAS TOWNHOUSES COMPLETE 14 0 i4 VILLAGE CENTER COMPLETE 72 0~ 72 TIVOLI COMPLETE 1 0 1 VORLAUFER COMPLETE 23 0 !, 23 WILL04J CIRCLE ~ PARCELS j iV0 ~1PP~t~VAL 1 ~~ TYROLEAN INN COMPLETE 8 0 8 ~_ W I LLOWS-----__-._ __ ------ _. NAIL ATHLETIC CLUB COMPLETE 11 U 11 THE WREN COMPLETE 82 0 ~, 82 NAIL FIRE HOUSE COMPLETE 1 0 1 TOTAL _ __ 20 25 345 NAIL ROW HOUSES COMPLETE 29 0 29 ~ TOTAL • 91 6 97 VA I L VILLAGE TOTAL j [114+ 135 117 -g- i ~~lclitl ~~ ~~~/,L.. -~ i~/~/~~ ;~.~ ,//~fr~~.~~~ ~ .~f~T~~ ~~ DEC_ 1981 -~-T.-- c~ ~ -~ - ~. ~, .~ VAIL LIONSHEAD ~~~ ~= ~~ ~ ~i~pT,~CT ~ U ~ ~ ~~,~cr ~,q~~. ~~M~ ST~y'vS . ~ ~ c~ a ~1 c ~, ~~A ~ ~ VAIL LIONSHEAD ~~~ ~ ~~ ~iPa.T,E~T ~ U ~ ~- f' o`T~zr~~~9Rc.~,~ ~1~4M~' ~T~~~s ~ ANTLERS COMPLETE 72 0 72 VAIL INTERNATIONAL COMPLETE 57 0 ~ 57 ENZIAN COMPLETE 12 0 12 VAIL LIONSHEAD CENTER ( COMPLETE 25 0 25 LANDMARK COMPLETE 58 0 58 UAIL SPA PLETE COM 55 0 ' 55 LAZIER LIONSHEAD ARCADE COMPLETE 14 0 14 VAIL 21 I COMPLETE 19 0 19 LIFTHOUSE COMPLETE 45 0 45 VANTAGE POINT COMPLETE 65 0 65 LIONSQUARE, LIONSQUARE NORTH COMPLETE 79 0 79 WESTWINDS COMPLETE 35 0 ~ 35 LODGE AT LIONSHEAD COMPLETE 53 0 53 TOTAL. 256 0 X256 MARRIOTT MARK PHASE II ADD., UNDER caNSTRUCr, 26 27 53 ' MONTANEROS COMPLETE 41~ 0 41 LIONSHEAD TOTAL 700 27 727 SUNBIRD COMPLETE 15 0 15 TREETOPS COMPLETE 29 0 29 ~ , j TOTAL 444 27 71 -g- i ; ~ i ~~•Z~-~ ~~ •' DEC 1981 \- \ c~ o ~ ~~ o ~' ~GLEN LYON `~~~, z=~ ~ ~~A : ~ POTATO PATCH , ~ ~ ~i~«7",~CT U ' ~iQGIT,E~T ~ U v ~- ~a7~cr ~,~~~. ~~ME sT~r~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~{'aT,EcT~~r~Rc,~~- ~t1~~1~' ~T~r~s ~ COLDSTREAM COMPLETE 44 0 44 HALL PARCEL NO APPROVAL 0 8 8 UNDER 16 14 30 CARNIE PARCEL NO APPROVAL. 0 9 9 MILLRACE CONDOS cONSTRUCTION _ CURRENTLY IN CONSTRUCTION 0 8 8 770 POTATO PATCH DRIVE DESIGN REVIEW 0 31 31 LEARNING CENTER NO DRB PHASE 4 44 0 44 CASCADE VILLAGE (REMAINING) APPROVAL O 214 214 POTATO PATCH CLUB BEING FINISHED ~ ,, GLEN LYON TOTAL 60 236 296 POTATO PATCH TOTAL 10- ~~ 44 ~ 48 ! 9; -T-_-_-. c~ ~ - -- ~ c~ d ~ o ~ u ~-'~ d .~ .' 'RED SANDSTONE/NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ u ~. ~ °-~ ~~~ :. L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /~i~GtiT,~CT ~ U y ~ ~ U `~ ~- ~i(~GIT~T ~~,~cT ~~1.~,C. ~~M~ ST~frv.5 ~C ~"D~T~~~i9RC~,C.- ~tl~4M~" ~T~f rUS ~ DRB ASPEN TREE COMPLETE 15 0 15 ARCHITERRA APPROVAL 0 i3 13 COTTONWOOD COMPLETE 7 0 7 BRIAR PATCH coNSTRUCTION O 14 14 SANDSTONE CREEK CLUB UNDER CONSTRUCTION 63 21 84 BREAKAWAY WEST COMPLETE 54 U 54 SANDSTONE PARK COMPLETE 16 0 16 BROOKTREE COf~PLETE 48 0 48 SANDSTONE 70 COMPLETE 71 0 71 CASOLAR VAIL I & II UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 23 7 30 SOLAR VAIL COMPLETE 9 0 9 EIGER CHALETS ~ COMPLETE 14 O j 14 SUN VAIL UNDER CONSTRUCTION 36 24 60 HOMESTAKE COMPLETE 66 0 j 66 LIONSMANE CO(YIPLETE 37 0 37 SIMBA RUN UNDER CONSTRUCTION Q 134 i 134 RED SANDSTONE AND NORTH SNOW FOX COMPLETE ~ 16 0 ~ 16 FRONTAGE R AD T T 217 45 262 O O AL SNOW LION COMPLETE 26 0 j26 i TOTAL 284 168 ~ 452 _11_ .~ ;~LIONSRIDGE lCON'T) c 7 \~~'~ U ~ ~~ DEC 1981 c~ ~aa ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 2~ ~~ ~ ' - ~~~ ~~~~ ~.~M,~ ~iPGV ,~c7 v~. z ~ ST~rvs ~ - ~ ~ ~ r - ~'G~,~T/~i9 ~C.~~C.- ~/{~1'I,E' 7~~'GtT,~T ~ ~ ~U ~ ~ ~" ~T~f SUS ~ t TALON TOWNHOMES uNDER CONSTRUCTION 0 40 40 PHASE 1 COMPLE TE 33 0 3; TELEMARK COMPLETE 18 0 18 PHASE 2 - GROUSE GLEN ; UNDER . CONSTRUCTION 6 2E 20 I UAIL RUN COMPLETE 54 0 54 i PHASE 3 NO APPROVAL 0 , ~- 10 ~ 1C ~ UALLI-HI COMPLETE 199 0 199 PHASE 4-THE RIDGE CNNER 0 STRUCTION i 3 ~ -,- 10 ~ 1: ~ LIONSRIDGE #3, 2 LOTS, MDMF NO APPROVAL 0 45 45 PHASE 5 - 4 DUPLEXES BSSUEDNG P~R~MIT 4 ITS ~ T $ 8 ~ CLIFFSIDE~SUBDLVISION 2 RESIDENCES BUILT 2 5 7 ~ PHASE 6 - THE ENCLAVE , DRB APPROVAL FOR 1sT PHASE 0 ~ ~ ~42 ~ 42 LOT G-4 ~ NO APPROVAL 0 30 3U ~_ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! T , ~~- ~, ~i~_ TOTAL 273 119 392 ~ _ _ ~ ~-_ ~~ _, ~ ~ LIONSRIDGE TOTAL 557 ,288 g45 ~, THE VALLEY -TOTAL ~ ~ 42 ~! 90~ 132 _ ,~. -12- ~~~,~ ; ~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL CORE 3 C~ tr ~ uy z~ d~ ~~_ ~1.P,~~ ' WEST VAit - C(111TI~ f1F FQnNrnr_C onnn ~~,~~ ,' DEC 1981 C~ C~a ~ u~ t~ ~~ ' ~c~,~cr ~~~~ ~~M,E- ~k ar,~cr ~ ~ S r~(r~s ~ ~ ~,cr ~ f' ~,~zr ~~4 ~c ~ U ~ ~ ~~aT.~T ~ . BUFFER CREEK CONDOS (E & W) COMPLETE 20 0 20 CASA DEL SOL COMPLETE 21 2 23 ~ INN AT WEST VAIL COMPLETE 19 0 19 COLUMBINE NORTH CONDOS COMPLETE 25 0 25 MEADOW BROOK CONDOS COMPLETE g 0 g CREEKSIDE CONDOS COMPLETE ; 7 0 7 VAIL COMMONS NO DRB aPPROVa~ 0 40 40 THE HAMLET COMPLETE 14 I "' 0 l~l ~ ~ i VAIL DAS SCHONE CONDOS COMPLETE 28 p 28 INTERLOCHEN CONDOS COMPLETE 39 ~ 0 39 1 MARTIN PARCEL _ SINGLE FAMILY- EXISTING ;-- i 1 ~ 1 , MEADOW CREEK CONDOS i coNSTRUCrioN 38 ~ 32 70 . ~ ~ ~ ~ INNSBRUCK COMPLETE g ~ 0 g SACHS CONDOS ~ !COMPLETE C-r---- g ~~ 0 g PTARMIGAN TOWNHOUSES ~~~CO~I~PLETE ~ i 38 0 38 I~!WEST VAIL/COMMERCIAL CORE 3 TOTAL 76 40 116 __ , _. _ • ~ ~2 PHASES ~ 21 12~ 33 SPRUCE CREEK TOWNHOUSES (COMPLETE . • . ~ i ~ TOTAL ~ 220 I 46 266 , -13- /~ 1~c~il~ ~~ ~~/,L -~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~.~~~_S .~~4T~~ ~~ DEC , 1981 c~ o ~ ~.~, ~u d ~ :~ WEST VAIL-SOUTH OF FRONTAGE RD CON ~ ~~ t~ ~ ~iPOT~CT ~ ~ ~U =p ~- ~uT,ECT ~~~~ ~~1M~ ST~rUS ~ ~ c~ d ca ~u d RSA ;EAGLE COUNTY ENCLAVES.. ~, t~ ~ ~~PGIT~T ~ ~ ~U ~ ~ f' o~,~r'~~~9Rc~~- ~tl~M~" ~T~f~~S STEPNENS PARCEL SINGLE FAMILY ExISTING 1 ll ~ PARK P~9EADOWS COMPLETE 29 0 ` 29 VAIN INTERMOUNTAIN SWIM & TENNIS UNDER COidSTRUCTION 12 12 24 FALL LINE APARTMENTS COMPLETE 54 0 ~~ 54 FLUSSHEIM CONDOS COMPLETE 10 0 10 SOLAR CREST POSSIBLY A DUPLEx LEFT 6 ~ 2 8 OGILBY RESIDENCE COMPLETE 1 0 1 STREA~ISIDE CONDOS uNDER coNSTRUCTION 54 , , 96 ;150 TOTAL 24 23 47 . ~~ l ~~ ~~ --- WEST VAIL-SOUTH OF FRONTAGE ROAD TO AL 244 69 313 EAGLE COUNTY TOTAL. I 143 98 241 - -14- i SE~N11 ~JNiTS /N ~~,~, ~ ~P~S LoyE D/~T2c>S .~IJ,~DI f //~ !0~ ~~,P-~~i~J ~~ ~ upviTs TdTAL vc~rrs ~sSi~ VAIL MEADOWS 37 24 61 GORE CREEK SUBDIVISION 29 21 50 BIGHORN STH ADDITION (SFR) 24 8 32 BIGHORN 5TH ADDITION (R P/S) - 50 60 110 BIGHORN 4TH ADDITION 29 9 ~38 BIGHORN ESTATES 14 9 I 23 BIGHORN 3RD ADDITION (SFR) ~ 2 1 3 BORWICK SUBDIVISION BIGHORN 3RD ADDITION (R) 0 7 12 15 12 22 PITKIN CREEK MEADOWS BIGHORN SUBDIVISION (R P/S) - 4 0 O 12 4 12 BIGHORN 1sT ADDITION 9 17 26 BIGHORN SUBDIVISION (R) 24 17 41 BIGHORN 2ND ADDITION (R P/S) VAIL VILLAGE 1sT (R P/S) VAIL VILLAGE 2ND (R) SUB-TOTAL -15- 9 I 23 I 32 75 51 126 11 10 21 324 289 613 vviTS /N ~~,~, X, ~P~slo.~/E D/~T/zic75 / / ~1J~7~1 ~/~-f4~/ 1~~~"~ ~ .~/S~ /~~- U~(/TS ~~~~L v~i~~ ass/ ~L ~~JT VAIL VILLAGE 3RD (R P/S) 37 16 53 VAIL VILLAGE 6TH (R P/S) 34 12 46 VAIL VILLAGE 7TH (R P/S) 39 18 57 VAIL VILLAGE 8TH 7 13 20 VAIL VILLAGE-9TH 21 3 24 VAIL VILLAGE 10TH ~a. 14 2 16 VAIL VILLAGE 11TH 29 17 46 .VAIL VILLAGE 12TH (R) 21 16 37 VAIL VILLAGE 13TH (R) 76 22 98' VAIL VALLEY 3RD (R P/S) 22 20 42 VAIL VALLEY 4TH 0 2 2 i GORE CREEK PARK 4 i 10 14 VAIL VALLEY 1sT 36 12 48 VA I L VALLEY 2tuD 4 0 4 SUB -TOTAL ~ _16_ 344 i63 507 vviTS /N ~~,~, X, ~P~SZoy,E D/~/~c>S / ,I ~l1~~~ ~/~-/d~l~/ ~~~~ ~ ~X/5~- /tiler U~/TS ~D~~L u~/i~s ass/~ ~7AL PULIS SUBDIVISION 2 2 4 VAIL POTATO PATCH 1sT 24 38 62 VAIL POTATO PATCH 2ND 6 8 14 GLEN LYON 14 96 110 MATTERHORN VILLAGE (1sT aNNEx) 37 10 47 ~~ LIONSRIDGE 2ND 4 4 8 LIONSRIDGE 3RD 0 64 64 LIONSRIDGE 4TH 0 34 34 LOT G-1, LIONSRIDGE 0 2 2 CLIFFSIDE 2 5 7 BUFFER CREEK ~ 58 12 70 VAIL HEIGHTS 65 18 83 VAIL DAS SCHONE #1 182 56 238 VAIL DAS SCHONE #2 54 31 85 SUB--TOTAL ~ -17- 448 380 828 rJ,vris /N ~~~, ~C', KP~s LoN~ D/~T/~cTS .~C1~7~1 ~lt~-fa~/ ~~~`~ ~ /~r~ U~t!/~S u~~r oSs/,BL,E AL ~C~T VAIL RIDGE 55 45 100 MATTERHORN VILLAGE (1980 aNNExaTioN) 20 12 32 VAIL VILLAGE WEST #l 67 34 101 " VAIL VILLAGE WEST #2 25 40 65 HIGHLAND MEADOWS #1 r 0 50 50 ~, HIGHLAND MEADOWS #2 6 58 64 GORE TRADING COMPANY PARCEL 0 2 2 ELLIOT RANCH 2 8 10 PETS LTD. PARCEL 14 1 15 VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN 59 82 141 SUB-TOTAL ~ 248 332 580 GRAND TOTAL 1364 1164 2528 _18_ . SECTION III ACCOI~IODATION UNITS - TOWN OF VAIL No. of No. of Total No. Existing Potential of Acc. Lodge/Parcel Acc. Units Acc. Units Units A. VAIL VILLAGE AREA 1. RAMSHORN 28 0 28 2. GARDEN OF THE GODS 16* 0 16 3. TIVOLI 38 0 38 4. CHRISTIANIA 26 0 26 5. VACANT LOTS NORTH OF CHRISTIANIA 0 20 ,20 6. VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB 7.8 0 28 7. SONNENALP 39 0 39 8. PLAZA LODGE 10 0 10 9. GASTOF GRAMSHAMMER 22 0 22 10. GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE 6 0 6 11. LODGE AT VAIL 62 0 62 12. MOUNTAIN HAUS 10 0 10 13. SITZMARK 34 0 34 14. KIANDRA 145 .0 145 15. VAIL VILLAGE INN 69 71 140 16. HOLIDAY INN 130 0 130 17. THE CREST 134 0 1'34 VAIL VILLAGE TOTAL 797 91 88 8 B, VAIL LIONSHEAD AREA 1. VAILGLO 34 0 34 2. SUNBIRD 29 0 29 3. MARRIOTT/MARK 179 83 262 4. LIONSQUARE 28 0 28 5. ENZIAN 52 0 52 6, HOTEL WESTIN VAIL 8 150 150 VAIL LIONSHEAD TOTAL 322 233 555 * NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC -19- ACCOMMODATION UNITS - CON'T No. of No. of Total No. Existing Potential of Acc. Acc. Units Acc. Units Units C. WEST VAIL AREA 1. THE ROOST 74 0 74 2. INN AT WEST VAIL 100 0 100 WEST VAIL TOTAL 174 0 174 TOWN OF VAIL TOTAL 1293 324 1617 NOTES:. 1. Accommodation units are computed on a 2 for 1 basis to dwelling units for zoning purposes. 1617 A.U. 2 = 808.5 (or 809) dwelling units 2. An accommodation unit, as defined in the Town ~f Vail Zoning Code, is "any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted .to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another.accommo= dation unit or dwelling unit." _20_ APPENDIX A S~ ~'//{,~. 7J~~E/~DP~E~`/T D/ST.~/GTS OCTOBER 1981 SDI ~,~'G~7~~T ~~T~ ~or~ 1~,C~.a~~l- ~~~GiSl~ ~/~ ,~~/,9/~- ~rIAL ~~ 129 & 2 NORTHWOODS ~ COMPLETE 7,64 6 employee 175,000 a9 153,000 0 89 11,6 i 3 PITKIN CREEK PARK COMPLETE ~~ 8.29 156 126,000 156 123,300 0 156 18.82 4 CASCADE VILLAGE WESTIN HOTEL VAIL COLDSTREAM UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE 16.8 4.0 252 D.U~ iso A,u. 65 269,480 63,750 65,000 16 0 44 20,000 0 65,000 236., 1so A.u 0 252 150 A,U, 44 12.7 11 5 SIMBA RUN UNDER CONSTRUCTION 6,3 126 D.U. + 8 Empl- oyee = 127,862 0 0 134 134 21.3 ~ 134 I I 6 VAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE 3 UNDER CONSTRUCTION 3.45 300 A.u, 150~D.U, 100,000 69 A,U, 0 D.U, 37,600 29(Phase3 71 A.U, 24 D.U, 300 A.u. or 150 D,U. 43,4. ~ '~ '~ 7 '. MARRIOTT'S MARK PHASE 4 ADDITION UNDER CONSTRUCTION s.s 262 a.o. 53 D.,U, 134,000 179 A,U, 26 D.U, 47'487 83 A.U. 27 D.U, .262 A.U. 53 D,U, 35,9 ~~ 1 SUB-TOTAL 1026 457 569. 1026 =21- I.SD~ ~,c'aT~~T X10. ~iy~ i i 8 FALLRIDGE i I 10 VALLI-HI . j 11 HIGHLAND PARK SUB-TOTAL SDD GRAND TOTAL S~ ,~l~~ 7~~~~~~Dt ~~~5 ~G COMPLETE 1,3 COMPLETE ~ lo.os PHASE ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ARE 547 BUILT-dUT i~~~ Ur~lS 71 199 ~~5~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ss,ooo 149,943 ~~/~5 OCTOBER 1981 (JiSI%1S cT~,~ ~i1li`r~ Ur~/1S Co~/,~i,~'I~ 71 85,000 p 71 54.6 j. 199 149,943 0 199 19_R I 13 34;77,000 0 0 34 34 304 270 34 304 _22_ 1330 727 603 1330 APPE- TIME SHARE UNITS Q/~,~,4' ; ~ ALL TOWN OF VAI L ~ c ~, cX ~ b C ~ ~~ ~' DEC 1 8i - ~~o ~~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~~1~,C.. ~~{M,~ ~~rN',~cT w, ~ ~ ~ ~r ST~rvS ~~ f' o~T,~r~f ~~c.~,~ ~tl~fit~~" ~~PdT,~T ~ -~~- ~ . ~T~~r~S ~~ APOLLO PARK COMPLETE, 32 0 32 SANDSTONE CREEK CLUB CONSTRUCTION 63 21 84 STREAMSIDE CONDOS LONER STRUCTION 54 96 150 . VAIL RUN COMPLETE 54 0 54 THE WREN COMPLETE, 66 0 66 TOTAL 269 117 386 i ~, NOTE: ASSUMING 50 OWNERS PER , ONDOMINIUM, 386 U -ITS QUAL A P 1 TENTIAL OF 1 ! , ~ ~ --~ ~-- i C--~- -23- i , 11 Iy towu of uai box 100 department of community. development vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5613 July 1, 1982 T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Department of Community Development RE: Rezoning Request for Lot 1, Vail Village Second Filing from Two_Family Residential District to Hig Density Multiple Famil istrict an Specla eve opment istr~ct. pp scant: on vine ea o ai Attached is Ordinance #18. This Ordinance is exactly the same as Ordinance #7 of 1982 which was defeated unanimously at the Council meeting on March 16, 1982. The applicant is again presenting the same proposal for an upzoning on the lot to the West of Tpanema. The Planning and Environmental Commission has again reviewed the request and has again recommended denial of the request by a vote of 3-1. There are approximately 20 letters on file from adjacent property owners who are in opposition to the request. .r` _ ~' ~ ~~_ ~ v~~ i~`' a ~ th _ ~~' .5%~ v`. ~ ~'~ ~~ ~G~ ~~ ! ~' ~C. ~.5 , 16 I e ~9 20 FILItiC "~C __ ~- ~' V141L ,4 - -Cr~T~ ,~~ ; - 24 23 L2 , a rR ~ 3 r\ 16' 151 14 13 i 12 6r'RAt;T / - ` 3 _, .--- i ~ 1 ~ 18 17 ~ ~ C y ,i B L 7 J- 5 ~ q a ~ i4 ~ !5 ;~ 16 ~ 25 ~~~ ~~~'Y 20 19 \ -" - ~ 17 29 28 26 y> Nx-__~f--_ ~_r~~ ~1AlL H~IG4iT~ I ~~,: 3 ~~, ~~_ 2fi ~, 2T ~. `LE 2G "y/~HD~ ~ - I ; 2\'\y, 4 2 _, -^- M - _ - _.. I ~ µc,~ r ~ 19 i ~ _=1 _~25 ~. 22 ~ ?I i ~ ~ d - - 3 - ~ I ~ 27 ! X30 32 ~w2 24 ~ 2'. ' i -" TRACT 0 I / I8 r 'I +.. ~ , OHAMONIX N(~ NO ',I ' F~~~ 38 37 , 36~~4 I~ 17 ? 16 ,. i .TRACT j~ A { - 8 F ~ _~ rMLA 39 40 C~41~- ~! (~ , !- 8 ,____-,__ _.-M - ~_-- _ ____ OLLINS WIRTH ;uBDIVISION INTERSTA~E~ %0 - - ___._~ 1 ...._ ` UNPLAT TED ,' 3 III L ~i ~ ~ -... ij ~"NfM-F.TTED •. r~ 9 40 ~NRLATreD --~~ .LE (:{JUNTY ~ ~~ 15 w'`~ e 7 ~ , ~~~ EAGLE COUNTY .-ACi ~ ,. ~ Is s ~ ~ IQ --- 7 _. _ /~ ,~, I , / TRACT A ~ A - q' 14 ~~~ 26125 24 23 <• ` ~ ; -,"' ~ -~ :~ ~ I ~ - - 29 t, ~ a?, - '~,/4 ~ ~ 43 / 31 -. _- ...24 23 Z2 2~ ~ / qq .. 4 '2 45 4 47 1 43 35 32 3'F b9 t~ .t. ND _~ _ - r 48 49 150 4 ~ 47 ' 46 F 6 5 4 ' VER 19. .. ~ 3 -4 - -r=- - 42 4 A 38 .~~ 39 4A f : -- NT RO _ _ 4~ 145 a4~4, r - _ ~ s ~ A -.96 / 4~. 42 TRAG~ .Q~ ~ IT 6: 15 14 ~: f ~ I '~~~ s;~_ / -.- I Y ~' ~ 6 ~, r3g34 RMONT - 1011 h 13 ~ K O\\ ~~ ~ lPr ~ - SrfR 'L 17 3 T .. *, .ba ~ R O g .~'~'E ~? 27 *~ ~ 1T! ~~ }/ - - ~ _ 26 i ~ !Iii `'110 6A i2 :30 ~31 - .:-~~ CZ ._~... ~,I q M~`POO. ~ 4 -:~ ~~~ 1 25 24 ~,~i+ 18 19 ~ 11~ :. -B ----- II B :~~ ~ 24 `\ 2 5 Zy SEQUOIA R J 2s . e t 6 ~ \ 14 28' ! 27. I-. ~ X. ~~~23 .~ ~~ 22 21 :~ ~ ~ r -`~nA ; HLAND__ MEADOWS N0. ~C ~ - rAN~ 16 ,17 ~. i - -_ - - - L6 A i ~ '- / ~, ~ ~ 27 ~. 15. . -.~, \ .- gHOE Ig ~. d 21 a' ~. _ 2Q ~\ ~~. ~- r9 ,r WHITE RIVER NATIONAL . 32 FOREST :~ I --~ ~ oR~°tTaR 1c~1 t~~ ~~ - ~.... r...~.i. c.d...e~q W ~ Z ~' ~~ ~' J .r, _. _._ _._ 2 ~. .~ HIGHLAND MEADOWS PROBLEM AREAS ITEM LOCATION 1. First switchback on Alpine Drive 2. First switchback on Alpine Drive 3 . Between Lot s 9 & 10 of 2nd f i ling 4. Before 1st switchback on Alpine Drive north boundary of Lot 12. 5. Vermont Road along Lots 9 & 10. 6. South of intersection of Sequoia Drive and Tahoe Road along Lot 28. 7. Tahoe Drive culdesac along Lot 26. 8. South of intersection of Tahoe Drive and Tahoe Road between Lots 29 & 30. 9. Sequoia Drive between Lots 22 & 23. 10. South of culdesac on Tahoe Road. 11. North of culdesac on Tahoe Drive. 12. Vermont Road from east corner of Lot 8 to west corner of Lot 1 (first filing). 13. Tahoe Road north boundary of Lot 29. 14. Tahoe Drive middle of Lot 27. 15. Vermont Road northwest Boundary of Lot 18 . 16. Tahoe Road at driveway to water tank. PROBLEM Asphalt has cracked due to movement. A section 15' wide at the widest point. Area above rocked area to the south has Bluffed considerably, Ditch has severely eroded. Area which was rocked to hold back the hillside has Bluffed again. The asphalt patch is failing in this area. Bank has slid. Hillside has Bluffed and partially blocked the ditch. Bank has slipped. Entire area has slipped into ditch. Bank-has slid. Bank has slid. Asphalt is breaking away. Severe ditch erosion. Some asphalt damage. Asphalt is failing. Some slippage of hillside. Asphalt is failing. Some slippage of hillside. Inlet area around culvert has Bluffed blocking culvert. Hillside south of driveway has slipped. GENERAL 1. Most areas above ditches have Bluffed and blocked the ditches. 2. Hillsides in cut areas are not cut back on one-to-one slopes as recommended in geological report and are slipping. 3. Many areas need revegetation. t' r ~ . ~ JIt I 29 1 2C y '20 ~ '; -----~_ 11 .~~ ~~~ ~~''r ~,. JA~~:4r,}~~IG1-iT ~ ~ •~ 5%~ )I ~'~~ ~ `~ ~~ ~2r :c; 32 ~ •1~ _ ~ i ,!~- 4 - • ~ ~ 1B ~ J7 }6 1 5G ~3a ~ 73 q Itl1 ID 14 IS ~~re ~,% • - ~ ~_ ~~""--1~ ~~0 I (W DR ' - 39 a0 - ~I 41 f 1 ;. i {_:L'.4'S: 'n'o H I. ~ •:I :ti ~navvaa~~ ,..,..,~,„p.sr a -5~~-~,yI G~~,ny ~ ~. ~..' , ~• ---- ---- t~ INTERSTATE 70 ~~ - - --.~- --- - ~"~ ~~\ ~ 1 U'tRLATTED -S I "! E CnL'1'TY ~ vn4,~TTED ~~ z9.40 '~i ~. a -~~, _ - -_ .- J/ ~ I ,~, ,U 2 I \ ,\ rw,~, .. ~~ r •~ ~ I,. ~ \ ~ I 2n, 2'1 j [1h 12 ~, ~2J ~22 ~ ~ ~ ~~. .~. lA ,\ ~ - ~~-.-._. . .. `..t t 1-..; t ~~ ~•~~ ~~,GIL'V ~~J~ t~Y~J~,-.-iL I~,I r~ _ 15 \ ~~ .\ )// i - e<. :]~~ 2 1 21:~ 20 ~~~ i (.<t CIC I S,' ~~ / a _ ~d r 9r1 ~,(,~- 1....i 43~ .S ~ 5~ ~ 3 19A ~ / ~ 55 ~ 1 2 /" a6 4 r 4 y ~"~-~w~ ~~ I?: ~ 7 ~~nlas ~. ae l~~ a 4~ f ~f \f /I\ ~.~5 \ ~I I9y ~~`_ _ .~_ ~„e ~~ 'IIL' , ~•`` .. 4 ~ +~`5 ~~` 411 ,( ~.! 7 ' 1R! T ~Sn'~ ~P;~ /2IA~J~ ~ ~- /Y1 I J l/,- , { / r i ~~ Lf I `~ / ~~-.~ r ~ r ~ 5.'. _ as ao J ~ , , / c \ Ir' P; / .7~ ltatr '" F - `~\ i ' ; ~ ..--.~ ~ e'. I l ~'~ 4' ~/,~li.-t+/tl !='~kL~_k'tJ~`',T ~ " zf. h \ `', b r !j[I r,"Y! V""~:„~;,...•.~ t'C r rY G` QTY' ~/, 1 }--.-..'%~, .2 ~~~.-`t`•-~~./ _ •~ f ~~~5 i ~ j_II Ir i',~ ~%'` \'~ ~>~~rR ~/'a ~sAJ r ~ ra u ~ ~ ~ ~~,~ ~ 4r ~.)~° ~' _ w , ,{~~ ~ ~.~ ~' ~ of r ~~ y ` 22 K ~ ~~1~,F~ i--r~r~: li~D~,~' y ~ I ~ J J 'd ~ ~ ~ F '. ~ ~ (. U7 ~~/ d7 I• ~ ~ 17 iJ ~ ~- JI~ r I l' 26 ~ ~ ''~.~ •,r, ~ ! ~ ~ ''"1~ ` ~`~ " ~ ~..~ ~ err' ~ ~ 4 - ' ~. 'i' ~ 1` \` fn ~ d5 I;. 1 ~~,~~ ~^ ly,. 24 ~~ !sil- ,f' 8u __` 110 J ~,..14 ~~ UN''l?1TkU t/ r,.l ~•,. ,,.~Y*t..,f^~ ~,\,'~_.,,~ ~ ~-~ ., -.. ~. Y7 f( e .~ ~ . ~ e ~scou~~ti .,~"`~~ h . ?}~ ~ 9 ~r._. - ,``r,~~~-/~ r ~\ r~ y ~ J,' ~, ~;";~`~ ~ ~ ~`~~. ~ ' 1_JI'~I ~ r ~, r-~'1 ~~~ 17 l,.~I tlr~~'iElA9E. /, `f~~, ' ~ -.~.. _._.. -_ l ' ,r, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ` 21 ~~~ k `•1 ~ PiJiCEL 2 t ~\ .. , / . L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~ r. ~ d ~ ~ r l - '~ ~ \ FOREST 2 ~~~~-~ tj's ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ 7 ~ PAFrCEL 2 6~EN ~L~YON SU8'J'~'IS?0~~' „~` /~ ~' ~. ~ ~ • ~ mow,' '~ ~ ~ - ~ ~`~~ B.L.M. ~"~~. t ~%/ MEMUi:(if1i~~;~r' TU: Planniing and Environmental Cc~mmiss~ion FROM: Community Development Departrncr?t DATE: June lU, 1982 SU(3JCCT: Public hearing end consideration of a rezoning request for Lot 1 , Vail Village 2nd Fit it?g from Two-family Residential District to High Density h1ultiple Family District and for a Special Gevelopmen~i. District. Applicant: Ror J. 6yrne Since the meeting on May 24, 1982, the Community Development; staff, toti~rn attorney and applicant have discussed the presentation before the Plan~~ing and Environmental Commission. It was .decided that the applicant can make the presentation for a rezoning and special development request at the same time. Also the Planning and Environmental Commission motion.to approve or deny the request should contain both parts of the request. ~.F P~IEMURANDUF~1 T0: Planning and Environmental Co~7~:nission FitCM: Department of Comm+.~nity Development/Peter Jamar DATE : t1ay 19, - l 982. SUBJECT: Rezoning request i or 1_ot 1 , Vail Village Ind Fil ir;a, from Two-Family Residential District to High Density P~iultiple Family District and Special Development District. App~iicant: Ron J. Byrne This application is exactly the same as the application presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on i~1arch 8, 1882. The Planning Commission recommended derrial of the request by a vote of 5,1 at ti,Gt time. The request was then heard by the Town Council at their March 16 meeting and 4vas denied unanimously. At both the Council meeting and the Planning Commission hearing, several citizens spoke in opposition to the request. In addition, sever~al letters have been received from adjacent property ouaners since that hearing reiterating their opposition to the rezoning and special development dis~i:rict application, The staff report from the previous application is attached, and the staff again recommends der~ial of the request based upon the factors contained within the memo, .~_,. i~iEP~iORArDUi~ T0: Planning and Environmental Can~mission FROf~: ~Departrnent of Car~muni ty DF~vel oprnent [)ATE: May 19,,-. •1982 SUDJECT: Rezoning request for lot 1 , 1ra~ii ~ril'Iage Second Filing from T~~~ro FaiT~ily Residential District to Special Dc=velopn",ent District v~-ith an underlying High Density iluitiple Family lone District. Applicant: Ran J. Gyrne DESCRI PTI Otv Oc= REQUEST The request basically deals vaith 2 issues: 1} The applicant requests the rezoning of lot 1, Fail '~iilage Second Filing from i~~s current duplex zoning to High Density hi~_altiple Family zoning and 2j The applicant i~equests ~i.he for- mation of a Special Development District. Tl~re reason for• the overlying Special Development Cistrict would be to adopt a specific nu~rk~er of units, a specific maximum square footage and overall si-ce and building design. The Rezoning Reouest The current zoning of the lot as Two Family Pesidential vrould allovr 2 units with a maximum Grass Residential Floor Area of 45i5 square feet. A rezoning to HDhiF vrould permit 12 units v,~ith a n~ximum GRFA o. 13,558 square feet. Hovrever, the appl icar~t proposes, by tf-re creation of the Special Devel opment District, to construct and limit development upon the site to 5 units of 11,590 square feet GP,FA. The size of the lot 'is 22,598 square feet. The lot is currently occupied by a duplex and contiguous to other duplex sites to the t~rest and to the south across Gore Creek. The lot to the east is occupied by Ipanema Condominiums (9 units} and located across P1eadow Drive to the north is the Holiday Inn. The reason for requesting the rezoning is stated by the applicant to be the need fora zoning designation for his lot which enables site irr:provements that relate to the scale and density of adjacent development (existing or potential). The applicant feels that a site i;>>provement limited io the restrictions of the present zoning of tfle lot "tNiil not permit a proiect that is an appropriate permanent statement within the cante>a of its setting nor representational of sensitive consideration as evidenced elsewhere within the co:rumunity." The main argument presented by the applicant is that a transition is needed from Ipanema, arhich is a five level structure located to the east of the lot, to the lOEV density duplex lots. The applicant proposes alive-unit condominium co~rrplex t~~ith a height of 48 feet on the oast end of the structure and 33 feet. on the west to n~~aa:e this transition. A complete set of proposed plans is contained titi~ithin the enclosed c!ocur~ent. 1 of 1 , UV?_ -~- 5/1 X3/82 STJFf= i:ECOi~nii=ldQr?,TIUN The Department of Corn~;unity Development recornrnends denial of the requested ,rezoning application. ;~lc 1~~e1 ~ieve ths~t there are no reasons why the Planning and Environmental Commission shc:ruld allocate an increased density to the property, t•!c feel there are s= vcr•al .reasons ti~rhy the application should be denied. J The Zoning Ordinance states that ~it is intended to achie~Je specific purposes, one of which is to prevent er.cessive population densities and over~cro~,idlilg of the land Gvith structures. G,~ith the realization that increased densities do have impacts upon tine quality of corn:nunity services, facilities, and the environ- ment, r°anging from the number oi- f-ireplaces allo~,ved to providing public transpor~•tation, the To~,;m of Vail has had an active policy of attemi:ting to reduce tree population density aJithin the Gore Valley. -ihe control of density has taken the form of zoning regulations and also .i~r~ougl~ 'the purchase of private land within the Valley by the To~rJn of Vail. P, major goal of the land p:arci,ases his been to reduce the ult~inrate amount of groi~rth that can occur Gvithin the Gore Valley, and consequently the burden upon services to be provided t:c the citizens of the community. The only instances of 'increasing the density allowed .upon a piece of property t-Jithin the Tct,~r~ has been for the purpose of providing employee housing, a very real need for the com~nun~ity as a whole. It is the staff's opinion -that the rezon~irig would allol-a an increase in densii;y l~JhiCh is not consistent with the development goals and objectives of the community nor in the best interests of the health, safety and s~ielfare of the ci~t~izens -_ of Vail. The use of the site currently as a tvJO-family residential dwelling results i n a 4vorkabl e rel ati ohsh-i p among 1 arrd uses' wi till n the area . We feel that the applicant's desire to replace the existing structure with a building of increased quality can be accomplished within the framework of the er,~isting Two Family district. Z) The Special Development District Application In addition to the base zoning of High Density Multi-Family, the applicant requests that a Special Development District be designated for the lot to adopt a specific plan for development. the zoning code states that the purpose of a special develop- ment district is "to encourage. flexibility in development of land in order to - prom~te its 'most appropriate use; to improve the design, character, and qualit;,~ of neRV development, to faci•li~ate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." As mentioned before, the proposed plan consists of a 5 unit condominium complex with a maximum GRFA of 11,5°0 square feet and a maximum height of 48 feet on the east end stepping down to 33 feet on the west end. The project also includes a plaza and pavilion along (Jest t~teadow Drive. The parking for the project is proposed to be within an underground parking garage heneath the structure.. Lot 1 , V4'r ~- ~- 5; 19/i> ~. STAi~ISTICS f_OR Thy!:--''!`OPOSAI_ Lot size: 22,598 sq ft Zonirrg Requested: V~iigh Density [~9ult~i-Family. with arl overlying S}?ec-i al bevel opnlenl: ?i stri ct Zoning ~eauir~~rrler~ts .R ~ HD~F ~ SDD Required/A1 lo~~~ed Requ i recAl l o4~~ed Proposed Setbacks : 2Q ~ ?_0 ` 3uildng 15' Stream 30' 30'(Spraddle Cree};) 10' _ 50' 50'(Gore Creek,) 75` Deck 7.5' 10 ~. 4' Height: 33' 48' 48' Density: GRF1`, 4576 sq ft 60% (13,558 sq ft) Units 2 12 Site Coverage: 20% (4519 sq ft) 55%'~ (12,428 sq ft) Landscaping 65% (14 6'88 sq f~t) 30~ (6779 sq ft) Parking 4 ~~ STAFF RECCf'Ih1E1JDA I IOh 51 % (11 ,590 sq ft) 5 39% (8820 sq ft) 38% (871 5 sq f t ) 13 The Community Development Department recommends denial of the Special Development District appl ication. Al though the dev~~l oprnent standards 'for a Special Development Districi are to be determined by the P[=C and To~~{n Cou.nc;il as a part of the approved plan, there are several zoning items which concern the staff. In the adoption of a SDD, there has usually been an under°lying zone district by which development standards have been set, in this case the Nigh Density t~iultiple Family Zone District. The proposal generally meets the standards for hiDl~'iF. Ho~~aever, several overall development regulations defined t~,~ithin the 7_.oning Code have .been ignor°ed. The chart above points out that Town standards regarding dec}: setD;ac};s and St.T~.<iilll S~LL~~lC:}:S }18VC nOT. })l',CI? CO?i?}~}.lE'..} ,ti 1.~'.[i. }1 t ] CLl ~}lat. i.}1C"iE'. ~ IL 1'f'~}Ul]'C- ;T1C?1~~5 i.}l?t s}10111(1 nOt. }.~G IleP01:1:3D~.e ~71:Ci11.ISE; O 1:}lc:. (:)}~1-].0115 lltll)<`,.Ct.S Oj. t'3C}l. ~.. 1 of 1 , ~V2 -4 _ 5/19,/2 Sr condly, f.he ~i nt:en L cf a tDl) i s i:o "enc~,urt;~ ge fl ex i?.?i 1 i ~t:y ~i r~ the level cipnu~nt of land in order to ;,r•nn~ote its rrt:~st dt1}-,?,rpriate use" and i.o "p}~eservc the natur°al a.nd Sc:en1C fcatr,r?"es of open a}"cas." 7}}e staff feels that t}'te a!nouni; of site covcr~age upon thc~ lot ~.,~iti~, bu-ildlr!g (i;~3?_~l sn ft) and decks and patios (~9~ ~ sq f t) has done 1 ~i ttl e i;c prnser ~%~~ the q~aal i ty r;f a i of vrh i ch i s bour;ded on 'taro sides by na.tu}"a~i strewn}s. The ain~.~~..;r?t of pavement, the formalized 1ar~dscaping plan along t~~ea davr Drive, and the rock four, tai n p}~•o};~osed for Spraddl e Creek s do r,ot seem to Ue appropriate. The design! sitar}lards for S[)D's sli,ate that a buffer zone shall be provided -in any SDD t}tat is adjacent to glow-density residential use district. ~t"he i_;uffer zone 'is to he kept free of buildings or structures and l andscap~•d to rr, i r!imi ze ad~4-~ rse effects upon the surrounding area. There has been no at~tcnipt at such a b.;.,.ffer zor;e ar!d, in fact; the proposed structr~res upon the property come within 4' of the adjacent property to the vrest. ~In general, the staff believes that the ~;lan has not beeen sensitive to the physical ati:}"ibutes of the site, has neglected to ad~~ress 'the requirement of a buffer zone betvreen adjacent properties,, and has r}egl ected to fo11 oar general zoning requirements. lrJe -Feel that the proposal is not in the best interests of the .health, sa~Fety, -and wel Fare of the citizens of the community. Paiif Ni~i'i;i~G+~icz {.C{SY ~i~i~r v~§Efi ~.020t~eZf{(J ~ f~;5 ~ Tvlay ;~, 1y82 p..f_i3.xxni?lg ~ '.iF1'iP1rGn;:'ixltc'~~. C;a1nr11i~siGi1 J.v ~~ iG~~JYi Council To:~;n czf Vail Colorado, 81657 ~exatl,ez~oas; 1 iaa~re jtawt rece~.~e~ notice for ~ re~aest for x°A~ozxixag on Lot ~.9 ~JaiZ Vi:lr~ge 2aad ~i1i:a~ Tz:is sal.c ~:~r-cPosal x~~felu f ~'~~C`~=.'.d i~~ ~''t~'r cXt e1~ld Y~o~'; 1t '.Clc~,~s c~~~S°car~(:t AQc::1P1p Z should :la~ztc to ho ~x~t oz~, record ~ s oP~:crsi~g this re~o~i gig arld shcixz~.d ~ o~. gro.xa.t thii~.~ I cort~azal.;,~ w~Fu~.d foci. Z~.ke aazo~ix<g oat of the Tox.~zz of V~ai~.e There ~..~ uo c~csig~3 cyoxatizzzxit~~ or ana;~t}ii~g el.~e to be cor_sidez~ed, this area i~ zoaxed str~ctl.y end tiroxa~.d rot ~e t~c:zdper~.d xvit.h. fo~c the urtzler gairb cif ozae; iztrlividxa~:l. €xt the e~epezase of tzar residex~xt~ a.zf tide ~irea® Thazak yotz~, 5~,.~z ce re Iy o / ~ G/'J/ Pax.<.:f. zdurk~.~.ex~r~.o~ // ~.~~ ~x o i~'~i~AdQ4 Urm apt. o ~ 2~~ V~,'!~.1,rio~..UTcld.~ 81.68 ,~ 3 a ~~ « ~ / l~~ f!orlh (fu h Ir ~n1 -~' r. Cn:c:ng0l!linc,is6i)6it-Zi7I ~}fICG' Ot the f_Y,~CUII`JC. Direcaor May 11, 192 Alembers of the Vail Planning anal Envi.ronmen.tal Coumiissi.on Toto-n Council.: I am a property owner in the Alphorn. Condominium at 121 FJest Mea.dov.T Drive in Vail. I wi.sli to protest the allegation of Ron. J. Yyrne that a zoning change on. J_ot ]., Vail Villa e 2nd Filing ~,rould be consistent with the present .situation. On the contrary, I believe that his regr.iest, if approved, would violate all that has been. done responsibly by responsible Town Officials. I urge strongly that you deny the request of Ron J. Byrne regardiT.~g a rezoning of t}.ze property in question. Thank you very much. ~~r Y -'`` ~ a y b e 4 ~~ P. -T ,~yq ` _ . Ronald L . bml L i Executive Director .3.~\lL`.i ".~`L-:I F Ti A.N 1~7 GC_!isS~.T'1l i~T:' Ft2f) Sa:vn:-xz~rfs:a~rn ti~ruci:r IF'. O. 13ox ,n~ D7N`.T11{y COLOIS.A,DO Yf),='O1 May 11, 1987_ Vail 'Town Council Vail, Colorado 81658 Gen.tl:emen I am the owner of apartment ~E203, A1_pllorn Condominium Bu ildirig, 121 W. Tleadow Drive, Vai1_. Once again, I am writing to express my concern for th.e rezoning request of Ron J. Byrne f_or Iot 1, Vai1_ Village. I pre.-viously wrote you on March 12th regarding this matter and continue to believe that to rezone this area is entirely against the purpose of the Vail Zoning Ordinance. If we are .to preserve areas such as this and prevcnt- excessive population density i.t is my feeling that they should stand firm in their original decision. May I respectfully suggest that: the Council consider changing whatever rules are involved so that people such as Mr. By:cne cannot repeatedly come ba.cl:. requesting such changes wii_hout an interval of_ at least twelve months. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~y, William C. Dabney 3 WCD : lc.lm .~...~:, _ s, , -~ P•^ a y 14 , 13 8 2 To: Vail Plann:i_ng and Tnvirornneni.al Commission Vail Town Coun.ci]_ From : Michael ,T . Ne~tiTi2lan Owner AZphorn.101 Subject: Request For Rezoning of_ Lot 1, Vail Vi]_lage 2nd Filing This letter is written as an endorsement of your rejection in April of the request for rc-zoning cited above, anal in support of your continued rejection of this .rezoning change. I have been an owner of Alphor_n ]_Ol f_or more than 10 years, and have therefore seen the building of both the hospital and the Holiday Inn on West Meadova Drive. Wh.i.le tl.ere are occasional paL•lcirig problems o11 6dest Meadow, by retaining the existing zoning on the South side of the street, you will preserve West P~teado~•~ Drive as providing reasonable access to -the hospital., and a relatively u.ncongested portion of the Town Bus Route. If this lot is rezoned, then ~ahy not the next lot (which i_s currently vacant, and would no doubt be requested f.or multi- family zoning), then Morgan Doug:Las' ]_ot, etc. Particularly because of the hospital, but also because i_t is a dead-end street with a pleasing open feeling toward the "mountain", let's not turn West T~!ead.ow Drive into a potentially very congested area. Than}: you. CI'~1~7E'lif;:; ~(`Cf1(IO~UiJ)~ C~OI'~)Uf'Rt10(1 !!il C;unrs~n{;.i SI~w•f fanuld~~i, Cnirnniln t;lli!;~ . (,1;74) .^,:8'.) 1 f:ltt o ~fclr~ .P,t~."~~, ~~~t~~~~ d, ~~~~~~~s SUI7(= 202 JAIKR~S f3U1LC(NG z, ~e i ~ ~ ,' •t~ ( (s ; `~ ~ to ~,~,~,,~) ...~° _ 1..,~'..rL~.~~~ ~,~1,~;/a 1'J ~':i-s`t.%~j ~~lil..; Y'~,~';.~:' /-;'f~.i~ f/ l' ~ i j S{ {S ,„, i ~ t..,.li.:~1/t ~ ;~, ~.~ t I! / ~ f i ~f ;' ,: _~.:~a r~ ~~ t ~^` k~~l i~. :~~+tf l~ Vri V L.'l.;j t ~.a.-~'y_ ..,~ds~~~'l ~'~ ° r ` ~.i'fi ~ t a.~ ~ ~4+'~.2Y'~ ~.../` 'r..;a; ,~{ ~ ;..7 f ~ t . f ~~i.. 4,.,d.+t a ~:x t 7 it l 6 ••• { {{. 1 /y r I[ ~ ~ u, s \.tJ i~:''L n.., g4?yr \..f ~ ' a-.A_.~..t f \.:1 & i 1 1( f {, f ...y ~ 5 ~.. 3 ~+ ~,,{ P. ~iw ., ..J ^"~', ~.+.~r~f wd.J ~/' \. ~f Yi_:.}, i r// j/ /."'c~ !'!^{„ yrA «w ~.f ~V` e~~w~'. ..1~ a iC.'-`wd„' ~...~~.,,.°v ``~~~~,. _..t ~;, f, r"'i ( t7' ~° ..t:..,n a7':~, ~'; 1 ?~,i i. s .J n .Zt,°'; i e f r 1 Z i..1.... ~, jd , 4_,4~i I... t .r~•" •`.~` •(, ~, ~y ." ti.,.'.-~_.\. + ~E,~fs/,,(;. "" bi: ~~ '"" .r<I a~ i ,, ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ; ~ ~ ~ A ,; ~^, d ~ '°i%~"~ r3 ~ t~...t, i a~: ~S '+/q~ ~ ~J 1 `tii~ Y i t t ~j ~^`{.€.-Kt... t~ VA, ~~~ ~ °/t t1'f' ,% y' li ":; }~r .i `'•'~'...J9~~-,.s r Z• , ~ ~ ~ ..~.:':,~. ^(r/ L,:~ fi.,, ~t ( i.,- M 'i~,,,'v'e.~ls'•.., fra'p i' s6.;+...,t G q ('- i t ;i ;; [r v,, 7 ~ y ~! 'v°~4,~ %"`.'~.:'L~C...~-'.,,,~.~a.~i~.-~.,.f~ ("s'~' ~;*°i...~~..~j ~,t'..t._l;.~i..J, :(,,5~( tt„ti C..,~.( ' q < F t _ `fit r' ~ ~i,f ~ ~;/, ~.....~~~~~.~ l.i ~, § 4< L"'w..b.Y/ ,/t 4_• 3 L it ~ ~ `^~[•- LG^.~V~Ae' a ~5.: _~ ~` ~_ } ,{ ~ ~ f r r ..~,.v ; 1.~-_.fi.'r. `3 %) -~ %> /"~ :.r: ~Aj/} .^- i ', .. ~t.: ,~ ~~ t `r ~:`• ~ j (/a'L ~~ --i.C.. ~ '~' ':,'~. ,. '"'~ ;:~I;t ~wr 'I..,f„~s'"--ir ,;.,~: ~ 1 s.' i-r`~.,..:.i. lb,"" ~'~°t ~/ ir'ir'. (r ,. +1:~., ,.~'~1.~:' ~-'t-,C t,..,.,-'6,k~ E~.CJi'v}.~°~ y;_r~ .'i /'.i.'fi'2 C=(".')/~ r f (`,4..^ ,; .h . ~ I..i.r\ r !;~ f rl "" `P ~~ ~ J ~~ ~' „e ~. F ~ .~i.r a r ('.<.-2',L-C...?'~~~ C.i...JLL.i ~{ ~..- ~t. °.1s.,,0.,.~j'S ~,.s:t...J :.~` . j,,' 111- ..C~ 1. i..~j~~? t~' f~,. ( ,. ~.- -! ~!:-C...'~~Jl.~,`~... ~. '/ ..~C..~.~`..r' l.~ K~ .s°'~ f~../'1-~- •', ....+*$f~"L`.-k.r l,~,.G~~ ~.....Ei ~.~~C .d ,-'~•i,./.'.'{."^~df„ ~--1< i,e..~'~: i.~-' .'~.-4e. 1~ t'~ ~r r, r /,~, , {• f ~ G ~f v !Y . ~ a:.t..~"":~ ~/ "'~ ~ ~! ~% r ~'G'G~~: a; d'S-v1Gti'S /r'S.~u,FD p Ol~~2~ L:p'J?~~t`,T :' fl l~~ i~.. J_'«~e~rt71Q'>'}Y ~~~P'o ~ ~~~` a~ID lly ~~._/~Ir~a,TH"ci:,, ft~ Cre,~,2,~ J t[, ~ tt 1, Mr. DicY P.yan Planning nepartment Town. of Vail Boa "1~0 Vail, Colorado 81657 May 19, 1982 Deer T'~iclc, I wish to object to any upzoning ors Lot 1f Vai.l. Village ;~eeonu Filing. The requested change to five units i.s inappropriate as it. 1) does not meet the needs or desires of the neighbor..hood which is a duplex zoned area, 2) would. create more traffic on a dead end streetP 3} would further compound a poor decision of the Vail Fire l7istrict in perT.lli.tting Ipanema to be built, and 4) would be contra to the `T'own of Vail policy of reducing the number of units in ~.he valley. E-~ ~. .~~ ~. ~ ~-.~..E~z..~_ -~ 1n..~----~; ~ ~~ ". . ~~' - ~ ~; ,• ~..._ ~~ y ~.. ~ - ~~'~ ~ /1 ~.. -.._... ......_. ..~ 1. ~~,... .. `s'oedTiAC~ ~ lr~:~i't`an~i f~,"t~rtE _. ~,! LEO PA;riF ~ "f?[SICf-. P:. May 14, 1987. , Dick Ryan c/o To'van of Vail P.O. I3o~. 100 Vail, C'O. 81657 Dear Dicl~ The purpose o~: my letter is to express my opposition. f st of I~lr a Ron Byrne . to the requ~ I don't feel hi_s proposal is consistent <<~rith -the character of our neighbor_..~aod. Persona]_ and business co;-~-nittrrents mua~~° me unavailable for_ -tYie meetings of tl~e Planning az~c]. ~zviroz-~~ner~tal C'.orrnnission on May 24 and the Totan ~unsel meeting on June 1.. I vrould appreciate your presenting this ].eater at the two al~-~ove mc~eti?~gs . Siizccrely~ ,~ ~ ~ ~i~~ ~~ ~ J LEO Pa~Tile president 7b ,, ~,. •~ I', me niltsua:, Ins- ... ~ . Lco P:iync• ('Onh::C. Inc. - l_£IkCWOp(f. CG101Hdp ~ Leg Payn.~ Impot;;, hle - l..;Ik~,J~ood. GolornlJO < L~~o y ,"`~;. s -~;tF t6!% F:r. ~ ~ ~i i71JC P(4 1'e ~>iJ r'~ i ~~~~. `s,.7Y .' ~P~.~i:~ ~'-~ - T ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,~.. iu~.n... ,a;l PLAtdNItdG A(`dD EfdUIRGidirlt~iiTAL CGiY~t~1fSSI(lid June 1~'r, 1982 PRESEidT Scott Edwards v~ill Trout Dan Corcoran Diane Do?1o~ti~an later Duane Piper ABSENT Jim Viele Jim P~organ STI`,FF Peter Patten Dic!'. Ryan Jim Sayre Larry Eskv.i th Betsy Rosolack COUidCIL P.EP Chuck Anderson Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the me•e~cing to order at 7_:i5 after a site visit and after revievring applications for exterior alterations and modifications in Commercial Core I and II. Donovan_.moved and Trout seconded to approve the minutes of P~4ay 24, 1982. The vote was 3-0 in favor with Edwards abstaining. 1. Request for a variance to construct a garage in a red hazard avalanche zone on Lot 21, Vail Meadows Filing #~li Applicant: Thomas LeRoy Peter Patten explained the ri7emo and showed the site plan. 11e explained that the staff would first address the avalanche probleril, 'then the setback variance. He skated that the house did receive a setbac{; variance v,~hen it was built, and since the staff here not a~a~alanche experts, -they were referring to the P~~ears study. He read the portion of Mears' letter that stressed that it ryas important for the Town of Vail to ensure that no residential construction be done in the high hazard zone. LeRoy referred to the site }Man and explained that he was told that the line showing the edge of the high hazard area could be plus or minus 25 feet, and that perhaps all of his lot was high hazard or perhaps all of it was.nredium hazard. Ne showed photos of the accumulation of snotti~ on his lot stating t}tat he could not bu i 1 d steps because he could not maintain then in the v~inter tine. iie added that lie would bury the garage into the ground on the up11i11 side adding that if he placed the garage v,here it was origi!lally planned to go, there t~rould be disturbance by runoff. Edt:~ards felt that the applicant should have a mo re detailed study made to ensure that the garage would be only in the moderate hazard zone, because it did seem that the str°eam teas a hardship if the garage had to be placed where or~~igina1ly pl an!ied. PEC - ._- G/1 ~~/82 Trout qcs sti oned the size o-f the garage and I..eRoy state:cf that he vdanted to par!% q cars in the garage, t~E~ro dr>ep. Donovan felt that she couldn't. approve a ga.r~age in a red hazard zone, and wanted to be certain ,just vdhere the line. betvdeer; the two zones lay. Site felt that the stream vdas a physical hardship. LeRoy ans;~rer~•ed that he felt that the entire front of his lot vdas in the high f~razar~d zone. Corcoran stated that the line as it exists on the avalanche study 4vas not absolute, but that the Commission must. vdork vdith ghat, . Ryan addr.~d that if the applicant believes that the high hazard zone eras r,o~t on his lot, he should have a detailed study made. Ryan added that Mears felt strongly that tFre Tovdn of Vail should Nkeep structures out of the high hazard avalanche zones. Trout asked Eskwith vrhether or r,ot the Towri would be liable if they were to grant a variance. Eskvdith answered that there was a chance that the Town could be found liable. LeRoy said that he vdas twilling to take full responsibility against physical ar~d financial damage. After more discussion of responsibility, Donavan moved and Corcoran seconded to deny the request for a variance as per the staff memo dated June 10, 1982. The vote was 4-Q to deny the variance. LeRoy mentioned tFrat in the same letter, Mears stated that the TOV should look into ma:ving the vdater tank. EskvditFi answered that the water tank was a separate issue, and that at ti-~e rrcnient, the cornmiss~ion vdas deal ing vdith the variance request. The setback variance eras then consider~~ed, Peter Patten explaining that the PEC must consider both, in case LeRoy should appeal the decisions, so that -the Council would have some background upon which to base their decisions. - Corcoran moved and Edwards seconded to deny the setback variance request per the staff memo dated June 10, 1982. The vote was 2-1 vd-ith Trout against denial, and Donovan abstaining because she felt she cou1cin't vote without knowing whether or not there might be a physical hardship nor• knowing whether or not the avalanche hazard zone would affect it. 2. Request for rezoning of Lot_1 , Vail_Vil lage_ 2nd Fil inc~frorn_ Residential Primar,~/ Secondary to Special Development District with an under~~lyin _zone of Iliglr Density! Multi-~~mi~iy to allow five dvdeelin units. Applicant: Ron J.~Eyrrie Peter Patten explained that the was the same application that had been submitted orr March 8 and which the PLC denied by a vote of 5-1 and which was then appealed to the Council and was defeated unanimously. 6yrne explained that at the last meeting an argument ensued vd~ith regard to the presentation. Eskwith felt that it was better to present both the rezoning request. for SDD and the I-IDMF at the same time. Ne explained to Byrne drat tyre zoning laws had been amended to that tFie SDD areas were 1im~ited in use aid dens.-ity and to ttie zoning district in which they vdcre located. Gyrne showed slides and added th<tt his ~inunediatc neighbors chid rrot object to the rezonirg. He said that PEC -3- f /1.l/82 he had faired several cases o(.upzor€~ir7q •i r€ t;he area.. F{~ added that ther^e was areal differer€cc ~in the architectural:~cfale •in th;.~ area r=f his lot. He stated thvt the {:?ro,ject ~ti~<.s very flexible anal +;,rou~lcl wor^k directly wii;f~i the staff i€1 any different solution. fie gave stat~ist~itrs concerr7ing t4-r° mass, height and dens'i'ties crf the surrounding propertic:~s and also ~i i tc:d dates o~f• upzonings of those projects. He felt that Gore Creek would be a r7€ore lo:~ica'i bt.rffer be.,~~een zones anc! ghat the duplex, v+•as not the 17rost appropria.tr~ building for hi.s site. iIt Gras explained tc [iyrne that he must F,rovide a buffer^ zone between his project ancJ the dui~lexes to the west. gyr..ne said ti~€at; he ~~<~as G~ritling to change the design to allot~r for more open land to the ta,est, i-Rut felt the planr7ers' responsibility eras to help plan. Fie repeated the remark that n7any prop=-~rties had been changed i€~ zoning •to alloy gi~~eater density, he~igh;: ar7d mass ir~g. Ryan stated that that +as the exact reason that ~ir~ 1977 the To~~rn of !Fail vrer~t thror.rgh downzoning, a.nd °then two years ago changed the definition of height.:.. The track record for the past feFv years was that the Tovr€~~ i~ras not allowed up zoning and tt7ere breve new height regulations since the building Ipanerna. Morgan Douglas, nearby property owner, explained that his ~;vas a single family noire vrith a guest apartment, not 3 units as described by Byrne. f-le added his objection to the rezoning. i3en [3otc1 of 'r;he F~lphorn said -that there had been 19 fetters to the PEC protesting the rezoning. He a'iso stressed that the Alphorn had spent $50,000 or~r landscaping and were proud of their building. Frank Havre! of the Al prrorn stressed tiZai: the project interfered with thci r view, and that if the lot next to it were built to the same height, it, too, would interfere trrith their view. Edwards stated that he was on the PEC to tr^y to change indiscrir~7inate upzoning. He added that he had difficulty seeing ti~hy ti~rere was a need for a transition from Ipanerna. He stated ti~rat he would rather see it;, stay duplex, but possibly give a variance in height to make that transition. Trout said that he ~!as sympathetic to the property aesthetically, though he would vote against 5 units, but possibly for 3-1/2 units because he felt that the transition 17rade sense . Corcoran felt that the issue of Ipaneina should be disregarded totally. Donovan felt that the increase ~in units was insignificant in relation to the size of the project. With regard to safety, the project would increase traffic on an already busy road, The project ~~rould violate section 18.58.300, violates the general purpose of the zoning, (18.02.00 85, maintaining community quality), and she added that people buy property with a clear idFa of the existing zoning, and expect that zoning to rer7ain. Donovan also added that the use was not appropriate and that there would be less open space. Corcoran stated that he did nor feel that the community needed 5 units nor-more height. Corcoran moved and Donovan seconded to deny the req!aest to rezone to Sdd for the reasons stated ar~rd as per the staff n€emos dated 5/19/82 and 3/x,/82. The vote was 3-1 with Troi..rt voi:ing against denial . The app! ~icant aras reminded that he had 10 days with Gti~hich to appeal the decision to To+,,m Council. 3. Reques,c__for a condarnir,iurn con.vers_ian~for_ <~_ :~ uriit__l~tr iid i-n~--on__}~a~ ~l•2, Vai l_._~.'i11a l•lest, i-•fl ing 1 . Appl ic<.irrt: Lei~rlis S}r irn~~rn Corcoran stated t}gat the app1 icant had r~~c,u~=sled •to table this item. Donovan moved a.nd Ed~~~ards seconded to table as per applicant's request. Vofe was ~-0 in favor. A'c this po'int', Edwards left the i~ieeting a.r!d Piper entered. 4. Re nest for two side setback variances to a}low the canstruct-ion of a residence on Lot 12, Ua_il_Village 4•~est Fil_-inc #2. Tl~p;~l cant: Go~:ti~ri~d Anglei-~.rrer --~- Jim Sayre explained tfla~i~ this r~,ias a third pr~esentai;'ion for tllis lot, and s}rotti~ed the differeht presentations, fie said th~~ staff felt that t,h•is one was much improved and recommended approva. i . The dr i vetfday }rod been c}rang~~d to the front, arrd the setback request was for 4-.5 feet an the east and 5 feet on i;he west Al Johnson, the architect, showed plans and stated that he ~,-as willing to satisfy staff concerns regar~d-ing the design. He added that he had talked with F.~ischer, property o~~vner to the east, three times and offered to cha.ncle the bu-i-!ding, but Fischer was opposed to the building. Ne assured the staff ghat there would not be any other vat°iance requests. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to approve the setback variance requests as per the staff memo dated 6/l/82. The vote 4daS 4-0 in favor. 5. Reo,uest for a front setbacl< variance to al1o~,•v the construction of an addition on lot 11 , Mattprl~orn ~`illage, Val in~e ~?a _~-! . Applicant: ,James R. Williams Peter Patten explained that the encroachment would be for 3 feet in the front of the lot, and that the staf F fe~1t ti}at a design solution could be acccrnpiished within the set-_zacks with minor design changes. t"!iiliams shor.ded his site plans and elevations and stated that he did not want to .push t'rte garage farther back as that would change the doors and would entail digging further into the bank. Duarie felt that the addition could, be accomplished r~ai th other solutions . Trout agreed. Trout moved and seconded to deny the request for a-front setback variance as per the staff memo dated June 10, 1982. The vote was 4-U to-deny. Patten offered tine staff's help to Mr. Williams in redesigning lzis addition. 6. Request for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the east .end existin~',bus barn located at the town shy s in a PUD zone district. Applicant: Town o-r Vail Patten showed elevations and floor plans ar;d expl a. i r,ed that the building r~~as planned originally to add on as shown on the drawings. Trout proved and Donovar; seconded to approve the conditional use permit as per the staff memo dated 5/17/82. The vote was 3--0 with Corcoran abstaining. FI:t; t aJl ~/~.2 7. Rec;uost far apprava_i___af_the c~;eneral_circ~_slat~ion ~~~~d acces.~ j~:i_a_n fir the Ar_te%°i ~~ ! ~vs i ncss t)i s i;r~ic:t,. F~ppl i can~t:s : Praperty o~vners i r, the proposed district. - T CarCOrdr1 stated that tjie appl ~icant requested to ta!_~?e this item anti] Jt;ne 2~5. Tror~t maved and Donavar~~ seconded to tai.~i e a.s per uppl icant's request. -i•he vate ti~as 4-0 in favor a~' 'tai~llrig, . The meeting ~~as adjaurned at 5.Q0 p.m. PLI'~,t•fffl.ifG ;'ski} Ef~;VIR[~t;i~;(_i~f~`1_ COP~t=iISSI;Pi PRFSI:riT STS"1Fi= PRE`~Li'•,T Diarlu. Donovan Peter P~:ztterl Dan Corcoran Jim Sa}ire Jim U~irlcz n-- c > > ~~ ~ -'~ E;vi..,) f;oso~«~~. Duane Piper D-icl~ Ryan J-im f•'.organ ~ f_arrw Esk~:~itF~ - CGilf~fCTL (ZFP - Af3S~PlT -- ---- ----- Ua i t 4•:+a f~~ r 1 i c h '~ 4J-ii'I Trout SCOtt [d'lardS The meeting eras cal 1 ed to order try Gan Corcoran , cha ~i rman . 1. Approval of minutes of f~~ 10, 1982._ Diana Donovan f7roved arld seconded to approve tl:~ minutes. The vote -vas 5-0 in favor. 2, Re_~st to install ~F.~gafY,~~rlor nr, _'_oa~emen-I; level _of the Lionsllead Gondola. Qi~i~ld ing. f~pp1 -icant: ~v~~.~i i P,ssociatcs. ~-~ _ _~~~ _ J~.m Sa,}~re explained the ';..:,,.c pointing out the tfle conditions at the end of the momo--were ~.h~ ~~~~~- ors i;hose required for the arcade request for the !,lest Vail f`;a'l~l ~r;>raved on Ria,y 10, 198?_. Pau'I Golden of Vail Associates stated that V''. ,~'~~nted to have tile: arcade as an amenity to the Gondola rides in 'che su~r~;~-~•. fle added that the space Y~~ould return to locf:er space -ier day skiers rir the zR,if'lter. Ne also felt that VA 4'danted to put 16 rather than 12 amusement devices into tfle space. It ~•aas decided to change i:he wording of the first condition to read: "The noise level of the amuse~rrent devices shou'fd be in. compliance tiA~ith the TaYArn of Vail noise ordinance." kfif.h ghat. correction, Duane Piper moved and f~iorgan seconded-t;o approve the request for a corld-itional use applicatioff to install a~frrajor arcade in the basefr~ent of the Gofldo-ia ll building in Liorlshead ~v-i-th tfle t};rce conditions on the memo including the change in wording stated above and concerning 16 frrachif;es. The vote -,ras 5-0 in favor. 3. Re2uest for rezonint~_ of lot.! , Vail Village 2nd_i=il inq~to change from Prim_a_ry/Seconciarv t:o Spc~c`ial Develo.p;iu~nt C>sti~ic~:_r•,~itli aii~un_derlying zo_ne_ of_ Nigli Density Multi-Fanril_y. Applican~;,: Iron J. Gyr.~io Peter Jamar explained the Ifi;?1110 and sho~~~ed i;he ]ot pn a map. f(c explained that: the s~,a~~~ felt tflat it Y'rrs in tl7e toi',~n's hest interes~t to deny the regrret. to re~orle to a greater density. f-(e added ghat a Special Develol~nrent District had t0 fraVe a buffet' ZUne itrOUtld lt, and tll<tl: t.(1iS pt'U,fE:Ct Si10~^deCf the deck O11 One side to be within 4 feet of f ile adjacent struc ture. Dyrne sPlo~recl a fc~r•r s1~idLs of the neigh`ac:~t-~P1ood. Larry: 1.>k~rr~itP1 statccf that coniin•~; to PEC with aspec-ii::ic b~iilciir!g ~~rzs ~inap~?rol~r°iatr_~, since the qucstic;n ;~.ra.s one of r~~zpning or not. Byrne objecte~•~a ar!d Usked why he hadn't been told this a.t the previous rneei;ing ciurirlg a•rhich ti~~!i~~ he had fo-I ior•red tP1e same procc~~durc of ShOVring a specific build-inq. to pla.c~~~ on the property ir} qu~_,stion. Larry !=sk~,rr~ith reel tool that Cyrne hadn't l~~een informed k?ecar;se he (Eskti:~-i th) r~rasn't at the rieeti!1g. [)ick Ryan pointed out that the problem k?;~s two parts. 1) is it appropriate to rezone, and 2) is 'ii: appropriate to approve the Special Development Districk.? E~yrne responded that the square footJge that the Tor~rn a.llotvs was not, iri his t:pirl ion, adegr;ate for the site. Larr;~ Eskr~rith rel;~l led that the key qi-restion was density. After' inure explanations, Byrr?e asked 'co table h-is reques~ until ~i:1~e June 14, 198?_ n?ee-ling. Morgan moved and Uie1e seconded to table the item until June 14. Tkie vote to table was 4--1 (Donovan against}. Donovan reminded the members that there were persons in the audience From or~t of state r~rho had ComE expressly for this meeting. Corcoran asked them to speak., and P~;r. Douglas , '.'rho ovdns a res i Bence or, l~,!est PrieadoLv Dr~-i ve spoke i n opposition to the rezoning, agreeing with the PEC members that vrhat cot!ld follow r~ras more requests to rezone to hic,her density frcrn neighbors. Jim Sa.yre~. presented the staff memo pointing to an excerpt of a letter from Arthur Mears regarding -the adjacent lot, 22, ore page 2 of the u?ernu, in which 1~1r. Mean~s stated, "..it is very important for the Tor-rn of Vail to ensure that no resi- dential construction be done in the h-igk? k?azard zone..." Sa.vre also added that the PEC members had received that cfay a rek~ort an the avatar?chc entitled, "Ua i 1 Meadows Avalanche pynami cs study" by Arthur Pears i n r~~rh~i ch i t i s suggested that the effect of avalanche -impact on the water tank; should be analyzed. 4. Request •lo al 1 otiAr avalanch for an arner?dment to uninhabited struct e areas. Applicant; _the frown n;r.inicipal code, Section 18.C9.04U~ ores to be constructed in red high hazard on?as LeRoy LeRoy read a letter expla.in~ing his position and his displeasure at receiving the staff memo as -late as Fri clay. He i:hen read par~.:s of the avalanche study and explained to the PEC t;P1at Upper Eagle Valley 4'dOrkerS were on 1of 22 on a daily basis attending t:o the water tank, and that they assured him that it; ':vas difficr.ilt to keep it 75% full beca!_rse of valve failures, etc. P1ark Cadmus spoke as a friend who voiced approval of %he alller1dmen't. Donovan ,;ranted to know more about the streams in the vicinii:y, and asked LeRoy whether or~ not he had planned to put a workshop into the garage. LeRoy answered that he would give to the Town of Vail a letter assu ring them that Pte r~roi.,ld not put in a workshop. Larry Esk;ait.h explained t:Pldt the water tank had peen built ii1 1974, and the hazard or•dinanccs were not writ ten until 1978, indicating tflat it was a pre-existirly legal non--conforming use. Patten felt that the issue was not the rvat.er tank, rlor specifically Lck~oy's lot, but r~;ther file amendment of the zoning code. Pie added ghat if the PEC allowed the ar!rendment to t:he code, they tvortld also be a11,^,r~rinc~ l-,cople to build c!ecks, storane, etc. and could create activity in k:he red (high) avalanche zone. t k'E~. ^~- J~2~~82 ~ ,. . , Thank you very much for your attention to these lines. Respectfully . ~ ~~~ .~ 1~~ :~ f~ i~~~xf~ ~; nr~ .1 ~.i,; ~,. ~i . J ). To the Members of the Town Counca.l Va i 1. L'3 O i~c: u n i; u ll i; i vr: It is ~~rith grave concern that I wish to express my opposition to the rezoning proposal of lot 1 -Vail Village from Primary/Secondary to a Specail Development District with an underlying zone of "I-Iic~h Density" , The application of Mr. Byrne to allova construction of of a five dwelling unit complex should be denied. The Manhattanization of Vail if allowed to proceed at the present rate will destroy what attracted. people to Vail in the first place, I have owned a unit in the A.]_p~iorn Condominium for the past seven years Gnd have watched with great concern the progressive obliteration of the creek :Front. You should too. b; ~ .; ... _ .. ~v - ~ _ "_„ r.: j~ , • i .i:Y£^s~.~'"~'..'ID .... .,._L.1ai:;k. vr..:: :r v~r ... ,•~:k.a.;,..~i"w`""`T"' ~ .._ .... . «....-. - Lw, mss'»..3w..Q.u: L:...Y`».....;^_'* ..::'"TM>25~:3. 5- ..., •wu.... "'y.~... ... .. _ _.»,.. .. .. ,. .. ,~.........._'.stx........ _. . . ~I-'ll nr.n/. jl la ''' .~~/J ~.'4!~ •r ~.C I;'ir~~i ,~(j7 ('C .^ r ~ 'r- U r ~ 1: ~~ 1 ~-! ~ ~~. ~~ ~ i ~ ~" ri ~~ 1 j'~ C` ~'~ D ^, L 1. rr.; C, m Y ~ `'1 r~ ~ n r. ~~ n ~ j;~ ~• ~~ .. .. _ l ,_ 1 .. ,,~~ PZCft ~YAI I ~; ~°, 1~ 0~ 1~ 5 7 y L ~_ ^ :- ,~_ L,... ~r I ~r r >~ :, r,,. , ru . r T n.. ~ s ~ T ~{ ~^ ~-.~ » ~ T ~ ^ r ~ „u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' _ _ : ' ^'r?~~.i~:" r(~:: ~1aG' C~~G'!i'r'Ihgi ~H n ~-'L7~" T/%L ~l!~'t,.IH~~(~~ ~y~~~;iT ~IIC~rr-.TU~r` ~•~'T' ~j'L `JILL^~~'__ ~y rn~;P FILI ~'~ _ .:, • _ L y ;",, Y ~ I C ~' 1 5 3 ~, ~ ~ c -r ~ ~ ~~ ;; ~~ P .^, ~~~ n p ~,r h., I l_ ~ ~ ~' l ~ 5 '7 I (1 r, ~' T :.~ r i TU fii~Ct.~` {3Y nip\i~GfiA,t4, Sl=C- RC_VEt2SE SIDE F.; ti V1/FSTEfit~i Uh~IUP~`~ 1'C)(.G. - FRcf: J3NOidt I'dUIVi[?El~S ~4 1='. ~. L~I.I~Csi`tI~I-~ & Ca. ~:~I::(7R.I~1, 17-.7:.TNOIS G1G2Ci OFFICE OF TI-IE CHAIRMAN GF THE ©OhHD 144ay 2~, 1982 Vail Town Council Municipal Building Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen: I strongly urge you to deny again the re-zoning request for Lot 1, Vail Village ?nd Filing, from two fami7_y residential Primary/Secondary to Special Development District with an undc_rlying zone of High .Density Multi-Family to allow construction of 5 dwelling units. This is not in the landowners' best interest. As a property o~Faner bn West Meadow Drive and a taxpayer for more than 10 years, I urge you to deny again the proposed zone change and higher density. TPL : of 1 Borgnor~s, Peoria, II(inois .. Weise's, Rockford, Illinois .. Myors, Springfield, Illinois Respectfully, H. E3 F_tJJAfr11N DUKE,JF:. 999 SOUTH f3 t70ADVJAti' P. O. C30X 5Hb7 D ENV ER,COL.O t"tADC 6U"~'-17 May 26, 198? Town Council Vail, Colorado Subject: Request for Rezoning Lot 1, .Vail Village Second Filing My residence is located at 182, West Meadow Lane, and I vrish to go on record as opposing the rezoning of Lot 1., Vail. Village Second Filing in accordance with Sections 18. 66. 100 through 1 8. 66, l 60 of the Vail. Municipal Code. I understand that the request is to rezone from Residential. Primary/Secondary to Special Dc.velopme~~t District with. an underlying zone of high density multifamily to allow construction of five dtivelling units. 1vl.y reason for opposition has been stated previously to the Planning a.nd Environmental Commission, as ~,vell as the Town Council. I-Iov~ever, I «,rill again. point out that, if allowed, such a change of zoning v~ould increase t-he lZOU sing density further in an area ~vliich affords the visitor a pleasant and t~telcorne area of open space transition between Vail Village proper and Lionshead. As Council knows, this is the principal. pedestrian route between the two commercial cores and is widely used by visitors a.nd residents in summer. and winter alil':e. In addition, permitting this zoning change v~ould undoul3tedly, as it al~~crays has in the past, lead to further breakdowns of zoning, with subsequent loss of open spice, whi.r.h is a.n important and desirable (although rapidly din~.inishing) aspect of th.e town o.f Vail. It would. also represent: a con- siderable breach of faith ~vi.th those early resi.deiits of the town who opted to build in this arr-_a because of it:s resi- denti;~l character. Thank you for noting my vigorous and unalterable opposition to this zoning change. Sincerely, f ; / ~ .'/ ~ ~ / `~ ` ~:.v~ e~~~ ~rr~~ ?-Ian a ge r P , 0 _o B(o~x'7 36.1 F3 Z.az.1, Colorado ~31~5~3 F~.o. ~oX ~3~ ~r'l. y r ~ l U t..~c.'. Re : Zoning ("hange Lot I Vail. V3-.f.-l.age Second ~~'i-ling ~.'o T~]horn i t ~~ay Concern La fox, Illinois 00147 As a property owner in th.e r~lphor. n Build:tng on tiTes~; :+Ieadot~~T Drive, Vaily T object ~t;o t?~e re:Iuest -f_ or a re~;oning on Lot 1, Vail Vi.l.la~~=-, `~~;cond :Filing i.n accord- ance z.-with Sectioz7.s 1f3, oo e 100 thiTatagh 18 a66 a 1E~0 of the Va:i.l. rrlunicipal code and the proposal of rezon'ng froze a residential primary; secar~dar;~T to special develop.~nent district ,with an underlying zozie of high density multi- family for the followiiZg reasons 1- ~'k?at pi~oper-ty should }.-nave been purchased kith full kno,..-ledge off' its' C:~.i-sting zon:i.z~ Tt would appear gz~eeci and crass svecLtlation znighi, ~ae the strong :notivatizig factors in the requesto 2- Certainly there is no ~,~~1i~? for ad;litional. units in Vai1s given thE~ CU.rz'e:Cit inventox=y of condo- mi.niurns for sale. hside from that, the economy in general at this .time ~,~iould raot encou:_°age this tyre of constructions 3- Vehicle traffic on T~lest ;~~Ier~dow Drive is already too heavy, con~;ic.e.ring it is a dead end .road, !~- Respect for exis tin, os~rric=rs s scenic vi etr=s should be honored. TAFe purchased our unit Ur~.th t?~e ~ino61T1edge tha~i-, single farr.i l~r lots across; the street f'roz7 ou-r unit t~rerf; and would be the zoning req.Lt.iz°ernent e 1 re pc;c~tf.ull-y request this ~,oning be turned dot-Tn at this tize and for the foreseeable future, 1roL'{ri? trLl.l.yp JDP/rt J-A~'~i.~S Uo 1'OLT~,'I%A / ~~ v / ~~x ;~. ~~ 1 / '~ ~ ~ I ~ ~'4 ,!,~_ ,;, C~ ~ v ~ ~'~ ~ ~ `~~I 1 r r~ G~ 1~~~ ~/ /q //~/ /~ r , r ~% p~ ~''l.-~ ~~'l L .,~ r ~//fir/ ~<-~ E: ~ /~~~ iii ~/(~ ~ /~• x ~' ._...-.- ~j~ '~' l G 1 ~i ~~ ~ rte'/C ` / r---- ~~~ ~ ~ Gam` /^ !~ ~ Ll~,.~~ ~~//.~C%~ L !, / ~~ , / /Cy / !ter f/~ ~d ~ '"~~ p Gam' J~ ~ ~ ~ c '------ ~, ~-~ / ~ ~ ~ ~~T _ .~~/~ ~ _ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ d ~~ ~ ~ ~. ,~ ~ ~ /~~ , l r~. ,~` Cif ` .____-- ~~. ,~ /lG= ~~~ ~~~E. ~'%~'' ~ ~ g ~ _~___~. ~~~~~ ° ~ Jam- ,L !;~l ~' ~ p ~~ ~ i~ ~''o -~ i ` J'L Cr'~J f- ~l% e`/ ~ •/ , f~' ~ ~' ~' ,, ~' f //' p: ~~ ~~" cil `'` ~~~' ~ ;'/'G'am , ,,_ i S` ~! c 0 `, ~t~ ~==~ ,' lip'"i„~,_'~ ;,.,,, ~, `°I~' ;{ /U .~~ ! ~=..L,.__, ~ ~._.. ~_ ~ ~- - c~ ~ ~ ~% w ~ ~, ,~ __ `; yam. ~~ 4r ~, Gam`, ~~ ~ `~ ~~~ d~ ~ „ ~~,,., ,~ c ~~~ _. r / ~, j/ /~ . `i G ~/~ ~ ~ ~ /--- ~c ~ ) /'1 L // ,~,; /l G' ~ ~l'~ G ~ Ci ,;,~ e ~ ~~l ~ 1 I fL, -~~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~'~% (~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ , / ~~~ ~j l ~ ~ ~~ ~/~ ~ / ~ J `~ .-.,'T ~'~ . I , / ~y ~ - / ~' ; ~ ~~ ; / i ~ / c c.~ ' / _ ~ ~ ~•. ~~~~1 ~._ ~ , ~ f J C_ ~l ..~~/~ ~• ~ ~ ~ /f ~~ ~ r 't.'.~'.'C_./ ~%r } f <,.1,1~E?~ /if,/ %117 ~ ~ ~fi:/ ^~ ~ %. / ~ , ~ ~j T~_ ,%' '~ i , ~ ~.; ~~ 1~ t'' i'; ~~ :> ~L~ i i ~ p j n /~ (' /•I i f O,~ f / ~r .r't-~"'ii~J <~,. ~ j v..,''7 :~'! [„~ ~} -' .~ /1 ^~ • ? P~~ ~ j n r / u c• r /~r~ 1 ~ / ""./ ti.'//G /.`~ t~_iC ~'%'~ ~ c ~r ~ /~ (,c:--'C_l~.i / ~(~ v~ ~i:~c~ ~ t~~•Z-C., r~ ~ ~ ~T r a ` ~~ ~ / / fi /% // ~, ~ / ~ ~ /) ._:_ ~Z-~_._ /t'-G[' f''~-' /fir - /J'':;~' Z ~" ~ ~., f~ '~.`. - l .~~~.f'~,I.~CI.:,~ iw. /i: ~.~.i~~n_r,~.l.iJ/ ~ ~-;e J• r,,y~ ~J / /y'.1_ /! --•r-v '" ~r ~` ~; ~~ ,..,,., ~.. I'-- ~ / /~ ,.f ~ 1 ~;/~ ~ -/.F-~~~~ (4~~ ~ ~:_..~ : (~''~?~ ~'/ ~1'/ / ' f~~.'~,?.%1~...('/ `~ ~'~. jib' (. F~ ~ _ ~ - , ~,' ~~' %i ~ ~~ ~ ~ G, ~, ~_ l.i 1, i ~ . ,; i f ,, `~ ~ - -_ ~_~ a / r ~p f` -, 6' - '_~_` ,~\ .~ ~,~ r' . ,c ,/ z ~,. ~, I~' ~~i tt `"~ ~~_ ~ i ~, ; `~ C ,~ \ 4 , J - ef.~';. t:. .. _, .. ~~ <_ c/ ~ f ~ L ~~;_. ,!,~ ~~~ „~J.----- `'jam t. .,....:-`.~\_. `"~ ~--G ~.-- C :t, 't i.'~.; t`~-~~ ; C.'~~4,... j t,~-~ ~ cam'- ;f' i ` l ,-.~ t~ ~>- _, -r ~, r M1y ( 1. `cS ~.- ~ ~'~ (fir.'(/'y~~~.~~~.t.~i..~`\~, `,.~~,, ~../~. /,,~?~^~ ("` ,, ~7 -~~..!~c-~. Vic. t~`~~z?-t.-;. ~ ~'-' t ` . 1~ , 286 BRIDGE ST. VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TELEPHONE (303) 476-2113 TIMBERLINE PROPERTIES June 10, 1982 Ms. Mary Caster Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mary: The purpose of this letter is to formally recuest that Coldwell Banker/Timberline Properties be placed on the Town Council Work Session Agenda and Regular Session Agenda for Tuesday, June 15, 1982 for the purpose of discussing a sign application which was previously brought before the Town Council. To date our application has neither been accepted by the Sign Administrator nor the Design Review Board for normal processing. Sincer ly, l- ~~~ vid L. Cole, C.R.B. President sk An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc. Approved by Town Council 6/15/82 i i - PrTITIQ'd FOR SP~EEO. BUT~~P-S : ~ , . ~~de the residen ts of th~~ 11th ;filing Vai~l,Colo,r•ado ~Eaal;e County, .do hereby ~reques.t •the TOtY~1. O:F VAI•L ~tyo install' or construct T?NO speed bumps for the safeav ~of our chi~_dren. '!ae specifically re quest that these Sneed ilumps be installed atf~r~ ~about•'2365 _~s~en Lane .and ':295`0 Booth ' Cree?: ~. .. `D~1 VE , • - ,a. - - .. ~1A?:IF ~ SIGiJATURE .,~E')RESS ~ TELEPrIO`1E . 1. ~["t~O..v.~c7~ ~ ~ ~ 2_ ~ bS ~ ~~v VCwt. C6 g I b~ ~' ~ ti" S 1 a ~` - 5 . e., ~~ - ~~ y~ ~ ~,' ~ S<7h 7S`7'2 /'~ .SG ~ .~.. "7 _ ~._ `l~'Iyyy/~/Dyd'~~.. - 7 1 ~ ~ .: .~ ~ y_~~ Cam? __-_ ~. ~ ~. -s`/9~ 14 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ n 8 ~ - 1L . ---~- ~ , "-~ . ~. 4 11 ~7 15. _ _ a: _ r ~ _ o ~ r . _ _ a s h ~$$ _ 17. i ~I ~ • ~ ` i . .. ~ - ~` . - ~ ., .. ,.. .. w .. _ __ l._.. ~ - _ .. .. ' r ' •. • .' i I . i , 1 .. , '. . . ` ~ .. ' k _ ~ ., n ry # i .. .I ~ ~ _ 1 .. .. ~ .. , ~ .. . , ' . . ~ "~a ' I ~I? , . ~ .. i ,' ~ t . . _ .. . ._ ~ ' , b h\ ~ .• ~ . .. ~ ~~ t~ r~+ ~ - t ~ ' ~ 1 ' . ~~ ~' .. .... .S s.ti_ , ._ ~' _ _.. .,_ .. :T .. aii df3 I ` C . r ~~,f ~, _.. . ,. fi t n'I i9 tih~t ~ ~ 5 t ~ ~ ~ r~' 't I y ar ~ ~~ ' ~ ' t h ..' a, 1 ,1. ~ ' y~~ .. I\ i S . J~J _ 4i .3 ~ _ It. '. h I j1 . I ~~q f.. ~. _ ` ~ 1 4 ~ Y '\• .. ~ ... ~. _ A i \ ' ~ ~ ~ * , r ' I ~ r.~ 1 ` ~. : 1 S_ - i ; s. - - . _ LAW OFFICE ,~j'ze~xu ~exCtxt ~u#1ex ~:~x~e~ax~a~x~ P. O. Box 9 G 0 ~x,:cxo~xa~~s F,arle , CO 816 31 TELEPHONE (303) ~$~~Q$F'3 328-7178 Town of Vail Colleen Kline 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Rea Richard Disette (Variance) Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Subdivisio: Dear Colleen: P'!ay this- letter confirm our ~~hone conversation-o~-f"-,F~Iay, 11, 1982, whereby I am asked you to continue the hearin on'the Variance-.,~ application of my client, Disette, from r~iay to to June 1,1932. ~''~-- - Very truly yours , =~------~~..._.__~_., Fredric B. Butler FBB/clc S "// ~~ ~~~ ~ = ,~ ~°' ~~~ ~ ,~ ~9tc~~,,.~.G' Q (/yi e.E a ~~~ ~?~ ~ . ~~ y~,~~ .~ ~~y ~ 7c a ~~~_ /~ s ~~ ~~ CSC ~ J ~~ ~~ ~~y ~~ - MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 17, 1982 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to rezone a part of Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Subdivision from residiential cluster to low density multiple-family. Applicant: Richard M. Torrisi SUMMARY The applicant wishes to up zone the property from Residential Cluter (RC), which would allow one unit on the lot, to Low Density Multiple-Family, (LDMF), which. would allow two units on the lot. _ DESCRIPTION OF .LOT AND SURROUNDING AREA The developable area on this lot is severely constrained by easements and flood- plain. There is a 20 foot parking easement at the front of the lot. On the west.side of the lot a pedestrian easement encroaches 5 feet into the lot. Two feet of the eastern end of the Flussheim building lies in the lot. More than a third of the southern end of the lot is occupied by a pedestrian and utility easement. An existing sewer line is contained in this easement. Approximately 2 200 square feet of this 14,500 square foot lot is taken up by the Gore Creek floodplain. The eastern portion of this lot contains another utility easement. An abandoned foundation sits on top of the sewer easement. Useable Iot area for development is approximately 2,800 square feet. High .density projects exist to the east and west of the lot. Duplex lots appear to the south on the other side of Gore Creek. Interlochen condominiums, with 39 units, is to the east of the lot. To the west is Flussheim condominiums, with 10 units. The frontage road and Interstate 70 are to the north. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The following table compares some of the development statistics for this lot under current zoning and requested zoning: Current Requested .Zoning Zoning Zone RC LDbiF Units Allowed on Lot 1 2 Square Feet of Structure 3,067 3,681 Setbacks Front 20' 20' Sides 15' 20' Height 33' 38' Lot 2, Blk S, Interm. -2- 3/17/82 - Under the requested zoning, the building envelope would be smaller than under the current zoning bacause of the more restrictive side setback requirements in the LDhiF zone. Under the requested LDMF zone the building envelope is 2803 square feet. Under the current zone the building envelope is-3,882 square feet. The current zoning requires two on-site parking stalls; if a duplex were built four stalls would be required. . STAFF RECOi~fENDATION The staff recommends denial of the up zoning request becauue of the physical limitations of the lot and because such a rezoning would be inconsistent with the objectives of the Town, which discourage overcrowding of the land with structures. Two units are not suited for this site. The LDMF zone would allow 617 additional sq. feet of GRFA and would require two additional parking stalls over and above what would be allowed under the RC zone. Given the easements and setback requirements the up zoning would overcrowd the lot. In addition the requested up zoning is inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town. In 1977 the Town Council adopted a growth management policy which substantially down zoned several areas in Vail. In the last few years the Town has also been purchasing land for open space which has removed hundreds of potential units from the market. Also, the zoning code is intended to achieve several purposes, one of them is to "prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures." An increase of density on this lot would be inconsistent with the development goals and objectives of the community. We realize that the lot is surrounded on two sides with higher density units. But this lot is so severely constrained by its small size, small building envelope, setbacks, easements, floodplain and parking requirements that the surrounding high density does not justify the rezoning of the lot. .- JO CAPLE . P.O. Box 1874 ' Uail, Colorado 8165.8 March 15, 1982 Planning Commission Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Rezoning Request of a portion of Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Planning Commission Members: Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting at which this request will be .heard but hope that my objections will be clearly stated in this letter. At present the subject lot is zoned for a single family dwelling and the applicant wishes to obtain a rezoning to allow for a duplex dwelling. My main objection deals with parking and the accessibility of snow plows to enter this area during heavy storms. This section of the Frontage Road (.from Interlochen down to the Holiday Inn) seems to be abandoned by municipal, county and highway entities. According to County Officials, this stretch of South Frontage Road is highway right- of-way and the responsibility of keeping it clear falls on them. Their plows will not come down here because it is too narrow and they don't have a proper turning access. Consequently, individual snow plow companies must.take the responsibility of clear ing the road. They,in turn,are very reluctant to clear the road as they could be fined by the highway department .for interferring. If the applicants` request for rezoning is granted, it is almost guaranteed that four more cars will be added to this already congested area (a minimum of two-cars per. unit). As pointed out in Richard L. DeGette's.letter-of February 25, 1982 to Jim Sayre requesting the rezoning, this section of Intermountain is developed at a density ..far exceeding either cluster or duplex zoning", and a major parking problem is already in existence.- The addition of four plus motor vehicles would. certainly make the situation impossible at best during the winter months. I have seen neither a site plan nor any development plans for the subject lot but feel that more variances would be needed in order to build a duplex structure. What with the flood plain problem to the south, lack of proper frontage,'and possibly a set back problem if the building has to be set up on the knoll, where would the ', "overflow" parking go? Out on, the street, no doubt. ,~ r 4 Planning Commission March 15. 19E2 Page Two At present there is a very hazardous abandoned foundation located on the site. The owner has been requested to remove this foundation by the Building Official. As a point of reference, this foundation was to be removed last summer and as yet no action has beeri taken. In Mr. DeGette's letter he states ..Because of the existing abaondoned foundations on the site, an extreme hardship would be placed on the owners to modify these existing improvements without the ability to build at least a two-unit facility." Basically,this says that they are requesting the rezoning for matters of economic hardship, which in no way should be any justificatior for granting the rezoning. The owner knew the foundation was there and would have to be removed when he bought the lot, In summary, I am firmly opposed to the granting of the rezoning and feel that if granted it would impede traffic flow, increase the problems of snow removal, and would be a granting based on economic hardship. In addition, the building of a duplex structure would most likely open the doors to more variance .requests, Sincerely, J apl~ ~' /, //. H~.BENJAI~IIN DUKE~JR. ggg SOUTH 6ROADWF^Y p p. t30X 5887 DENVER,GOLORADO 80217 \ May 26, 1987 Town Council Vail, Colorado ' Subject: Rega?st for Rezoning Lot t , Vail Viilage Second Filing My residence is located at 187_ West Meadow Lane, Va d V llage to go on record as opposing the rezoning of Lot 1. , Second Filing in accordance ~v~l Codelo I understand that the 1 $. 66.160 of the Vail Municip request is to rezone from Residential Primary/Secondary to Special. Development Dist~11 ~ constru aonlof gve dw lling high density i-nultifamily to units. Nly reason for oppositio nt 1sCommission,pasvw 11 astthehe Planning and Environme Town Council. However, I ~vi.ll again point out that, if allowed, such a further on aeriarea. whicd~.h affo ds the housing density visitor a pleasant and welcome area of open space transition between Vail Village p c°l~~l I~edestroian roate between the knows, this is the p p two commercial cores and. is widely used by visitors and residents in summer and winter alike. In addition, permitting this zoning change would undoubtedly, as it always has in the past, lead to further breakdowns of zoning, with subsequent loss of open space, which is an important and desirable (although rapidly diminishing) aspect of the town of Vail. II would also represent a con- siderable breach of faith ~~rith those early residents of the town who opted to build in this area because of its resi- dential character. Thank you for noting my vigorous and unal.t:erable opposition to this zoning change. Sincerely, -_, ~,~ ~~ H. BENJAMIN DUKE, JR, fi V Q. 999 SOUTH BROADWAY 11__ P. O. BOX 5887 DENVER,COLORADO 80217 May 26, ].987_ Town Council Vail, Colorado Subject: Request for Rezoning Lot 1, Vail Village Second Filing My residence is located at 182. West Meadow Lane, and I wish to go on record as opposing the rezoning of Lot 1, Vail Village Second Filing in accordance with Sections 18. 66. 100 through 1.8. 66.1 60 of the Vail Municipal Code. I understand that the request is to rezone from Residential Primary/Secondary to Special Development District with an underlying zone of high density multifamily to allow construction of five dwelling units. My reason for opposition has been stated previously to the Planning and Environmental Commission, as well as the Town Council. However, I will again point out that, if allowed, such a change of zoning would increase the housing density further in an area which affords the visitor a pleasant and welcome area of open space transition between Vail Village proper and Lionshead. As Council knows, this is the principal pedestrian route between the two commercial cores and is widely used by visitors and residents in summer and winter alike. :fn a.d.dition, permitting this zoning change would undoubtedly, as it always has in the past, lead to further breakdowns of zoning, with subsequent loss of open space, which is an important and desirable (although rapidly diminishing) aspect of the town of Vail. It would also represent a con- siderable breach of faith with those early residents of the town who opted to build in this area because of its resi- dential character. Thank you for noting my vigorous and unalterable opposition to this zoning change. Sincerely, ~~ ~ f, ~ ~". f~ d L 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 MEMORANDUM T0. Bill Pyka FROM: Charlie Wick DATE: May 11, 1982 RE: Mud Slide - W. Gore Creek Drive ~~ T~'" ct ~.~I fi I" ~ C~`~ j I" ~lfv_~, I (~~ ~ l ~ it I ~ i ' i~~ ~~ s .~ ~' On Thursday morning, May 6, I was""called out to a mud slide in West Vail~"~by Pete Burnett. Vail citizens who"were affected by the slide were rather dis- turbed, and Pete asked that I be there as neither Rich, Jon or yourself were available. I spent approximately 12 hours with the affected citizens, mostly listening to them.. The conclusion we decided upon was that the Town would call an informal meeting with them to discuss the recurring problems of mud slides in the area, so that Town officials are well informed of those problems; and to start formulating ideas for the long term solution of the problem, which appears to be one of inadequate drainage. I told the citizens that the Town Manager and the Public Works Director would call this meeting in the near future. I told them it would be as soon as possible, probably the week of May 17-21. Following are the names of the citizens whom I have spoken with and who want to participate in the mee"ti-ng. " 1. ~-~4at~fred Schober ~~'1906 W. Gore Creek Dr. f' 476-3034 2.t-Ro6-ert & Tove Howlett 1916 W. Gore Creek Dr. 476-5820 3. ~1-'Weiss 1905 W. Gore Creek Dr. 476-5850 4.~ Casberg - 476-3328 5. ~~ Irwin - 949-5660 6. ~a Beathune 1906 W. Gore Cree r. 476-3034 c c : R i cFi `Ea-p-l-a~r~' Jon Eberle Larry Eskwith . ,..... ~, ;~~ g~ ~,~ .~~ ' ~ ~ ~~ 1 May 198 v `+~ ~ ~ Members of the Vai ( Town Counci I Vail Colorado ©~~ ~ /i~~ ~PS ~-~ ~ ~~ ,~~, ~ a U //~J,Q ~~ c~ ~ ,~a~ 2 ~GX// ~~ rohab~ ~~ l..c-~ r'~lly .~~' 5 ~` ~C-vrs, J~ S . ....~ ! Dear Counci I Members, I ~ S' ~ v~ ~~~ pr ~lt ~/~ ~~~ s We, the majority of residents of the lower portion:c~f Matterhorn Circle, request that two ~y, speed bumps or dips be installed on our street within the next month. "`':~~~ `z~ ~s ~tu~ You are all, we are certain, acquainted with the heavy traffic load which the street carries, ~o ,~2 ~"~ largely due to the mostly transient group of people living in the Fall Line and Park Meadows jKgq complexes. With no bicycle path, Donovan Park turned. into a dumping ground for Town ..t~ ~ construction projects, and a narrow street with no posted speed limit or even "Slow, ~_. p Children Playing" signs, the Matterhom residential area is a veritable death trap for `~""~~ c h i Idren . rc~ac7~~ We would suggest that bumps or dips would most successfully help control the problems if they were to be installed in front of the second house on lower Matterhom Circle after the bridge and somewhere between the last few houses to the east on the Lower Matterhom loop. If you have questions or would like to confer further about the, placement of the bumps or dips, please contact Florence Habenicht at 47b-0547 or Susan Herzog at 476-2608. We will look forward to hearing from you very soon. Thank you! Sincerely, /~ s ~ '21 - / ~~ J t ~~~, ''~ 1 ~ i (; ~) ~LG'~" I f~'i;..'} n ! 1;i 1 ~~~~` R. 4~.t~ ~ I! ~. t L ~' ` ro I(~ Il ' .~~.~ _h` 4i ~I f .I rte, C f ;! ° ~-!'~ -}~~:s~~ L` _ ~'~~ 1 " `~C. ~. ~~1 ~--4~~ ; -~:~-'1L-~ ~~ _ (~~ ~: ~ ~ ~i 1. `-%; -~~%`~`; ;~; lr~~'~~ i~ ~--- /~"% Vii' ,Ll~`~ !l Cj~ ~;~r ~=~U Ci`~'CL . J ~ ~ t y1/ ? 1 - `~~ / l~ _ ; _( *"/~.~ :~% 1~~ {-~l.~z,_.iL-; ` !.~ ~ ~~. ~°/~ ~ ~I-~ ~Tr.l/'1 ice! ~. ~{ t~ ~, ~, ~= ~ ~~ Addendum to letter and petition of 1 May 1982 Dear Counci I Members, ~~ In the second paragraph of the aforementioned letter, we stated that there were no speed limit ~; or caution signs on lower Matterhorn Circle. In the past week, to our great pleasure, we saw some of these signs installed, including one "Stow=Chi Idren" sign ~fac'ing west. Unfortunately, during the ten days or so that the. signs have been installed, we have observed that they have very little effect on people speeding up and down theroad to and from the Fall Line area. This further emphasizes. the need for actual physical impediments to the speeders -- speed bumps or.dips. We would go so far as to say that the concerned residents would be willing to do part of the labor in digging the dips if there seems to be a lack of money in the budget this year. Please authorize the construction of these important safety measures before June arrives and the chi Idren are out of school ! Sincerely, ~~ ~=~,~, 'Sfisan erzog ~ Florence Habenicht 476-2608 J 476-0547 ~~ iKei~ J . ~ttnDEnberge Attorney at Law _''rd~7c:'~M ' ~ ~' "I fi2S Lawrence -Suite 433 Denver, Colorado (30202 May 21, 1982 Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County Attention: Beth Whittier, County Attorney P. 0. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Town Council of the Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Board of Directors Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District 0145 Avon Road Avon, Colorado 81620 Board of Directors, Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Board of Directors, Vail Village West Water and Sanitation District 0145 Avon Road Avon, Colorado 81620 Board of Directors, Vail Intermountain Water District 0145 Avon Road Avon, Colorado 81620 Gentlemen: Phone: 623-3633 This letter is written on behalf of the Claimant to give notice pursuant to 24-10-109, CRS '73, as amended. The name and address of the Claimant is as follows: Helga Bethune 1906 West Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Tha name and address of the Claimant's atturney is Keith J. Vandenberge, 1825 Lawrence, Suite 433, Denver, Colorado 80202. The basis of the claim is damage to Claimant's property described as Lot 15, Highland Meadow Subdivision, Filing No. 8, as a result of 2 approval of Highland Meadows Subdivision by the Board of County Cornmissioners of Eagle County in approximately May, 1978, issuance of a building permit to Doug Bitetto at an unknown. date for con- struction of a residence in Highland Meadows Subdivion, flooding and earth slide on or about March 8, 1982, above 1916 Gore Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado, and a further flooding and mud slide on or about May 6, 1982, at the same approximate location, and improper main- tenance of the public road, thereby denying Claimant a means of ingress and egress to her property. The nature of the injury to the real property of Claimant is a continuing trespass to real property and water acid mud damage on or about March 8 and May 6, 1982. Further, Claimant has been denied access to her property. The value of Claimant's real estate has been diminished in value as a result of the acts and omissions of al.l entities to whom this notice is given. The specific names and addresses of any public employees involved are not known. The amount of monetary damages requested is $500,000. Yours ~ery uly, r '~ C~z-~,~~~ KE ~ V ~ DENBERGE (~ KJV/fhb 4923 EAST 49TH STREET ~~~ ~°°-r 4! 1 ~.s~ MAY 13, 1982 TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN OF VAIL ATTN: MRS. COLEEN KLINE TOWN CLERK 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE OWN AN APARTMENT IN,THE LODGE AT LIONSHEAD PHASE III. THEREFORE WE ARE VERY CONCERNED WITH THE LOCATION OF A TEEN CENTER IN THE NEW TOWN LIBRARY RATHER THAN EMPLOYEE HOUSING. CHANGING THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE LIBRARY TO A TEEN CENTER WILL CREATE NOISE POLLUTION AND LARGE FOOT TRAFFIC BETWEEN US AND THE LIBRARY. WE FEEL THESE PROBLEMS WILL HAVE ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR PROPERTY FROM BOTH A PERSONAL USAGE AND FINANCIAL POINT OF VIEW. WE DID NOT OPPOSE THE BOND ISSUE BASED ON REPRESENTP;TION MADE TO NEIGHBORS THAT NOISE AND FOOT TRAFFIC WOULD BE AT A MINIMUM DUE TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LIBRARY. AFTER PASSAGE OF THE BOND ISSUE WITH LIMITED PUBLIC NOTICE THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CHANGED THE EFFECTIVE USAGE OF THE LIBRARY FROM EDUCATION TO TEENAGER ENTERTAINMENT. AS ABSENTEE OWNERS IN VAIL UIE LOOK TO YOU THE TOWN COUNCIL TO PRO- TECT OUR INTEREST AS WELL AS FULL TIME RESIDENTS. IT IS UNFAIR TO EVERY VAIL CITIZEN FOR THE USE OF A BOND ISSUE PROJECT TO BE CHANGED IMMEDIATELY AFTER PASSAGE. THEREFORE WE REQUEST THE COUNCIL DISAPPROVE THE REVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS TO A "TEEN CENTERrr. VERY TRULY YOU , J.H.WHITAKER PRESIDENT HORNET OILc.CO. "~~ (y~~!~ AREA CODE 918 • 622-4166 __ p r~ /1 p /~ /~ HOR,rUEi~iIL COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 35347 • TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74135 :__....~ JW/RB CC: FAIRFIELD & WOODS UNIT OWNERS -~ FAIRFIELD AND WOODS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW CHARLES J.BEISE G OLDING FAIRFIELD (1886-1972) ROYAL C. RUBRIGHT 1600 COLORADO NATIONAL BUILDING JAMES A. WOODS (1898-1973) GEORGE C. KEELY MARY E.BRIC KNER 950 SEVENTEENTH STREET KEVIN B. PRATT CHARLES E.MATHESON ~ DANIEL R. FROST PETER F. BREITENSTEIN D EN V ER, CO LORADO 80202 DARRELL G. WAAS C HAR LTON H.CARPENTER MARY JO GROSS PATRICK F. KENN EY ROBERT A."H OLM ES BRUCE B.JOHNSON TELEPHONE (303) 534-6135 ROBERT C. FIS HER,JR. HOWARD HOLME JOHN J. SILVER JAMES L. STONE JOAN E. SOMMERFELD MICHAEL M. Mc KINSTRY ~ THOMAS P. KEARNS WIL LIAM R.NEFF May 11, 1982 ROCCO A.DODSON JAMES R. BLACK JAC K.SPER LING Mr. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor, and Town of Vail Council Members: Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Bill Wilto Gail Wahrlich Ron Todd Paul Johnson Hermann Staufer Chuck Anderson Gentlemen and Ms. Wahrlich: Re: Proposed Teen Center We represent the following individuals: Mr. Ronald Erickson; Dr. and Mrs. Judy W. Jones; Mr. Waldir Prado; Mr, and Mrs. Charles C. Myers; Mr. and Mrs. Frank Cicero, Jr.; Mr, and Mrs. Don Erft- mier; Mr. and Mrs. John Fermanis; Mr. Roberto Campenzano, Mr. J. Manuel Zevada Castanares; Mr. John Whitaker; Mr. and Mrs, Irvin H. DeLatte; and Mr. and Mrs.. Edward J. Hussey. The majority of the families just named have owned their condominiums at The Lodge at Lionshead Phase-III since they were first built in 1977. They originally acquired this property because the location was the best residential site in Vail. Our clients' pride of ownership is evidenced by the well maintained and finely appointed building and grounds. A conservative estimate of the value of Lionshead Phase III would be in the range of $6,000,000. Over the last few years our clients have seen the construction of the Joh Hobson Tce Arena and the public parking facility in the Lionshead area and have welcomed these necessary additions to the Town of Vail without objection,. even though each may have resulted in some increased traffic and noise in the area. As you know, Lionshead consists of twelve separate units, all of which have balconies or patios facing the south from which the beautiful view to the southeast is unobstructed. The grounds at Lionshead consist of a year-round pool, a pond, and well cared for lawns,. shrubs and trees between the building and the bike path. FAIRFIELD AND WOODS Mayor and Council Members Town of Vail May ll, 1982 Page Two The Town of Vail library approved by the voters on April 6, 1982, will be located immediately adjacent to Lionshead Phase III. The library itself will somewhat interfere with the view from the patios and balconies of some of the owners of Lionshead and will further increase the overall traffic and noise in the area. The owners of Lionshead have not objected to the library, knowing that an expanded library was a necessary and worthwhile addition to the Town of Vail. Recently, however, our clients have become aware that the town intends to use the library in part as a "teen center." The "teen center," according to Mr. Steve Patterson, will consist of a room with video games and a pool table located in the southwest basement corner of the library. The teen center will have a sepa- rate entrance from the library, which will be on the west side of the library directly facing Lionshead Phase III. The teen center will have an outdoor patio, also adjacent to Lionshead Phase III. The location of the entry to the teen center will force foot traffic to the teen center from the street between the two build- ings. This will most certainly create a severe noise problem for the occupants of Lionshead Phase III. The owners of Lionshead Phase III, therefore, strenuously oppose the use of the library for a teen center and, on their behalf, we urge you to consider the following: 1. The-Bond Election. At the bond election on April 6, 1982, the funding of the library was approved by a very small vote. It was not until after that election that the owners first learned of the plans to use a .portion of the library as a teen center. Indeed, announcements in the VAIL TRAIL prior to the bond election did not make refer- ence to the teen center. Our clients did not rally opposition to the library, assuming that the normal and customary use was in- tended. If the planners had publicized the fact that the funds were to be used in part for a teen center, substantial opposition would have resulted which might have changed the outcome of the election altogether. We do not believe that a full and fair dis- closure of the intended use of the library funds was made prior to the election. We do not believe that the voters could have reasonably anticipated such a use in connection with the library. We don't know whether or not the Project Manager knew prior to the bond election that the teen center would be included in the FAIRFIELD AND WOODS Mayor and Council Town of Vail May 11, 1982 Page Three Members library and failed to disclose that fact. In any event, to in- clude that use now without an opportunity for the voters to approve this use of municipal funds is unfair and may constitute an unauthorized and illegal use of those funds. 2. Combination Library - Teen Center. Generally speaking, a library is a place for retreat, study, research, and quiet -all functions which seem quite at odds with a teen center, whose purpose is to provide a wholesome atmosphere for young people to socialize and recreate; in short, a safe place to let off steam. We believe that the two purposes are vastly different and that an effort to combine the two will re- sult in conflicts and in a limitation of the value and usefulness of both the library and, the teen center. Apparently, the need to-make the change resulted from the decision to tear down the existing teen center. We are by this letter requesting Mr. Patten to provide us with copies of the studies undertaken by his office for other locations for the teen center, as well as bids or estimates on the cost of moving the present teen center to a different location. The library buidling is on an.:extremely valuable piece of ground and the building itself is extremely expensive. The use of a substan- tial portion of the library as a teen center may not be an economically justifiable one. The Planning Commission approved the change partially with the idea that having the teen center in the library would expose Vail's young people to the benefits of the library. However, the Librarian advises that she does not desire a common entry- way for the teen center and the library and, therefore, the pre- sent plan, which provides for a separate entry, is not consistent with the idea of exposing the teens to the library. If the notion of exposing the teen-tigers to the benefits of the library by in- cluding a teen center in the library has validity, then there should be a common entrance. We believe, however, that there should be expert testimony for the basic theory that teen-tigers will be benefited by locating a place of recreation in a library. We noted that at their last meeting the Planning Commission sug- gested that it would be benefited by expert testimony on that subject. FAIRF'IELD AND WOODS Mayor and Council Members Town of Vail May 11, 1982. Page Four The twelve families affected and will continue to be solid and We believe their opposition is we ponsible, and we request on their make every effort to relocate the compatible with the overall good. by the teen responsible 11-founded, behalf that teen center center have been residents of Vail. sincere, and res- the Town of Vail to a location more PFK:rk. Very t ours, ~" 6i~ ~~/ of FAIRFIELD AND WOODS cc: Mr. Peter Patten, Town Planner Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith, Assistant Town Attorney :.~~, ICI RICLAN D 8, ELLIS Denver Office 1625 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80202 303 628-3000 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telex 25-4361 312 861-2000 Washington Office 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington,D.C.20006 202 857-5000 To Call Writer Direct 312861- 2216 May 10, 1982 Town Council, Town of Vail Attention: Mrs. Colleen Kline Town Clerk 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Town of Vail Library/Conditional Use Revisions Gentlemen: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed revision to the Conditional Use Permit for the Town of Vail Library. The proposed change to use the lower level on the west side of the library as a "teen center" rather than for three employee residences as originally approved will be a substantial adverse change which greatly affects my property and others to the west of the library. I am the owner of an apartment in the Lodge at Lionshead on the second floor in the southeast corner of the Phase III building (360 E. Lionshead Circle). My apartment looks directly over the site of the new library. The west wall of the library will be some 35 feet southeast of our windows, deck and building. The west side of the library will face us directly and substantially affect our view to the southeast and east. Use of the west side. of the library for a teen center will seriously impact our property which is just a few feet to the west. If you examine the site you can readily see that access to the teen center will be a narrow land corridor in a gulley between the west side of the library building and our property. Users of the teen center will be concentrated in that narrow area. There will un- doubtedly be noise, congestion, litter and other undesirable results. KIRKLAND 8, ELL1S Town Council, Town of Vail -2- May 10, 1982 In addition to the fact that the .proposed use of the library property for the teen center is an unwise one, the process by which the City obtained approval of the bond issue for the library, including the residential units, and then immediately thereafter first issued any public notice of this proposed use for a teen center is extremely unfair and perhaps unlawful. It is obvious that town staff delayed issuing any public notice of this proposed change until after the library bond issue was approved. The failure to publicize this change in advance. so that the unwise use of this property could be fully debated and discussed prior to the bond issue was wrong. As you know, bond issues can be overturned. The process by which this bond issue was passed, while withhold- ing public announcement of this proposed change, I believe is subject to legal challenge and puts in jeopardy the bond issue. You should understand that I support the proposal to build the library as long as it does not include the teen center. Early in 1981 I had several meetings with Rich Caplan and Dick Ryan. We discussed certain undesirable impacts which I and other owners believed the library would have on our property. Those concerns were also expressed by other property owners. After those discussions, Mr. Ryan agreed to certain revisions in the treatment of the roof of the library, the west exterior wall, and also to certain landscaping improvements to lessen the detrimental impact of the library. During those discussions, Messrs. Caplan and Ryan assured us that the use of the west side apartments for employee units would not .create noise and traffic flow of people in that area. They pointed to the small size of the apartments and the very limited number of residents who would require access to those west side units. The new teen center proposal does exactly the contrary. it assures crowds, noise, congestion and disruption in that location. KIRKLAND 8. ELLtS Town Council, Town of Vail -3- May 10, 1982 I do not wish to hold up the building of the library as approved in the bond issue. On the other hand, I do not want to see the library go ahead if it includes a teen center with access from the exterior on the west side of the building. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved these revisions to the Conditional .Use Permit by a 3-1-1 vote despite serious concerns expressed about these procedures by several commissioners who nevertheless voted for the proposal.. I urge the council to recognize these concerns and to disapprove the proposed revisions so that the library can move ahead promptly as proposed and voted on at the public referendum. Since ly you , F ank Cicero FC/sl i. } 1 . ~ T .. ... /A'/-~~ ~p,'~D `~r~~. ,, ~ FAIR_FIELD AND WOODS ~. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW GOLDING fAIiJ FIELn hrJP6~19721 CHARLCS J. BEI. ;; % ~ 1600 COLORADO NATIONAL 13UILDING• JAMES A.WOODS UOUB~19 i3) ROYAL C.RUB;tIGHT G EORCac c. r.EELY ~ g50 SEVENTEENTH STREET KEVIN B. PRATT MARY E. bRICeNEH DANIEL R. FRO~7 C/fARLES E.MATH ESON DENVER, COLORADO 130202 DARR ELL c. wnAs PETER F. OREITEN STEIN MARY JO GRO55 C HA RLTON H. CARPEIJT ER ~ ~. ROBERT A. HOLM ES PATRICK F. Y.ENNEY 7JSON TELEPHONE (303) 534.E135 ~ ROBERT C. FISHLIJ,JR. SILV ER JOHN J BRUCE B.JOH HOWARD HOLME . JOAN E.SOtq IA ERFELD JA/A ES L. STONE ~ THOMAS P. KEARt75 fAICHAEL M. Mr KIIJST RY ~ T pr~ 1 2 8 , 1 J O 2 L] ROCCO A. UODSON WILLIAM R.NEFF JAMES R. BLACK JAC K.SPER LING ~ ~ Town Council, Town of Vail Attention: Mrs. Colleen Kline Town Clerk 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: Re: Town of Vail Librar On April 26, 1982, the Planning and Environmental Commission conditionally approved a revision to the previously approved con- ditional use. permit plan for the Town, of Vail library, by which the lower level on the west side of the proposed. library will be used as a "teen center" rather than for three employee units as origizzally proposed and approved. We represent The Lodge at Lionshead Phase III Condominium Association, which is immediately adjacent to the west of the proposed library. We are, by this letter, appealing from the decision of the Planning and Environ- mental Commission and requesting that the Town Council consider the matter at the next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting . or at such other time as the Council deems appropriate. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly o rs, ~~~~ ~ :.; • of ' FAIRFIELD AND WOODS PFIC.: rk cc: 1`4r. Peter. Patten, Town Planner Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith, Assistant Town Attorney .. ~~ ~, ~~, ~--~- ~ G~ C"i~~ ~~~..~ May 13, 1982 Town Council Town of Vail Attention: Mrs. Colleen Kline, Town Clerk 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 85617 Re: Town of Vail Library/Teen Center Gentlemen: My wife, Mariana, and I are the owners of Unit No. 12 in the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III. It has come to our attention that the previous proposal by the Town of Vail to construct a library on the land immediately adjacent to the Phase III building has recently been amended to change the use of the basement area of the proposed library from four employee housing units to a teen center. We would, by this letter, like to voice our formal objection and remonstrance to such change. The original library proposal which included the much needed employee housing was a use consistent with and complimentary to the adjacent property. We are advised that that use has now been altered to utilize the basement area as a teen center with the entrance for the teen center immediately adjacent to the Phase III property. The change, we are advised, was made after the bond issue for the library building had already been approved and no notice of such change was provided to us. The change itself represents the fundamental change of the basement area from a residential use to an obvious recreational use. While you may not believe that such a change is meaningful, I believe that under most zoning ordinances such a change would require a comprehensive hearing process. It is our opinion that utilization of the basement area for a teen center is not in the best interest of the adjacent property owners nor in the best interest of the Town of Vail. We register our objections and remonstrance and request that the Town reconsider this use and utilize normal legal channels for approval of such change which would allow adjacent property owners and other interested individuals the opportunity to voice their opinions. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, EDWARD J. HUSS LAW OFFICES COSGRIFF, DUNN & FRENCH, {~ C. P. O. BOX 340 VAIL,COLORADO 81658 PETER COSG RIFF (303) 476-7552 JOHN W. DUNN ROBERT H. S. FRENCH STEPHEN C. WEST TIMOTHY H. BERRY DAVID H. MILLER p ARTHUR A.ABPLANALP, JR. May 12, 1902 JOHN B. WOOD. Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County Attention: Beth Whittier, County Attorney P. O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Town Council of the Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Board of Directors Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District 0145 Avon Road Avon, Colorado 81620 Board of Directors, Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Board of Directors, Vail Village West Water and Sanitation District 0145 Avon Road Avon, Colorado 81620 Board of Directors, Water District 0145 Avon Road Vail Intermountain Avon, Colorado 81620 Gentlemen: LEADVILLE OFFIC E~ P. O. BOX II LEADVILL E,COLO RADO 80461 (3031 466-1885 BRECKEN RIDGE OFFICE P. O. BOX 588 BR ECGKEN RIDG E,CO LORADO 80424 (303) 453-2901 This letter is written on behalf of the Claimants to give notice pursuant to C.R.S. 2.4-10-109 (1973), as amended. follows: The names and addresses of the Claimants are as Robert G. Howlett Tove Howlett 1916 W. Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 ~„ Helga Beathune 1906 W. Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Albert D. Weiss 1905 W. Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Jeanne T. Popovits 1905 W. Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 The name and address of the Claimants' attorneys are Cosgriff, Dunn & French, P. C., Drawer 340, Vail, Colorado 81658, Attention: John W. Dunn. The basis of the claim of the Claimants is approval of Highland Meadows Subdivision by the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County in approximately May, 1978, issuance of a building permit to Doug Bitetto at an unknown date for construction of a residence in Highland Meadows Subdivision, flooding and earth slide on or about March 8, 1982, above 1916 Gore Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado, and a further flooding and mud slide on or about May 6, 1982, at the same approximate location. The nature of the injury to the real property of Claimants is a continuing trespass to real property and water and mud damage on or about March 8 and May 6, 1982. Further, the residence of Robert G. Howlett and Tove Howlett has been structurally damaged. The value of all real estate of the Claimants located at the addresses shown above has been diminished in value as a result of the acts and omissions of all entities to whom this notice is given. The specific names and addresses of any public employees involved are not known. The amount of monetary damages requested is $5,000,000.00. Yours very truly, Joh W. Dunn JWD:kem L~~ ~'r~~ ~a~. PETER LOOMS a AIA ARCHITECTURE PLANNING 4269 NUGGET LANE VAIL, COLORADO 81658 (303) 476-3122 21 April 1982 The Pdanager, Members of Council Town of Vail As a practicing architect I am certain that a design review process can be of real value to a community like Vail. In the case of the proposed "R.omness House" something went awry - I really appreciate the time you people took to hear our appeal. Tha s very much, Peter Looms .AIA PL: tcw ec: Dr. Ken Romness Bob Ruder s' Edward J. Hussey Martin Manor Drive en, Indiana 46526 ~~ '~ 4' ~.: .__.. .~-m.~.,,~ Y ......_ i 3 M by /~ '°- `"ua sn'°.,- - ..:.A ~~~ __~, ~ ._ Town Council Town of Vail Attention: Mrs. Colleen Kline, Town Clerk 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 85617 town of rai box 100 vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5613 April 15, 1982 T0: TOWP~ COUNCIL department of community development FROM: Department of Community Development/Peter Jamar RE: Appeal of a Design Review Board Decision of a Secondary Unit on Lot 26, Block 7 Regarding' the Addition Vaii Village 1st Filin At their April 7 meeting the Design Review Board disapproved an application for the addition of a secondary unit to an existing building located on Forest Road. Section 18.54.070, Subparagraph F of the Zoning Code states that "In residential areas, accessory buildings generally should be attached to the main building either directly or by means of a continuous fence, wall, or screen at least six feet high of the same or a complementary material as the main building's exterior finish." The Design Review Board by a vote of 4-2 ( 1 abstention) disapproved the request for the addition on the basis that the proposal did not meet this provision and that there was not an adequate attachment between the two structures. The applicant, Peter Looms the architect for the project, has appealed the decision and the Council will need to either uphold or overturn the Design Review Board's decision. The applicant will present the .plans at your April ~ meeting. i t fig. C~,~ / 4D~~ a ~~ ~- ~~Fs2~~~l ~~~~%f~l~1Sf ~ti I~'~~. ~ _~_ _ __ ~~ ~~ ~: 1. d +, _ ~~~ - ~~ -- -- -- - --- - -- ~,,s ~ _~m - - ~-- - ~.~,,, Cv~' ' ,~ ~ --- - ----- ~I- `ss_ a-- ---- -- - --- --- G~ ~, p~,~' "~ -- - - - - J"" - --- -- ~~ _ a.~..~...... - - ~~ C NORTHWEST COLORADO 1 V V COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Holiday Center Building, Suite 200 -~ Post Office Box 739 ~- Frisco, Colorado 80443 ~ Frisco 303 668-5445 Denver Direct 303 573-7611 March 26, 1982 Richard Caplan Town Manager Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Rich: Enclosed please find the invoice for your 1981 committment to Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' (NU~CCOG) Regional Multi Modal Transportation Study. At last, we received the signed contract (attached) from. the U.S. Department of Transportation. As you recall,. this was the last committment needed to complete the fuxiding package for this study. Now, we can begin: to work. to improve trans- portation service to and within NWCCOG's region. Thank you for your continued support and study. We also appreciate your immediate enclosed invoice. Sincerely, Ann (Miss ) Ober Natural Resources Planner AMO/ms Enclosures committment to this attention to the Eagle County: Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff, Vail, -~ Grand County: Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs, Kremmling, Winter Park, -~ Jackson County: Walden, ~ Pitkin County: Aspen, Snowmass Village, ~ Routt County: Hayden, Oak Creek, Steamboat Springs, Yampa, Summit County: Blue River, Breckenridge, Dillon, Frisco, Silverfhorne. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Box 739 Frisco, Colorado 80443 Date 3/22/82 To Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 0 ~7t~t~~e~t . Please detach and return upper portion with your remittance. $ $l, 000.00 )0 ~l9uD~v~ GRAYLINE FORM a<591 2-VARY Your Check is Your Receipt B 19]< • PRINTED IN U.S.A. a.,. rT'.NDARD FCRM 1~, ;LILY . I C06 ~~ - ~ GENERAL seRVlces ADMIr~1E,;RATUDN ':WARD/CONTRACT FFD. PROC. REG IRICFR; t.~t0 101 ~ , PAeE i oF~ ~ ' I CONTRACTlYror. hlrl. (Jt,x.r .ti0 I. EfFECTrvE DATE I7. 2EO11151Tpn~~-~,~RCNASE REOVEST~PROIECT NO R. CERTIFIED fOR NATIpNA( DEFENSE UNDER BDSA TDSS_9-82-C-0001 :': 12/28/81 . - .. _ _ DTf?S 59-8t-R-OG1 REG. 2 AND;OR pM5 REG I.' TI I R , ._ _,_ . _ ~_ 5 ISSUED 8Y .._ .._. -- --- -- -----~--~---~-- (.IIUi; _-._._-i C ADMiN15'ERED B~ i A NG: ------ ~-- - I)1)! I _ .. :I ~ -C~ ( ` _. _ . _ __ U.F. Cena:-trr.era of ~'rsrisportatior./CS rfF •uhrr r;..v ',,,E tj . EII iERv ~ _."', --~----7 FGB;.:S?1 °roct.:rer..ent C~ -restions r: T.+_!'3 lvision, ~ i~ N4i'CN L ~1,, cP,7e.,}~, ~±rea±, S?`/: =oon ol'~+ I J ,' ~ or~ER ~<r ': %~s'}i^_~on rC 21~59G' I ~ ^''rl•r,, e. CONTRACTOR (U!>h.`I ~ ~ NAME AND ADDRESS ------------- l' I(.Il.l!}' (iJ(JF __-_ __ ---- ------------ -- `~ D~SCOUNT FOR PAO `e PT ~a L..ENi_.__ ... ( tiTorth~aest Colorado Council of ~ Governments /11rrrl. .:h, p• ~• Ros 739 ~ . """"' "`"r' Frisco, Colorado 80443 .,nd irr ,->.~r, ATTV: Thomas Glass, Executive Director 10 SUBMIL INVOICES I. .~.prt~ ,~r!,,, .r~y.,y,. f ~prr rhrd/ i0 ADDAESS Sr+O'tvN IN BLOCK. _ rll -5!iIP TO .~~ARK FOR r'1(>!i i ` t1FT'1Ce Or Asst. St'CretcirV fOT f;pV~.- ~f l 12 PAth1ENT `.ti'Ill 3E .MADE BY I ~ - ..-- -"_ - - _. _.. __ .. .. .---- _-_- . r ~rl )f ~ - : La ~«00 nth St., >.?d. Vim. 104f15 r3i C ?'~+~gr+-^-ark- Or l_~ ~ - _ ^ '- - -- -~,•O'~a:~r,,,/.~,.•,. ~bll_.[I?tVn, L~.l.. ~~i7y~ . T re caul Rasm>_issen ;,1" ~,p'vr'-~+ _ ,..p,.~ . _ _._ ___ _ ;as:-:i^ -- ~T ~C. ~C`~'- ~ ..~_ ., , 'I I ' _ 13 iH15 ooOCU?EMENT wAS ~ ADVERiISED, ~ N ..- - --' - EGOTiATED, PURSUANT 'O -- -~ 10 U 5 C ? 30a ml ! - -. .. _.. .. _ ._.._... _. - K~ RI' U:S.C. 252 ;cl(L~ a ACC.OUNT'NG AND APPRO PRIATICN DAiA .. - --_.____.___.___ _.__._- _, ___. _ ..__-________ . -.... __-_. .__________.-_ ?1 tOTAI AMOUNT OF CONTRACT S ZO Q~Q F-=P __ _ ____ _ Co.``7R.Cl7:~G UF/-7CF.X .u'(LL. CU.~iPf.F.TF f3L~c1." ?_> OK 'G ~.11 .IPY[ l C 111! E ~ -r ?2 ` ~ ~ CONiRACiGR $ NEG011A1E0 AGREEMENT l(. n,r lrq, rnr iF rr;/urrrd rv i Rn fhfr dn, run rnf ..nJ rr/u rn__"-_ropur fo tram uB a~ir.J Connoctor agrees ro larn~th and Ael~rer gall ale m,'ur pulorm all ih• rer.~c er vet lorth or orh er..,p .denhe~ed above and on on Y c?nnn,;anon theca for the canudvonon noted herein, the nghrr ~rnd abL yar~om of the gamer ro rh~r ca nrr oct rhall be iublect ro and qo•- er..ed by the lollo.o,nq documeti: raj rhn a•.ard/conrra0, !b( the wGoronon, .f any, I and 'c1 ruch pro•~r~onr, repro+e nrahont, cerh 6c on nn., and rpec~~can oar, or are I ocned o. ~~corpo.ared by relvrence herein. /.1 rt~rhmrnff .r rr lnrrr! !•r rr,n.) I - . _ .--__--_- _ __ _ i 20 ~ A'NARD (( ~rt fr.xfni n not rryunn/ fn vgrt fhn JorumrnL/ Your nee' 1 on Soharo r~on Number I including rt.e odd~h onr or <nonget mode by you rhi<h oddirione or chop get ..r• tee forth .n 1•,rl ~ above, ~r Mreby accepted ar ro rh• ~remt lyred above and ort ony conhnuoHOn rheen Thu a.•ord cones mmorer rh• contract wh,ch conrrrr~ of the foilo..~nq do<u manrr ion ~ the Gowrnmenr'r rohurahon and yov oRer, and (b( Mir- award /conlra ct rb ( Iur1Mr conlra cfval docu menr Sr necsuory. ! . 27 BT NAME OF CONTRACTOR ~ r-^-""""" ~"._ ~ __.___~~ G~i~ A (.r,?S ~ a~ ( l ~ iS~gnan,re of parson our one -to r~gnl -- ~- -----~---- ~ 27. UNITED STAtES OF~A/rtERICA ~//" - ~ By (~"_il' ~ 1 ji ~ l f \. ~_-_,~ 1 ~-L~ ~ r ~~~ t1 t i I -T------ -- \~ \~ \ \ " \~ i f{ 2~. NAMF ANO iITIE OF SIGNER ~ -- -__- ! I spr or prrrtf) 25. DATE SIGNED ~S~gnarure of Conrracunq OF~er1 ---- ! -_-____.____._ ____ 2B NAME Of OGNiRACiING GFHCER ((~ r u -- P 'r D"' ) ~29 DATE Sitar. ED AR 1 4 198 ;MAR 1 5 198? Lin,.±a `?. ~ ischer .. .. ._ . i R~-(»-12-15.03.03-1300-2590 520,000 ~ ------ -- ,s , -------------- - :TEM w0 16, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I SUPPLIES%SERvICES ~ ~ OUANTIiY I IB I 19 ~ 2', '`-' '-"' -• i I UNIT I UNIT PRICE j 4WCUhf .. ., sr , rr° I :\ comprehensive :-1>viltimodal transoorr.ation i , plannine study ~~rhich focuses on the pronlem of i r~oor intra-city transportation s~-stems in a ! ~ i I _ar2e rural area., i ' i , L1UT .tihare S~O,GI~O E~UD Share ~ ~12~r)00 I -thee Participants $60,659 I Tota Value ~ ~ $92,659 1 I.H. D~LATT~ P.O. Box 53949 Lafayette, Louisiana 70505 Telephone 318/981-1335 May 14, 1982 The Honorable Robert Slifer Mayor, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Town of Vail Library/Conditional Use Revisions Dear Mr. Slifer: ~Q'~. M~'f Ill 1982 ~~; 1'°i~~0x ~e5... ~.. i,f k:'t`~s l.i 'u'b~(.~~i.;#y't) As president of the Lodge at Lionshead-Phase III Condominium Association and owner of Unit 11, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed Teen Center for the same reasons outlined in Mr. Pat Kinney's leter of May 11, 1982, Mr. Charles C. Myer's letter of May 6, 1982, and Mr. Frank Cicero's letter to the Planning Commission on April 21, 1982. Also, I would like to point out a few facts of events between the Town of Vail and the Lodge at Lionshead, Phase III, during the last several years. The Town, in my opinion, has been very inconsistent in complying with agreed to procedures relative to the Lodge at Lionshead-Phase III on several projects. For instance, I attended a town council meeting along with Mr. Jim Martin relative to the Lionshead parking structure. We did not oppose the structure knowing well the needs of the Town of Vail. However, we were concerned about the southern appearance of the parking structure. We were advised at the meeting that a landscaped hill between the parking structure and Lionshead Circle Road would be high enough so that the building structure would not be seen while walking at street level. The end result is that the unlandscaped hill is very low so that the building structure is very visible at street level and the lights from the parking structure are very objectionable- and greatly detract from our northern view from the Lodge at Lionshead-Phase III building. Another issue between the Town of Vail and the Lodge at Lionshead-Phase III is the bike path. We communicated with the Town of Vail for many years. At one point in time the Town of Vail advised us that the bike path would be removed from our property during the summer installation of additional sewerage. The bike path was removed one summer for additional sewerage construction, but it was not removed from our property. This issue remains to be settled at a later date. At a previous meeting regarding the library, Mr. Jim Martin and I attended on behalf of the Lodge at Lionshead-Phase III. At that time, we were concerned about the closeness of the library and the western view of the library. We were advised by the Town of Vail that they would make the western view as attactive as possible and that the proposed housing units would not present any problem to the Lodge at Lionshead-Phase III. However, after the library was approved by the voters, the planning commission approved a change from the housing units to a teen center. The entrance of this Teen Center will be from the western side of the library and will replace the previous approved housing units. A teen center in this location is very objectionable to the Lodge at Lionshead-Phase III and we request that the Town of Vail reject the planning commission's previously approved teen center. Based on the contents in this letter, it is my . --.~-,~- _--.~p,r~:~~?---tY1at t_h_P4Town of Vail has a total disregard as to the Town's effect on our property at the Lodge at Lionshead-Phase III. I propose that the Town not compound this injustice by allowing the proposed Teen Center as approved by the planning commission to be built. Sincerely, I. H. DeLatte, President The Lodge at Lionshead Phase III Condominium Assoc. IHD:blt a ~ 3 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE April 28, 1982 Mr. Richard Kaplan Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South ,Frontage Road Vail,. CO 81657 RE: City Council Hearing for Zoning Application on Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, Richard M. Torrisi, Applicant Dear Mr. Kaplan: This is to confirm and formalize that we have been scheduled fora 7:30 p.m. Town Council Meeting to hear the above-referenced Zoning Application heard before the Planning Commission on March 22, 1982. This letter is being sent to you at the request of Betsy of the Town Planning Commission Office who told me by telephone today that we were scheduled for the May 18 meeting. Please confirm at your earliest convenience and/or inform me if there is any change necessary. Thank you for your consideration. ' cerely, Richard M. Torrisi c: Richard DeGette ONE PARK CENTRAL ~ 1515 ARAPAHOE STREET ~ DENVER, COLORADO 80202 • PHONE (303) 292-3700 an /~~ company ~-~ DAVID K. FOSTER, D.D.S., Ltd. ~.f/~2 c.> ~2 .' Z ,~.~-1 w.e. ~.-r/~ ~.r/ 2E~o....rE 7~ T/1~' CC.t~Ii~/!~ e ~ cLp.f/Ol/~Jrv ~J ,Gi•~i C .•,~ ~ ~~' ~~~, ~ ~l ~-s/ .~-~if'l`i /r ~i,'o_ v ~ ~ Y~ ~ ~w,~/ ~ L .ta P2 /ZES~1,fiv ,r/~ ~c~~ f _._- S i rll~ ~ C~.~-c%r/p ~ ~ ~cv~i~r/ ~ l/•Qr ~ ~~ 7.i~oq~-' ~-n!~ ~~~ ~ dit/ 42 ~Norio.v.'S / ~ ~L ~iCT./~j.v E ~~ S4~9f }~/~OVif/~~f' Ldi // ~~~ / ~~F~ timvR~ S ~£it/ i~ FieL' ~' i~ 316 NORTH GREAT NECK ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23454 TELEPHONE 340-8852 JOSEPH BERENBAUM MANDEL BERENBAUM PETER R. BORNSTEIN HOWARD B. CELT CHARLES P. LEDER EDWiN G. PERLMUTTER CHARLES A.HEWLEY MARSHALL D. BRODSNY April 30, 1982 BERENBAUM 8C BERENBAUM ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1507,UNITED BANK CENTER 1700 BROADWAY DENVER, COLORADO 80290 Edward I. Haligman, Esq. Atler, Zall & Haligman 718 - 17th Street, ~~800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Mr. Haligman: ~P TELEPHONE B6f-43f7 AREA CODE 303 As I discussed with you on Thursday, April 29, this firm represents the Vail Spa Condominium Association and several individual owners of units in the building. The building is located immediately to the north of the Marriot Nlark Hotel in Vail, Colorado. You confirmed with me during that conversation that you represent the owners of that property. Please be advised that it was our clients' understanding, when the Mark submitted its original proposal to add on to its property, that the configuration of the new development would. be such that the building would not interfere with the view of the mountains from the Vail Spa Condominium. During the course of the recent construction several of the residents at the Condominium have been informed by construction personnel that in fact the construction plans have been substantially altered and that their view will be seriously interfered with. Our research indicates that our clients did not receive notice of any such amendments to the site plan, had no opportunity to appear to contest any change in the site plan and, as a consequence, their rights were not represented during the course of any hearing on amendment to the original site plan. Please be advised that the to this amendment was in A visitation and view of the clients have retained this ascertaining what remedies amend the development that first information our clients had as Aril of this year. Upon actual notice, site during a vacation this April, our office to represent them in they may have to stop or otherwise is currently underway. We would appreciate it greatly if we could meet and talk with you or your clients at your earliest convenience to see if some resolution can be made, or perhaps some explanation can be passed forward as to the misunderstanding our clients may have as to the e interruption of their view by your clients' redesignation of the site. Please call me at your earliest convenience. Ve~ry~ r yours , ,f `-----~ Hosa B . Ge 1 t HBG/kal cc Planning Commission, Town of Vail City Council, Tewn of Vail Department of Community Development, Town of Vail The Mark Hotel and Tennis Club Al Houser, The Vail Spa Condominiums L & M Professional Consultants, Inc. Sergio Jinich f F• ~-- ~~~ ^'" SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES iNC• P. O. BOX 37447 ~ 5217 SOUTH 132nd STREET ~ OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68137 • (402) 895-2292 May 6, 1982 Town Council, Town of Vail Attention: Mrs. Colleen Kline Town Clerk 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 CHARLES C. MYERS President Chairman of the Board Re: Town of Vail Library/Conditional Use Revisions Ladies and Gentlemen: I am an owner of an apartment in the Lodge at LionsHead Phase III building. I understand the Town of Vail is pro- posing to construct a library building directly adjacent to our building with a teen center in the lower level. At the time the library was first proposed, the lower level was to be used for employee units with the reassur- ance that these apartments would not create noise and traffic flow of people in the area. The change in use of the lower level to a teen center was not publicized until after approval of the bond issue. I strongly oppose the use of the lower level o£ th.e li- brary building for a teen center. Tlie use of this build- ing for a teen center will have an undesirable effect upon my property. There would be an increase in traffic causing an increase in noise, litter, etc. The potential problems arising from the use of this building as a teen center will have a detrimental effect upon the enjoyment of our property as well as the value of our property. We not only oppose the change in use of the lower level of the library building because of the adverse effects to our property, but also because of the unfairness of seeking to change the use after passing the bond issue. Thank you for your consideration. Ve -tru yo rs, Charles C. Myers CCM/caw SPECIALISTS IN COLD STORAGE CONSTRUCTION 4717 "F" STREET OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68117 April 30, 1982 Town Council, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Attention: Mrs. Colleen Kline To-vn Clerk Dear Mrs. Kline: I am the owner of Unit #7 of the Lodge at Lions Head Phase III Building and want to take this oppor- tunity to register my objection to the addition of a teen center on the lower level of the new library which is to be built to the east of our building. All of us have substantial investments in our pro- perty and, although we are not particularly opposed to the library itself, we feel the teen center will have a serious effect on our property value. Would you please see that my objection is pre- sented at the meeting may 18. Sincerely, D.~~I.Iiiive~tment Co. oP~"~'F~mi CHARLES J. BEISE ROYAL C. RUBRIG HT GEORGE C. KEELY MARY E.BRIG KNER CHARLES E.MATHESON PETER F. BREIT ENST EIN C HAR LTON H.CARPENTER PATRICK F. KENN EY BRUCE B.JOHNSON HOWARD HOLME JAMES L. STONE MIC HAEL M.MCKINSTRY WILLIAM R.NEFF JAMES R. BLACK JAC K.SPER LING FAIRFIELD AND WOODS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1600 COLORADO NATIONAL BUILDING 950 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE (303) 534-6135 April 28, 1982 Town Council, Town of Vail Attention: Mrs. Colleen Kline Town Clerk 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: Re: Town of Vail Library ~~~ ~ z ~- 8 z ~ • ~K.r ~~-~c~ ~'~~~ G OLDING FAIRFIELD (1886-1972) .JAMES A. WOODS (1898-1973) KEVIN B.PRATT DANIEL R. FROST DARRELL G. WAAS MARY JO GROSS ROBERT A. HOLM ES ROBERT C. FISHER,JR. JOHN J. SILV ER JOAN E.SOMMERFELD THOMAS P. KEARNS ROCCO A. DODSON On April 26, 1982, the Planning and Environmental Commission conditionally approved a revision to the previously approved con- ditional use permit plan for the Town of Vail library, by which the lower level on the west side of the proposed library will be used as a "teen center" rather than for three employee units as originally proposed and approved. We represent The Lodge at Lionshead Phase III Condominium Association, which is immediately adjacent to the west of the proposed library. We are, by this letter,, appealing from the decision of the Planning and Environ- mental Commission and requesting that the Town Council .consider the matter at the-next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting or at such other time as the Council deems appropriate. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly rs, ~~''' %? G%~ of FAIRFIELD AND WOODS PFK:rk cc: Mr. Peter Patten, Town Planner Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith, Assistant Town Attorney FAIRFIELD AND WOODS CHARLES J. SEISE ROYAL C. RUBRIG HT GEORGE C. KEELY MARY E. BRICKNER CHARLES E. MATHESON PETER F. BREITENST EIN CHARLTON H. CARPENTER PATRICK F. KENNEY BRUCE B.JOHNSON HOWARD HOLME JAMES L. STONE MICHAEL M. MCKIN STRY WILLIAM R. NEFF ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1600 COLORADO NATIONAL BUILDING 950 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE (303) 534-6135 G OLDING FAIR FIELD (1886-1972) JAMES A. WOODS (1898-1973) JAC K.SPER LING KEVIN B. PRATT DANIEL R. FROST DARRELL G. WAAS MARY JO GROSS ROBERT A. HOLM ES ROBERT C. FISHER,JR. JOHN J. SILVER JOAN E.SOMMERFELD ROCCO A.DODSON THOMAS P. KEARNS April 29, 1982 The Honorable Robert Mayor, Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Mr. Richard Caplan Town Manager Town of Vail 75 So. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: Slifer We are the attorneys for the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III Con- dominium Association (the "Association"). They have asked us to write you concerning encroachments on Association property by the Town of Vail in the form of a bike path and asphalt road. The Town has been contacted by the Association numerous times in the past in an attempt to resolve this problem. The Association is seriously concerned because these encroachments deprive the Association of unique and extremely valuable property. However, the Town of Vail has not acted to remove the encroachments, nor has it offered acceptable compensation to the Association. Demand is hereby made upon the Town of Vail to remove the as- phalt road and bike path from Association property no later than May 15, 1982. If the encroachments have not been removed by that time, we are instructed to take all available action to cause the removal of such encroachments, including a lawsuit requesting dam- ages and an injunction for cessation of pedestrian, bicycle and motor traffic upon Association property and removal of the en- croachments. FAIRFIELD AND WOODS We look forward to hearing from you very shortly. Very my you , Da i 1 . Fro t of FAIRFIELD AND WOODS DRFacaj cca Lawrence A, Eskwith, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Town of Vail 75 So. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 d~~~~ ;~._~~- ,; ~,~ -,: ;i RESOLUTION # 14 (Seri.es of 1982) A RESOLU'I' I ON OF THE TOWivT COUi1CI L AUTHORIZING THE CO:IVLYANCE OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF PROPERTY TO THE VAIL WATER AND SANTTATION DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO THE VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT FOR SAID PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE TOWN CLERK TO SAID EXECUTION AND AFFIX THE SEAL OF THE TOWN THERETO. . WHEREAS, the Vail Water and Sanitation District owns a parcel of property known as Tract C, Vail Village Second Filing, within the Town of Vail upon which a sevrer.treatment plant is located; and, WHEREAS, the Town of Vail is the owner of three (3) small parcels of property that lie .on three (3) sides of the sewer treatment plant of the Vail Water and Sanitation District and upon which portions of said plant are located; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that so .long as the property is used for water and sanitation or other govern- mental purposes that it should be held by the Vail Water and Sanitation District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, THAT: Section 1. The Town Council Yiereby authorizes and approves the transfer by quit claim deed of three (3) parcels of property more fully described on the attached Exhibit "A" to the Vail.Water and Sanitation District, so long as the same are used for water and sanitation or governmental purposes. Section 2. The Mayor of. the Town of Vail is hereby authorized and directed to execute a quit claim deed to the Vail Water and Sanitation District for the property described on the attached Exhibit "A". The Town Clerk is authorized and directed to attest to said execution and affix the Town's seal to said quit claim deed. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED TII•IS Itodn~ey E . day of 198?. liter, M..L•yor C!~~.L:I c~c~u 111. h_L:i nc. , '1'uwit C.Lc. rlc Rccvrdcdat. _._~_~.-___o'clock._______&I., Receptiun No~__^~~ ~__. Tti]s D>rEn, Made this day of Is 82 Recorder. RL'COItDER'S STAMI' between The Town of Vail, a Colorado municipal corporation of the County of Eag 1 e and state of Colorado, of the first part, and the Val 1 Water and • Sanitation District, a Colorado quasi- municipal corporation - whoselegaladdressis 0950 West Beaver Creek Blvd. , P.O. Box Y, Avon, Colorado 81620 of the County of Eag 1 e and state of Colorado, of the second part, WITNESSETH, That the said part of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and 00/100 ----------------------------------- 010.00) DOLLARS, to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said party of the second part, 1tS heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said party of the first part hag in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado, to wit: As described on the attached Exhibit "A" (no documentary fee required pursuant to CRS 39-13-104 (1) (a)) The grantor grants all the above-described property to grantee and its successors or assigns so long as the property is used for water and sanitation, governmental or related purposes. If the above-described condition is breached by the grantee, the above-described property shall automatically revert to the grantor without-it being necessary for the grantor to take any affirmative action to effectuate the reverter. also known as street and number TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all acid singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and al] the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and belloof of the said part of the second part, i t S heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said party of the first part ha S hereunto set 1 t S}~and and seal the day and year first above written. TOWN OF VAI L , a COlorad0 1 Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of I municipal corporation ATTEST: Town Clerk Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor STATE OF COLORADO, ss. County of Eagle SEAL] SEAL] SEAL] SEAL] The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Is 82,by• Rodney Slifer, Mayor, and Col.l.een Kline, Town Clerk, of the Town of Vail, a Colorado municipal corporation. DIy commission expires ,19 .Witness my hand and official seal. Notary I'ublic.~ NU.S-a;t.tjU1'1'l'LnIMIIF:4:D.Ih:ull~~~dl'nbinhnip ~S.'+\1.nlhl~r..l.iAr~~,~,~,LrriKU.'.I.1 -ri1111'_rr•h'~011 681 EXYlI13I'I' "A" PARCEL 1 Tract D Vail/Lionshead Third Filing, according to the recorded plat thereof, excepting that part of 'tract D described as follows: Beginning at the west corner of said Tract D; thence, N 73° 42' 37" E and along tYi~ south line of said Tract D a distance of 115.00 feet; thence, N 14 46' 10" W to a point of intersection with the north line of said Tract D; thence, S 70° 33' 28" W and along the north line of said Tract D to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2 A part of TRACT C, VAIL VILLAGE SECOND FILING, according to the recorded plat thereof, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of said Tract C; thence., N 73° 42''37" E and along the north life of said Tract C, 145.00 feet to~the point of beginning; thence S 14 46' 10" E, 146.36 feet to a poin~ of inter- section with the south line of said~Tract C; thenc~ S ?9 03' 56" W and along said south line 30.06 feet; thence,'N 14 46' 10" W, 143.55 feet to a ~oint of intersection with the north line~of said Tract C; thence N 73 42' 37" E and along the north line of Tract C, 30.00 feet to the point of beginning; containing 4,348 square feet more or less. PARCEL 3 An unplatted parcel of land lying within the NW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of .the 6th Principal It4eridian, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, said unplatted parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning :at the SE corner of Lot 31 ,• VAIL VILLAGE SECOND FILING, according to the recorded plat thereof, said point also lying on the west right-of-way line of Forest Road; thence S 16° 17' 23" E, 120.00 feet along said right-of-way line to a point of intersection with the approximate centerline of Gore Creeky thence, along said centerline on toe following three courses: 5-73° 42' 37" W., 93.00 feet; thence N 78 37' 15" W, 87.67 feet; thence, 5.81° O1' 38" W, 67.60 feet to a poino on the approximate centerline of said creek; thence, N 14 46' 10" W, 79.20 feet to a point of intersection with the south line of TRACT C, VAIL VILL~GE SECOND FILING, according to the recorded - plat thereof; thence, N 79 03' 5G" E, 90.99 feet along the south line of said Tract C to the SW corner of said Lot. 31; thence, N 73° 42' 37" E, 145.00 feet along the south line of said Lot 31, to the point of beginning; containing an area of 24,244 square feet more or less. RICIHARD N. BROWN B<lITM loa 1780 6UIIT8 B(9 LT.A IIi® BTIt®ET DIDNVIflR. QULOIiA T)O 80222 (808) 758-5270 April 5, 1982 Mr. Richard Caplin Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Ordinance #1 of 1982 Cliffside Re-Zoning Lots 4 ~ 5 Dear Mr. Caplin: I request that the application for re-zoning my Cliffside lots be withdrawn. Because of the problems that would be caused by re-zoning according to the Planning Department's recommendations, I would like to study the problems with the Cliffside Lots and try to find a situable solution for all concerned. When I have a workable solution to these problems, I will reapply for the appropriate zoning changes through the Planning Department. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, ~~~~ ~ . Richard N. Brown RNB/ j sc GEORGE ROSENBERG ATTORNEY-AT-LAW P. O. BOX Y-100 AVON, COLORADO 81620 (303) 949-4200 April 5, 1982 HAiVD DELIVERED Town of Vail Attn: Richard A. Caplan Town Manager 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Application for Rezoning - Cliffside Subdivision Dear Mr. Caplan: This office represents Richard N. Brown the applicant in the above referenced matter. It is our understanding this matter is set for consideration by the Vail Town Council at its meeting of,~.l 6, 1982. Pursuant to our telephone conversation last we we hereby request the subject matter be tabled to e Pnay 18t meeting of the Town Council. As I explained to u in our telephone conversation, my client, I~lr. Brown, is process of retaining an architect who will need some time to prepare his presentation. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ~1 ~` cc: Peter Patten, Jr. Richard D2. Brown .._. _ - . _ -,'--- - -:~;;-,: ~~ _ __ Vail Associates Foundation - _- ~~~ps=- - ~~.:--- MEMORANDUM __ . . f ~~. . ~_~~: To: Tcxan of Vail Council Members ~~ r=,}~:. ..~~ From: Jeanne Reid - ~_~ =' . r=~o~- .World Cup Organizing Committee ~ -~~-•: - ~= r: - ~;:~_. .Date: April 15, 1982 - _`` Subject: World Cup Program at Vail and Beaver Creek _--~'~-~ :~;~~=:: • The World Cup .Organizing Committee seeks the Council's conceptual endorsement and financial-support towards bringing World Cup ski races to the Vail and Beaver Creek cc~rnmities over the next:~five years. At the Town of Vail Council meeting on April 20, 1982;, the . Committee would like to propose to the Council that the Towri~af Vail cca~gnit to direct financial support of $15,000, based on .matching . monies to be raised in a enmity fund-raising project. Assuming all partners, such as the lodging community, business can- munity, Vail Associates, Inc., etc. are in agreement to producing the World Cup as a special event, contributions of time, money, and effort above and beyond our current plans for e.~isting programs will be necessary. ~~The attached proposal should help to answer any questions you~may have concerning the World Cup and what is involved in hosting it. ~•We thank you for your consideration. • i Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81658. 3031476-5601 - ~~ ..,~,"SR ~~'i `~~.,~ f ~` ~.. /ail .Arcs F9~antl~tic~n V~1 ~ r Sk -~ :u~msor Packa~ .--- Propcjssd by Vail Aa~4cates F~ation April 1982 ~ _: - Box 7, Vall, Colorado 81658, 303/476-5601 TVorld Cup ?acing Program The purpose of this document is to :summarize for potential sponsors our objectives with the World Cup program, our develo~ient strategy, and the resulting benefits. We are Proposing the brig tear-development of a World Cup racing program as an / aggressive marketing strategy responsive ~ the evolving ski market environment. The World Cup will be a.program of the Vail Associates Foundation, anon-profit tax exempt Foundation foamed to raise and :distribute funds for charitable purposes. Hugh the Dra't' on and c-,rg~-''~ ~'-; on of educational, cultural, historical, art~~-~c,.and athletic parf and~ev~ts such as the World Cup, the Foundation serves as a fimding ~ii_cle to wit the greater Eagle Valley ccsnnurLity. AS a n~-r fit ~O1 (c) 3 Foundatr~., rations to the Vail Associates Foundation are tax deductible. members of the Board of the ~,r,~a+-~ on include President Gerald R. Ford, Bob Barrett, ~' W ~-s + fir- . ~ Bob john 33oz'an-Kates is also a Director and serves as President. Other charitable events the Fo,aT,r3a-~-a.r~r, ~ :sponsored since its incorporation include _~ .and.se~d ~rmual ~~ ~brd:C3el~brity Cup, which in its two years of oper- atis~ z~ised s3s,-~r $13,00'0 for tl~e '~T.a3 ~V,all.ey Medical Center and over $5,000 for ~-t.~ple ~~~- X17-so, the t~s1r1 ~`on-un, an international business conference, wil: ~ held this ~ in ~7ail, ~y President Ford in cooperation with the Ariexicai ~e Tn~t-v ~.e+ ~ `~~~"'''Y~^^ ba-~ed rn~ l i c poli research o cy rganization. io~nat is World ~ rte; nq? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cA.-i i ng t t~ PQ~ tt~C' is to golf . Teams of amateur racers f~ ~-~- ~ the `~'~ ~~~ f~' old ionship ski titles annually, culminatin every two years in the World Championships with the Winter Olympic Games serving as the World Championships every fourth year. The International Ski Federation (FIS), in conjunction with the national ski associations, hosting ski clubs and Organizing Conmi.ttees produce these events at various ski resorts throughout the , United States, Canada, and ~.irope. World Cups are the premier international events in the skisport. Assumptions & Objectives ~e following are the five principal asstunptions that are necessary for the developme of a successful progra¢n... * Zhat the program is ocannitted to for a mininnun of five years * That national television coverage is achieved * That a single major sponsor is obtained `~ ~' * That wide local eca~amarLity support is. ccannitted to * Z~at world class international ski racing is a strong marketing strategy Our principal objective in this World Cup program is to assist in the positioning of Vail and Beaver Creek as world class resort ca~¢ttunities. Additionally, we feel the progra¢n will provide an upscale marketing platform for a major consumer product. ~in~at is the Development Plan? ~In!order to maximize impact, it is the Organizing Committee's intention to develop a full-blown winter festival around the races themselves. The winter festival and World Cup racing would be given a specific name (as yet undetermined) and this. theme. and acco~anying logo would be used throughout all event promotion. Some of the activities under the festival idea would include concerts, .a sports film festival, ~. opening and closing ceremonies, fireworks display, various cocktail receptions and R~7 tR~ •1PT^R' ~ ,~ l,Jl ice-' ' ~17.T1'1 1 ~r ,y~, ,1'$71t]„£$ . /~': {, k~;, s~ ~ ~~ ris.a function of both our physical capability on email ate Heaven C~re~ ~~ tether with the politics of the FIS scheduling as.R-t~~y ~ fining on the 1983 Womens schedule, which the - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ aep~sents one of the last remaining opportunities -~ ~t on t~ ~~ ~ ~~~ with long term repetitive potential. The following f~ the og tb~ ~ x:11 attempt to secure at the FIS Scheduling Qs asl 3aater, S~tze~~nd, in June of this year. Yew' .1982-39$3 old Cup: :~ GS & Slalom ::198.3-1984 [old Cup: _ .'a,~ ,mss GS & Slalom ::198~398~ =i~fo~lrl Clip -:r9er~s t~ & Slalom 198 1985 :Would Lip: _:Mens G$ & Slalom -1986-3.987 Wot[ld Cup: ~Mens GS & Slalom Beaver Creek No event Nor Am Championships Mens & Womens Downhill World Cup: Womens Downhill World Cup: Mens Downhill World Cup: Mens Downhill ::Given-the current construction of the t~Torld Cup schedule between North. America and •Htu.ope, these events would-probably take place in late February or early March. :However, the Organizing Cc~mittee intends to lobby with Aspen and the other North American sites to move all,~of our events into the late January time frame. The "-feeling is that this schedule would better fit into the interests of our resort aamnumities. Although still in very preliminary discussion stages, the Organizing Committee is considering positioning these World Cup events adjacent to the Jerry Ford Celebrity Cup. The feeling is that this would expand the impact of the overall promotions ~._.~ and give our events a unique angle that no one else has. The Legends of Skiing concept would also be incorporated, and this gathering of former~Olympic and skiing greats would lend an air of stature and credibility to the overall event that would =- be tough to beat. --- Sponsor Benefits -~ - _ Obviously, the frost important component here is national television. The Organizing Committee's intention is to seek network coverage immediately. However, the feeling is-that realistically,.it may take a year or so to convince a network of the event's viability. Therefore, we are proceeding with the planning of a nationally syndicated one hour show designed to reach 65% of all US TV households. At this time, we are in final negotiations with Capital Sports,~a New York based sports marketing firm, to produce this one hour program. The, air dates would be one week following the event, with a Saturday or Sunday sports adjacency positioning. This last year, CBS`eoverage of the Aspen World Cup achieved a 7.2 Nilsson rating on Saturday, Februazy 27, with the tacanens Giant Slalom event, and an 3.4 on March 5 for the Mens Downhill. In addition to the CBS coverage, the Aspen World Cup was carried several times on FSPN, as well as the USA network. In addition to the television .specials, extensive news coverage of the Aspen event was secured on C,ood Morning America, The Today Shaw, Entertairnnent Tonight, as well as on numerous regional televisi~ and ratio news reports. - Beyond the publicity benefits, tae feel the Vail and Beaver Creek World Cup program would provide a highly leveraged, upscale marketing opportunity. The-event should give the same world class image to a sponsor's product that we believe it will be A, ~ giving to Vail-and Beaver Creek. Additional benefits would accrue to the sponsor • - :"~z-:":~: ::: _: as a result of the very large-spectator draw`fr~n the Denver market that the ~'"b. Organizing Committee believes will develop. In Aspen, the spectator draw was ' .~ - approximately 10,000, thus leading us to believe attracting 20,000 spectators _ is reasonable for us. _ - _ ___ ~. _Y;.= _An.additional, secondary benefit .would accrue if a Colorado circuit of World Cup .events were to evolve. This-:circuit would serve to enhance Colorado's image as 'the premier ski region in North America. The feeling here is that a Colorado circuit ~aauld serve as a market ~ilr3ing strategy, and would benefit all of the parties ~irnrolved. - __ _ ::~ r ~_: _.=-_ r,, ._.,. ':Zhe major sponsor opportunities would accrue in the form of... * Banner identification on courses '* Priit~azy .identification on the racing bib ' ~` `* Shared identification on to els `~..,~ ~ Pan *.Zdentification on leader board `* Primary .position in-the print program _ `*.Primary position in the various social activities *-.Opening and closing billboards on the syndicated TV program ~. =~~is basically suamarizes the sponsor package as it has been developed to this ::paint. Please refer any questions you may have to John Horan-hates, President, -37ai1 Associates Foundation,`P.O. Box 7, Vail, Colorado, 303-476-5601 or Bob ~+,rrix, l~cecutive Vice President, Capital Sports, 280 Park Avenue, New York, New 'York 10017, 212-687-2125, 4r Bob Barrett, President, Barrett & Associates, One =`Wall Street, Vail, Colorado 81657, 303-476-6330. :==,. . - ~'•. - _ ~ 3 .+ ~.. .~ -- -' _:~ .__.. Vai! ~ssociat~s Foundation -~ - - G3~3r3 ~ L)rgani~-~g Corr^uttee - ~otm o~ ~%a; i ~i ~3~ ~;1~.i1 .~1~i.3 ~soa.~t~s Foundation ' ~~i1 ~snrt ~ociation n J~,~a 2~ d~vL~7 _ .. ' Fez' C~~ sort Cc:rpany j ~j -ZI~.1 ~,l~ll~ T~~cal Center i ~( ~7a,z.~..~.'~r~;a~, Inc . i t ~ ~t~. ~ i .- - ~~~'~~~ ~ ~~ ~1 Resort Sezvices ~` I ~ -- ' ~~~ ..ration ~ -Housing ' ~ ' 1 Events -Banking ality ' t~• ~ ° -Security ' ~~~~ ~ ° dons -Medical - its - Trai~spo.rtati-rn .. . { . ' .. Dlarketing ~ ._i . °' :~~.. ~?r~•• _- - -- ~ -Press Center ~ ~w --- --.. -- .Press Relations - ~t~u.~ ~s - = -- Promotion -~ .~~}~ ::_. - -Telex Op. ;fin:.,..---_. •-~'~?•• ....~ - c•:cather Report ' . ~ p,.-:.:. :::..:.:_ - Advertising ' ~~.~%, ~~ -:.~:-;~~.',-..-~~^.- TV Coordination _I~i;b '.DA`s ~Mt~~ - _ . -~ _ - --- ~c ~7,1xrn~i. ~r~rrrc~t.~ 33~tti~. ~i <a~,-~~'~ -:. - VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF EXISTING EASEMENT THIS INSTRUMENT is made this day of June, 1979, by and between Gordon R. Pierce, (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, d/b/a MOUNTAIN BELL, PUBLIC.SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO (for itself and as assignee of, or successor in interest to, GAS FACILITIES, INC., VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT (here- inafter collectively "Easement Users"), and the TO`9N OF VAIL, a municipal corporation. WHEREAS, a certain easement of record to be abandoned as shown south of LOT 14, BLOCK 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING, a part of Section T4S, R80W, 6th P.M., Vail, Eagle County, Colorado as recorded in Book 224, at Page 877 of ,the records of the Clerk and Recorder at Eagle County, Colorado, allowing Easement Users the use of such easement for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of sewerage, water, gas, electric and telephone transmission facilities, and maintenance of natural drainage ways, (hereinafter the "Utility Easement" and, WHEREAS, the Utility and Drainage Easement is not presently used for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of such utilities and, WHEREAS, no natural defined drainage way is evident on the property; and WHEREAS, a portion of Owner's proposed building expansion to be located on the property is in conflict with the original platted easement, and, WHEREAS, the owner realized no beneficial use in allowing such easement to remain; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises con- tained herein and the mutual benefits to be derived and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1) Easement Users and the TOWN OF VAIL on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns, by this instru- ment hereby forever abandon, vacate, release and terminate that portion of the Utility and Drainage Easement as now described as the south 10'0" of Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing, Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. Ease- ment Users hereby convey all their right, title and interest in and to that portion of the Utility Easement vacated above. 2) This vacation and Grant shall be binding upon=arid inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC ~e~ ~Q~~ OTARY PUBLIC GORDON R. PIERCE BY: HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION A Colorado Nonprofit Corporation BY: MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE TELEGRAPH COMPANY, d/b/a MOUNTAIN BELL, A Colorado Bv: AND Corporation PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO as Successor to, and/or Assignee of GAS FACILITIES, INC., A Colorado Corporation BY: VAIL WATE AND SANIT TION DISTRICT TO~'VN OF ,~~IL OTARY PUBLIC ~ - •. ~ VACnrrorJ~ nrln l1f3ANI)OtJ~•tENT OF EX 1ST 1 NG EICSEFiEPJ ( ~' ~. - ~ TI{I S- INSTRUMENT is rri,ie this ___.__...._._ `i"!'' of June, 1179; . • ~. by and !!ct1•J~'en .Gordon !?. R1.',"Ce, (hCrt~ln,:ft~'r ;:.~c:rred to as "01•!!lt;r"~~), and HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ,`~ SSGCIATION, MOUNTf,ItI S7;1TES TELEPHOrvE I'+ND TELEGRr'II'Fi COtdI'ANY, d/b/a/ t•'~UNTAIN f3ELL, PU[3L IC S;=i;VICE.COP1i'/ttJY OF COLORADO (for itself and as assignee of, or successor in interest to, GAS FACILITIES, INC., PAIL MATER ANO SANITATION DISTRICT (hereinafter collectively "Easement Users"), and the TORN OF VAIL,•~a municipa l . ~ , corporation. _ .___ 1 _ • ti T~ Wf1EREAS, a certain easement of record to be abandoned as shown south of LOT 14, f3L0CK 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING, a part of Section 9 TSS, R£30W, 6th P. M., Vail, Eagle County, Colorado as recorded in Gook 224, at Page t371 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder at Eagle• County, Colorado, allowing Easement Users the use of such easement for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of sewerage, water, gas, electric and telephone .transmission facilities, and main- tenance of natural drainage ways, (hereinafter the "Utility Easement"), and, WFfEREAS, the Utility and Drainage Easement is not presently usec for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of such utilities; and, WHEREAS, no natural defined drainage way is evident on the property; and WHEREAS, a portion of Owner's proposed building expansion to be located on the property is in conflict with the original platted easeme and, 4lHEREAS, the owner realized no beneficial use in alloti•rin; such ease,~~ent to remain; NOW, TIIEREFO':" in consideration of the mutual promises contain herein and the mutua benefits to be derived and other good and v~~luabl~ consideration, the F~.;•ties hereto hereby convenant and agree as follo~•rs. _ _ . - 1) Ea ~~(;~~nt. Users and t;hc ~~Q',t1 OF VA - IL on hci,~i~f ~( tf1~,G~selVes, their $41C{~C'`SOrS and dSSI~J:i,c,, f;'y' t~ll$ ln$t.rUl~if?nt. }.et~~~~~, _ -- forever abandon, vacai:?, rrlease and -tcrn;in,,te that portion of thr~ ' Utility nd Dra r,. C, .., t as nn~.•. ,ir.J-• ;; < u[i, 1(i' -ti" - - of Lot 14, Block ?, 'tC,ilr'r411o,Y Ftrs,F "'i'~~,~„~,• ua~l~ Ea~~c~ County, - Colorado. ~ Easement U~~r~s hereby convey all tt,ejr r.jpht, title and . interest in and to that portioB-of the jJ~iii~,y ~asempnt vacated above, to Oti'mer. .- , _-.-'-'~'_%'-- 2) This Vacation nd Grant sha~1 be nding upon and - ,' - -:; inure to the benefit cf the succe~ o s an.'-~~ssi9 o he parties -- ~ "; ~: - -hereto. ~~ CGmmissi~a z f1 /~- ~) - -- ` '"r-- ~ ~`/_~~~ l~% ~!' _ t ON R. PIERCE ,,j%-.~-.~- ~= /~~~:- ;- NOT Y PURL I -~ " ,. _ _ _ • - - "' ~`.~~•` I iAfZY PUB IC BY~~,~~ ~'~ ~ G- c~-' .. Cot*r;s,3~ ri ~a~rs tJo/. 1a p6 1 1~es~O~- ' HOLY CROrS ELECTR ASS CIATION A Colorado Nonprofit Corporation 0 ARY UBLIC BY ~ MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, d/b/a/ MOUNTAIN BELL, A Colorado Corporation R N TARY UBLIC BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO as Successor to, and/or Assignee of GAS FACILITIES, INC., A Colorado. Corporation N TARY PURL BY VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT NOT R1' PUBLIC BY TOWN OF VAIL VACATION AND AQANDO~Jt•1ENT OF E X I ST I tJG EASEMENT THIS INSTRUMENT is made this day of June, 1979, by and between Gordon R. Pierce, (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, d/b/a/ MOUNTAIN BELL, PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO (for itself and as assignee of, or successor in interest to, GAS FACILITIES, INC., VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT (hereinafter collectively "Easement Users"), and the TOwlN OF YAIL~,~~a munlcipal~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. corporation. _ ~_~` •:. ,~~ .•t N • T„ WFIEREAS, a certain easement of record to be abandoned as shown south of LOT 14, BLOCK 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING, a part of Section 9 TSS, RIIOW, 6th P. M., Vail, Eagle County, Colorado as recorded in Book 224, at Page 1377 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder at Eagle County, Colorado, allowing Easement Users the use of such easement for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of sewerage, water, gas, electric and telephone transmission facilities, and main- tenance of natural drainage ways, (hereinafter the "Utility Easement"), and, WhIEREAS, the Utility and Drainage Easement is not presently usec for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of such utilities; ~3nd, WHEREAS, no natural defined drainage way is evident on the property; and WHEREAS, a portion of Owner's proposed building expansion to be located on the property is in conflict with the original platted easeme and, 41tIEREAS, the owner realized no beneficial use in allowing such easement to remain; NOW, TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contain herein and the mutual benefits to be derived and other good and valuably consideration, the p~:rties hereto hereby convenant and agree as follows. /~ ~. 1) Easement Users and the TOWN OF VAIL on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns, by this instrument hereby forever abandon, vacate, release and terminate that portion of the Uti]ity and Drainage Easement as now described a the a uth 10'-0" of Lot 14, Block 3, Vdil YAllay F1r$1; P111np, 1la~jt Ea~~~ County, Colorado. Easement Users hereby_ cop~rey ~lj~~hQ~1' r.jght, title and interest in and to that portioQ of the~ytji~~y (:asempnt vacated above, to Owner. -_-'~'~'_•~-- 2) This Vacaxion rid Gr~n~ Shah b~ nding upon and ,~_~ _ ;',jnure to the benefit of the succe o s an ss~g ~o he parties ~~' . ~ ` ' ~~~ ~:/ ~ -hereto. A1y Ccmmissi n expiros f1uv. 17, 1979 - r---~ t ~ ON R. PIERCE ,J~.~ ~ ~ /~;~,~ -. ~ ;~~ NOT Y PUBL I - ~ ~) .~ ~ .I ARY PUB I C BY ~ ~ -'~! ~ C- c~- ~N~~u-~ e:1~Qors Uo% x+,198 - HOLY CROSS ELECTR ASS CIATIONr~- _ A Colorado Nonprofit Corporation OTARY PUBLIC ~ BY ~- MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, d/b/a/ h10UNTAIN BELL, A Colorado Corporation N TARY UBLIC BY N TAR PURL L WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT N T RY PUBLIC BY TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO as Successor to, and/or Assignee of GAS FACILITIES, INC., A Colorado Corporation ... -. - " " " - - VACAT•IC~N AND ABANDONIvt.1~:N'C C)l~ r~XISTING 1sAS1•,~ff~;ti'I' " °.- - THIS INSTi~[JiatliiJ'i' is made th.~.s day oi' ~ur~c, 1979, by -and between Gordon R. Pierce, (hereinafter refcz•:r.~c.d Lo as "Owner") , and HOLY CROSS I?,LLCTRIC ASSOCIATION, MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONIa AND TELEGRtiPH COMPANY, d/b/a MOUNTAIN BELL, PUBLIC SERVICE .COMPANY OF COLORADO (for itself and as assignee of, or successor in interest to, GAS FACILITIES, INC., VAIL WATER AND SANITATION. DISTRICT (here- inafter collectively "Easement Users"), and the TOWN OF VAIL, a municipal corporation. WHEREAS, a certain easement of record to be abandoned as shown south of .LOT 14, BLOCK 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING, a part of Section T45, R80W, 6th P.M., Vail, Eagle County, Colorado as recorded in Book 224, at Page 87? of the records of the Clerk and Recorder at Eagle County, Colorado, allowing Easement Users the use of such easement for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of sewerage, water, gas, electric and telephone transmission .facilities, and maintenance of natural drainage ways, (hereinafter the "Utility Easement" and, WHEREAS, the Utility and Drainage Easement is not presently used for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of such utilities and, WHEREAS, no natural defined drainage way is evident. on tYie property; and WHEREAS, a portion of Owner's. proposed building expansion to be located on the property is in conflict with the original platted easement, and, WHEREAS, the owner realized no beneficial use in allowing such easement to remain; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises con- tained herein and the mutual benefits to be derived and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows: v .X: . 1) ]:~+.~sr-:mc:nt Usc:~r :ancl the TOWN 01? VEIL on beh~~.l.l: c~ I' . - -"- tfierrise7.vr.~; -thei.r suc.ce~:s~~r•s and ass:i~,~n~-, by this i.nsl;i:•u- -dent hc~'cl~y~lorevez'. abandc,n, vacate, r~~~leca.:;e and te-:•in.i-Hate - that p~>:1~t i c,n o1` the U t i.a i t,y and Dra:in~i;~;~:~ L;::~.~ement as now described. <:LS 'the south ltd' Q" of Lot 1!! , 131.~~c;k 3 , Va.i. a- - ~_ '~ Valley' r:i-rst Filing, Va~i.l L'agle County, Coaorado. Ease- - ment Users Hereby cony-~y a:1 :1 their r:i.lht, title and interest in and to that portion of the Utility Easement - vacated above. • 2) This vacation and Grant shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the. parties hereto. NOTARY PUBLIC GORDON R. PIERCE BY: NOTARY PUBLIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION A Colorado Nonprofit Corporation NOTARY PUBLIC BY: NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY .PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, d/b/a MOUNTAIN BELL, A Colorado Corporation By: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO as Successor to, and/or Assignee of GAS FACILITIES, INC., A Colorado Corporation BY: VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT BY: TOWN OF J~ I L ,' / ,~ NOTARY PUBLIC ' Gordon R. Pierce and Associates Architecture / Planning January 17, 1980 Mr. Rick Platt Public Service Company Box 973 Leadville, Colorado Dear Mr. Platt: The enclosed "Vacation and Abandonment of Existing Easement" for Gordon R. Pierce is forwarded for your approval and signature. Please sign both copies and have your Notary sign both copies and return them to us. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ ~~~ Robert L. Hiland RLH/jm Enclosure ~S/,33 1650 East Vail Valley Drive / Vt:~il, Colorado 81657/(303)476-~6~5-~- STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF EAGLE The foregoing Vacation and Abandonment of Existing Easement was acknowledged before me this day of , 1980 by Richard Platt, Public Service Company of Colorado, as Successor to, and/or Assignee of Gas Facilities, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, on behalf of the Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires NOTARY PUBLIC Right of Way Department Room 1130-2 1005 Seventeenth Street Post Office Box .1976 ` Denver, Colorado 80201 August 16, 1979 Gordon Pierce And Associates 1650 East Vail Valley Drive Suite C-2 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Pierce: Enclosed is your original request for the "VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF EXISTING EASEMENT" being the Utility Easement along the southerly edge of Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley - First Filing. Said document has been executed by our Mr. L. L. Leger, Vice President-Network. If I can be of further assistance please call me on telephone number 624-6391. Sincerely, ,~,U`~~' l~ , lCl. -`9_ --- S. David Strong Right of Way Agent Enclosure cc: Jack Watson ,. .. d ~ STATE OF COLORADO ) CITY AND ) ss. COiTNTY OF DENVER ) The foregoing Vacatimn and Ab~donment of Existing Easement was acknowledged before me this /._ day of , 1979, by L. L. Leger as the Vice President etwork of THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPAN , a Colorado corporation, on behalf of the corporation. WITNESS~my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: 3 APPROVED ~~ . AS TO FORM 7 S ~~~ Notary Pu lic NIOUi~TAIN [SELL BY Mvl consulting engineers FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 4710 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE (303) 226-2323 To: ~~'. L~t_rr c. ~, ~~ Project No.: Project: p Date: _ / ~ ~t • ~ ~'1 ~ ~ Gentlemen: We are transmitting ^ Herewith ^ Under separate cover ^ Shop Drawings ^ Specifications ^ Change Order ^ Plans ^ Copy of Letter ^ Prints ^ Survey ^ Field Order NO. COPIES DRAWINGS NO. DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ~~~a~-G~, ~~ 1 S c.~ Cods /mar jo ~t- "L he_ e_ ~~e,-:~ e.-."~J r.-"~, c~.,. ~o.-, h~ ~-.f c~'l"h ~c.~~ ..L I"1't E.a-s'~l)••zL°._C/ ~Z=L~ f/ atc.~ On ~( "L` ~~F ~ ~0~~ U N__t'~./" ~ r j j ~~ ~c~..u, ~l eC,L.s 2_ ~'e_ it ~ tc.._? ~,~ Y'-O,-f'rt 1.~.-ti ..l f1 ~ y f'~ Q.Yt ~- C_Dr-~-t c-n•t e..c C rCl+~~ ~~~ _ q3~ o IF ENCLOSURES RECEIVED ARE NOT AS LISTED ABOVE, KINDLY NOTIFY AT ONCE. Received By: Date: Copies To: Ver trul y y yours, M&I, Inc. By: y .~ , . 1~ - _ • ~ke ~ i. , ~ ~: e b+l Niour~ain Be91 Right of Way Department Room 1130-2 1005 Seventeenth Street Post Office Box 1976 Denver, Colorado 80201 August 16, 1979 Gordon Pierce And Associates 1650 East Vail Valley Drive Suite C-2 - Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Pierce: Enclosed is your original request for the "VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF EXISTING EASEMENT" being the Utility Easement along the southerly edge of Lot 14, Blockour Mr11LVaL1eLe er,rVice1President1Networkent has been executed by 9 If I can be of further assistance please call me on telephone number 624-6391. Sincerely, S. David Strong Right of Way Agent . Enclosure cc: Jack Watson .^ _ ~ _ - .n; STATE OF COLORADO ) CITY AND ) ss. COt3~JTY OF DENVER ) The foregoing Vacation and Ab~}ndonment of. Existing Easement was acknowledged before me this 1.~Y day of ~~a~,~~- , 1979, by L. L. Leger. as the Vice President~~tetwork of THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, on behalf of the corporation. WITNESS. my hand and official seal. My Commission expires : `=; APPROVED ~~. AS TO FORM ~ 7 5 ~~_ Notary P lic ~'iCU~~TAIN QELL BY ' piorc~ • baldu.~n and associates, ~in~. architecture • planning October 7, 1981 • Mr. Duane Davis ., Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District • ~ 0145 Avon Road ~~ -Awn, Colorado 81620 . Dear Duane,' Enclosed is a doctunent requesting the vacation and abandonment of an existing easement on Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing,. We would.like~yo~r recndation for the approval of this docLUt~nt. Sinc ely, t r n R. Pierce GRP:de • ~~ Enclosures . ~. •.; ,, . ., ;. , I i 1, ~ 1 ~~ .. ~ ( ` ~ I li, ~ I ,I, I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' I ~ i j 1000 south frontoge road west • voil, colorodo a1b57 303/476.4433 I VACATION ANC ABANDONMENT; OF EXISTING EASEh1ENT TI1IS INSTRUMENT is made this day of June, 1979, ~ ~ ~ by and between Gordon R. Pierce, (hereinafter referred to as "04mer"), and HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, MOUNTAIN STATES TEI_FPfiONE AND TELEGRAPH COh1PANY , d/b/a/ MOUNTAIN f3ELL , PU(3t_ 1 C SERVICE COMPAr1Y OF COLORADO (for itself and as assignee of, or succ'essor• in interest tc~, GAS FACILITIES, INC., VAIL WATER ANO SANITATION DISTR(C1' (hereinafter collectively "Easement Users"). and the TOWN OF YA1l, a mun~lcipal corporation. •_- -~ ••- ~~- •,• r ... .. ~ 1 WHEREAS, a certain easement of record to be abandoned as Shorn south of I.OT l~, F3LOCK 3, VA1l_ VALLEY FIRST FILING, a part of Section TSS, RIIOW, 6th P. M., Vail, Eagle County, Colorado as recorded in Cool 224, at Page 1177 of the records of the Clerk ~in~i Recorcir'r at Eagle County, Colorado, allowing Easement Users the u,e of such casement for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of sewcr~gc:, water, gas, electric and telephone transmission facilities, and n~ain- ten-ante of natural drainage ways, (hereinafter the "Utility Easement" and, IJFIEREAS, the Utility and Drainage Easem~:nt is nit presently u' for the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of such utilitie and, WHEREAS, no natural defined drainage way is evic;ent on the property; and WHEREAS, a portion of Owner's proposed building Expansion to i located on thE~ property is in'coiflict with thel oric~iriaT platted ea~c I and, ~ WFIEREAS, the owner realiied no beneficial~.use in allowing sue ea semen t ~ to remain ; L ' N04I, THEREFORE, in consideration of t1ie~ mutual uromises cont~ herein.and the mutual benefits to be derived and other good and valua consideration, the parties hereto'hereby convenant and agree as, folic ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ i ~ . ,, ~~' ~ ~ . Ir ~ i ! j r , ~~ r°~ /~ r I) Easement Users and the TOlJ1J OF VAI L on beha 1 f o f themselves, tFreir successors and assigns, by this instrument herehy forever abandon, vacate, release and terminate that portion of fire Uti 1 i ty and Urai Wage Easement as no~•r descri bed a t'ha a ~utlr ~1 ~ ~ -G" of Lot 14, Block 3, veil VA11a,y Fir$t ~111na, Ui}~lt' Eaq~c County Colorado. Easement Users herobY conye~ Sal tf?tsf r r.j~ght, titlr~ and interest in and to that portion~of tl~e I~tlli>:~~ l:asem_nt vacatud above, to Owner. _. ~ 2) TM6 yaca>rion rlci Gr~ti~ shall b~~ 'ncling!upon and • ~ ~~ ~~ . •:, jnure to the benefit of the succe o s an ~ss~~ o fre parties :' :' ~ ', ~;.~:/' =hereto. h1y Ccmrn~ssi ~ expirrs tluv, 11, 1rJ79 ~ ~ .- :-~-;- s'~~~~1,/ ON R . PIERCE ~ . . ~ -~ s ; ~ _ ~. ~ ~ ' ~ NOT Y PURL I o ~~ . ~ " , t AKY PUB IC QY_.r_.~~s~~. / GS' c'~~li _ ~ ~ Cbr•~t,v,~ c~•v~rs ,rJov. ''''~+9$- HOLY CROSS ELECTR ~ ASS CIATIONr~~~ 1,,..-- A Colorado Pdon~~rofit Corporation - ~ ~• ~ • ,i i N~AkY ~UQL I C ~ aY__ ----------.____---=---' MOUNTAIN STATE; TELEPHONE AND ~~ TELEGRAPI~I COhi(',~NY,'d/b/a/ MOUNTAIN I3ELl_, A Coloraclo;Cor{aor:~tinn ~ I j N ARY UBL I C pY ',:-,~,ct, ~„!.~~_ , ' PU[3l.IC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO l.-•• ' ~ as Successor to,~and/or .Assignee of GAS FACIL1TlES,~INC., n Colorado Corporation ,; i j ~ I I ~. II ~ ~ l~bTAR UBLI~- E3Y ~j, VgII WATER AND SANI~TATIOIJ ~OISTRI~.T' ~~ ~ j ! ~ ~ i N T R Y P B L I C - Et Y-- ---- -~ ~ ____ i~-` ~' ;- -- TOWN OF VAII ' I i I!, ~ ~, j j ~ ~', ii I ~ I ~ I i ~ Il{ 1~~~ ' '' -.~- ~,~k,~ 'f'ur;'r. .~.~ .: ~,_ Vail Associates Foundation M E M O R A N D U M To: Town of Vail Council Members Fran: .Jeanne Reid World Cup Organizing Canmittee Date: April 15, 1982 Subject: World Cup Program at Vail and Beaver Creek The World Cup Organizing Committee seeks the Council's conceptual endorsement and financial support towards bringing World Cup ski races to the Vail and Beaver Creek carununities over the next five years. At the Town of Vail Council meeting on April 20, 1982, the Committee would like to propose to the Council that the Town of Vail caiunit to direct financial support of $15, 000, based on snatching monies to be raised in a comrnanity fund-raising project. Assuming all partners, such as the lodging community, business can- munity, Vail Associates, Inc., etc. are in agreement to producing the World Cup as a special event, contributions of time, money, and effort above and beyond our current. plans for existing programs will be necessary. The attached proposal should help to answer any questions you may have concerning the World Cup and what is involved in hosting it. We thank you for your consideration: Box 7. Vail, Colorado 81658. 303/476-5601 ,.. ,. , . ~~; -~.. ,~cJl° ~ ip.: L~'~-; " dn.t Vail Associates foundation World Cup Racing Program Vail & Beaver Creek. Sbonsor Package _. Proposed by Vail Associates Foundation April 1982 • Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81658, 303/476-5601 ~~lorld Cup ~ Racing Program The purpose of this doc~unent is to summarize for potential sponsors our objectives with the World Cup program, our development strategy, and the resulting benefits. We are proposing the long term development of a World Cup racing program as an aggressive marketing strategy responsive to the evolving ski market environment: The World Cup will be a.program of the Vail Associates Foundation, anon-profit tax exempt Foundation formed to raise and distribute funds for charitable purposes. Through the promotion and organization of educational, cultural, historical, artistic, and athletic performances and events such as the World Cup, the Foundation serves as a funding vehicle to benefit the greater Eagle Valley c~rninity. As a non-profit 501 (,c) 3 Foundation, donations to the Vail Associates Foundation are tax deductible. • Members of the Board of the Foundation include President Gerald R. Ford, Bob Barrett, Harry W. Bass, Jr., and Bob Parker. John Horan-Kates is also a Director and serves as President. Other charitable events the Foundation has sponsored since its incorporation include the first and second annual Jerry Ford Celebrity Cup, which in its two years of oper- ation raised over $135,000 for the Vail Valley Medical Center and over $5,000 for Multiple Sclerosis. Also, the World Forum, an international business conference, will be held this August in Vail, hosted by President Ford in cooperation with the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington based public policy research organization. What is World Cup racing? The World Cup is to skiing what the PGA tour is to golf. Teams of amateur racers from all over the world compete for world championship ski. titles annually, culminating every two years in the World Championships with the Winter Olympic Games serving as the World Championships every fourth year. The International Ski Federation (FIS), in conjunction with the national ski associations, hosting ski clubs and Organizing Committees produce these events at various ski resorts throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe. World Cups are the premier international events in the skisport. Assumptions & Objectives The following are the five principal assumptions that are necessary for the developmer. of a successful program... * That the program is committed to for a minim~an of five years * That national television coverage is achieved * That a single major sponsor is obtained • * That wide local c~arununity support is c~nnitted to * That world class international ski racing is a strong marketing strategy Our principal objective in this World Cup program is to assist in the positioning of Vail and Beaver Creek as world class resort cc~urnuzities. Additionally, we feel the program will provide an upscale marketing platform for a major consumer product. What is the Development Plan? In order to maximize impact, it is the Organizing Ccgrnnittee's intention to develop a full-blown winter festival around the races themselves. The winter festival and World Clip racing would be given a specific name (as yet undetermined) and this theme and accompanying logo would be used throughout all event promotion. Some of the activities under the festival idea would include concerts, a sports film festival, t; . opening and closing ceremonies, fireworks display, various cocktail receptions and dinners, and other similar activities. The sequence of proposed events is a function of both our physical capability on Vail and Beaver Creek Mountains together with .the politics of the FIS scheduling process. There is currently an opening on the 1983 Womens schedule, which the Organizing Committee believes represents one of the last remaining opportunities to get on the World Cup schedule with long term repetitive potential. The following >. is the sequence of events that we will attenpt to secure at the FIS Scheduling Congress in Interlochen, Switzerland, in June of this year. Year Vail Beaver Creek 1982-1983 World Cup: No event Wc¢nens GS & Slalom 1983-1984 World Cup: Nor Am Championships Warrens GS & Slalom Mens & Womens Downhill 1984-1985 World Cup: World Cu P~ Mens GS & Slalcgn Womens Downhill 1985-1986 World Cup: World Cup: Mens GS & Slalom Mens Downhill 1986-1987 World Cup: World Cup: Mens GS & Slalom Mens Downhill Given=the current construction of the world Cup schedule between Nortti.~rerica and Europe, these events would probably take place in late February or early March,. However, the Organizing Committee intends to lobby with Aspen and the other North American sites to move all.of our events into the late January time ~x'ame. The feeling is that this schedule would better fit into the interests o~ our resort communities. • Although still in very prelinu.nary discussion stages., the Organizing Corrunittee is considering positioning these World Cup events adjacent to the Jerry Ford Celebrity Cup. The feeling is that this would expand the impact of the overall promotions • and give our events a unic~{ue angle that no one else has. The Legends of Skiing concept would also be incorporated, and this gathering of former Olympic and skiing greats would lend an air of stature and credibility to the overall event that would be tough to beat. Sponsor Benefits Obviously, the most important cor~onent here is national television. The Organizing Comm_ittee's intention is to seek network coverage immediately. However, the feeling is that realistically,.it may take a year or so to convince a network of the event's viability. Therefore, we are proceeding with the planning of a nationally syndicated one hour show designed to reach 650 of all US TV households. At this time, we are in final negotiations with Capital Sports, a New York based sports marketing firm, . to produce this one hour program. The. air dates would be one week following the event, with a Saturday or Sunday sports adjacency positioning. This last year, CBS coverage of the Aspen World Cup achieved a 7.2 Nilsson rating on Saturday, February 27, with the.Womens.Giant Slalom event, and an 3.4 on March 5 for the Mens Downhill. In addition to the CBS coverage, the Aspen World Cup was carried several times on ESPN, as well as the USA network. In addition to the television specials, extensive news coverage of the Aspen event was secured on Good Morning America, Tlie Today Shaw, Entertainment Tonight,. as well as on numerous regional televisiari and ratio news reports. Beyond the publicity benefits, tae feel the Vail and Beaver Creek World Cup program would provide a highly leveraged, upscale marketing opportunity. The event should • give the same world class image to a sponsor's product that we believe it will be ~'f giving to Vail and Beaver Creek. Additional benefits would accrue to the sponsor as a result of the very large spectator draw from the Denver market that the • Organizing Committee believes c~ri.ll develop. In Aspen, the spectator draw was approximately 10,000, thus leading us to believe attracting 20,000 spectators is reasonable for us. An additional, secondary benefit would accrue if a Colorado circuit of World Cup events were to evolve. This circuit would serve to enhance Colorado's image as the premier ski region in North America. The feeling here is that a Colorado circuit would serve as a market building strategy, and would benefit all of the parties involved. The major sponsor opportunities would accrue in the form of... * Banner identification on courses. * Primary identification on .the racing bib * Shared identification on gate panels * Identification on leader board * Primary position in the print program * Primary position in the various social activities * Opening and closing billboards on the syndicated TV program This basically summarizes the sponsor package as it has been developed to this point. Please refer any questions you may have to John Horan-ICates, President, Vail Associates Foundation, P.O. Box 7; Vail, Colorado, 303-476-5601 or Bob Arrix, Executive Vice President, Capital Sports, 280 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017, 212-687-2125, or Bob Barrett, President, Barrett & Associates, One Wall Street, Vail, Colorado 81657, 303-476-6330. L. J :` ~ .. , . . ._. ~'.. ~,, ',_; • , !~. ;~~-~' Vail Associates Founcfa#ion World Cup Organizing Corrunittee Town of Vail Ski Club Vail .Vail Associates Fowzdation Vail Resort Association I Town of Avon Beaver Creek Resort Company Vail Institute Vail Valley P~'~dical Center + Vail Associates, Inc. i ~ ~ etc. ~ ~J - Registration - Awards - Spc-cial dents - Hospitality - Receptions -Banquets - t~It . Ops . - Rtzce Crew - Tccl~nical Advisors - Safet~~ - r-quip. Mgrs. - Race Jury - lv;_1: ; Rooms - Bib Distribution - Con~rnuzications • = Housing - F & B - Banking - Security - Medical - Try-u~spo.rtatic,z, - Press Center - Press Relations - Proalotion - Tele1 Op. - ~•:eatl~er Rcaort - Ad~,ertising - TV Coordination Box 7. Vail. Colorado 81658, 303%'476-SC,O1 pi~rco • balcJuuin c~ncJ c~ssocic~tos, inc. archit~ctura • planning April 7, 1982 Mr. Richard Caplan, Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 TOWN COUNCTL WORK SESSION - 6 APRIL 1982 REVIEW OF CASINO BUILDING & ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS '~~~~ We appreciate the opportunity to review this project with the Council. Noted below is our understanding of the responses from the Council regard- ing the proposed improvements. A. The alley design is approved as submitted. The Town of Vail cannot provide funds to subsidize construction of alley improvements on Town property; therefore, development costs are the responsibility of Gata Mora, Ltd. B. The Owner of the Plaze Lodge should review ordinances regarding restrictions for any future tenants, especially as it relates to the serving of alcoholic beverages. Tenants that utilize Town property for their own use will probably be required to enter into a lease agreement with the Town of Vail, for the use of that Town property. C. The steps indicated on the Northeast corner of-the Casino Building at Gore Creek Drive must be eliminated from Town property. Brick paving materials may encroach onto Town property provided the paving material is at the same elevation as the street paving. D. All other aspects of the proposed site development are accepted as submitted. A copy of the Architect`s drawings (Sheet A1.2 and A2.1 dated 31 March 1982) related to this meeting were filed with Mr. Peter Patten of. the Department of Community Development. Please contact our office if there are any questions or comments regard- ing t is project Roger Booker cc: Mr. Peter Patten Design Review Board Town Council Mr. Don Galgan; Gata Mora, Ltd. Mrs. Joanne Hill; Plaza Lodge 1000 south frontage road west • vail, Colorado 81657 t 303/476-4433 MEMORANDUM March 24, 1982 T0: Town Manager FROM: Town Council SUBJECT: Call up of conditional use approval to construct an office building at 953 South Frontage Road On March 23rd the Town Council called up the Planning and Environmental Commission approval of the conditional use request to construct an office building at 953 South Frontage Road, The Town Council is called up the approval for the following reasons: 1, That the mass and scale of this building is not appropriate for the site or in character with other properties in the Heavy Service zone district. 2! That the development standards in the Heavy Service zone district shall be considered minimum, and more restrictive standards may be prescribed as a condition of a conditional use. permit for any use by the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council, This Town Council considers that more restrictive development standards should be prescribed for the site, M&W VENTURE - BUSINESS OFFICE COMPLEX - VAIL TOTAL LOT SIZE TOTAL.SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING BUILDING COVERAGE IMPERVIOUS MATERIALS COVERAGE LANDSCAPING PARKING REQUIRED (APPROXIMATE) PARKING PROPOSED HEIGHT 39,204 40,698 14,560 7,250 17,719 PROPOSED sq.ft. (.9 acre) sq.ft. sq.ft. (37°6) sq.ft. (18~) sq.ft. (45~) 134 spaces (124 underground) (1 per 250 sq..ft.) 38 feet * 39,204 x 75~ COVERAGE x 3 STORIES 88,209 sq.ft. ALLOWABLE 88,209 sq.ft.* 29,403 sq.ft. (15~) 35,823 sq.ft. (90~) 3,920 sq.ft. (10~) 109 spaces (above ground) (1 per 300 sq.ft.) 38 feet slope 35 feet flat ~'~ 1- METROPOL/ TAN RECREATION DISTR/ CT ~vvh G`vrc, ~ ryly5 ice. a3 ~ 75 south frontage road • vail, Colorado 81657 • 303 / 476-1560 February 25, 1982 Rich Caplan, Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Rich, As a follow .up to your meeting with Dave and Pat on Febru- ary 12, the Board met to discuss our expanded recreational role. The Board members were very receptive. to advising the Town Council on certain recreation, facilities and pro- grams (outside of the financial picture) that the Town of Vail Recreation Department presently manages. The Board felt that both the District and Town's programs intermix at the present time and that there would be many advantages to an overall committee. Some of the concerns that were brought up that could affect our involvement .were time commitment, role, .and .amount of responsibility. It was suggested that we start with the Dobson Ice Arena, review with the Town Council the success of our involvement, then proceed with additional responsi- bility. The Board is not interested at this time in giving up any of their responsibility, duties, or identity as it relates to the District. If the Town Council is receptive to this concept, I will be more than happy to meet with them to discuss the Dis- trict's involvement with the Town of Vail Recreation De- partment. Sincerely your , Al Knoblock, Chairman Vail Metropolitan Recreation District I~ ~,.... ~ 1 AMENDMENTS TO ZONING CODE: ARCADES T0: Peter Patten, Dick Ryan, Peter Jamar FROM: Jim Sayre DATE: October 15, 1981 I. DEFINITIONS A. "Amusement arcade" shall mean a place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains more than four amuse- ment devices. If a place of business maintains less than five machines as a sole business, this business shall be classified as an amusement arcade. B. "Amusement center" shall mean a place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains less than five amusement devices in conjunction with some other business. C. "Amusement device" shall mean any device which upon insertion of a coin, slug, token, plate or disc, or payment of consideration may be used by the public for use as a game, entertainment, amusement., a test of skill, either mental or physical, whether or not registering a score, which shall include, but not be limited to: pool tables, snooker tables, foosball tables, pinball- machines, electronic games, fixed stand coin-operated kiddie rides, and mechanical bulls; but shall not include radios, devices that provide music only, or television carrying commercial broadcasts. II. AMENDMENTS TO ZONE DISTRICTS 1. High.Density Multiple Family a. add to Section 18.20.030, Conditional Uses: k. Amusement Arcade b, Add to Section 18.20.040, Accessory Uses: d. Amusement Center i - ARCADES ~- 10/15/81 2, Commercial Core I , a, Add to Section 18,24.020,c, "The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to a conditional use permit..." 8. Amusement Arcade b, Add to Section 18.24.080, Accessory Uses: E. Amusement Center 3. Commercial Core II a. Addition of amusement arcade to conditional uses in Commercial Core II is addressed by Section 18.26.030 (p.355): "In the CC2 District, permitted and conditional uses for specific floors shall be the.same as those permitted in the Commercial Core I District as prescribed by Sections 18.24.020 through 18.24.050. b, Add to Section 18.26.050, Accessory Use: E. Amusement Center 4. Commercial Core III a. Amend Section 18.27.030.H., Conditional Uses, deleting "Commercial Recreation Center/Game Room", and adding in its place "Amusement Arcade". b. Add to Section 18.27.042, Accessory uses,, D. Amusement Center 5. Commercial Service Center a, Amend Section 18.28.040.H., Conditional Uses, deleting "Commercial Recreation Center/Game Room" and adding in its place "Amusement Arcade". b. Add to Section 18.28.050, Accessory Uses, D. Amusement Center Arcades -3- 10/15/81 6. Public Use District a. Add to Section 18.36.030, Conditional Uses., 0. Amusement Arcades b. Add to Section 18.36.040, Accessory Uses, A. Amusement Centers 7. Public Accommodation District a. Add to Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, M. Amusement Arcades b. Add to Section 18.22.040, Accessory Uses, D. Amusement Centers ~... ..~ E ~. 3 _....-..~.~-.cue.aa-r.z:s.:,.is..,.....~....... ~.. _ ...w.. ~ t°'~~ o ~ AMUSEMENT D!/VICES 5.44.560 Sl:'CTION HEADINGS. The captions to sections :trc inserted solely for information and shall not affect the itu::~ning or interpretation of the chapter. (Ord. 0-76-56 ~ 19, 197G: Ord. 0-72-97 § 11(1), 1972). Chapter 5.46 A141 USEM ENT DEVICES Sectiuus: s.46.o10 Definitions. 5.46.0?0 License required--Fee. 5.46:030 License application-Contents. . 5.46.040 Approval of license. 5.46.050 1'ertn of the~licensc. sAG.060 License renewal. ~ _ 5.46.070 [~ees. '~ F ~. 5.46.0$0 Suspension or revocation of license. 5.46.090 Display and transfer of license. 5.46.100 Gambling prohibited. f €• 5.46.110 Violation-Penalty. • ~ ' 5.46.1 ~0 Hours of operation. i ; 5.46.130 A~= cc of manager. • S.~lG.1.40 Change of management. ~~.~ 5.46.010 llCF[NI'TIOhiS. As used in this chapter: • (1) "Applicant" means any individual, association , irtrtncrsitip or corporation requesting a license pursuant to this chapter. (2) "Atnusentent arcade" means a place of business where a ~ n individual, assocation, partncrsltip or corporation maintains more than ten atnuscment devices ~; ~~ . (3) "Amusement center" means a place of busines h ~~ s w ere an 185-73 (Lakewood 7.15.77) A: . .~ >. .w 1: £n r,. ~'3 Sys '~~,,. .............~. ....,.r._... n_-f.~ ....... _..._ .. .. ~4 AMUSEMENT DEVICES individual, associatio-t, partnership or corporation maintains less tliait elrven amusement devices either as a sole business or in conjuction with some other business. (4) "Amusement device" means any device which, upon insertion of a coin, slug, token, plate or disc, or payment of a consideration, may be used by the public for use as a game, entertainment, amusement, a test of skill, either mental or physical, whether or not registering a score; but shall not include radios, devices that provide music only, television carrying commercial broadcasts only, or fixed-stand coin-operated kiddie rides. (5)' "Manager" means an individual who manages, directs, supervises, oversees anti administers the acts and transactions of the agents or servants of any establishment governed by this chapter, or wlto, through his own actions, directs, oversees and administers the affairs of any such establishment.. (Ord. 0-77-IS § 1, 1977; Ord. 0-75-98 ~ 1 (part), 1975). area a license shall be required f .far ail amusement arcades where no malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors are allowed. Applicaits for a Type A amusement arcade ~ liccnsc~ stall pay a license fee of seven hundred fifty dcllars. (c) A Typc: B amusement arcade license shall be required for all establishments where malt, vinous or spirituous beverages arc sold within a restaurant operated in conjunction with an amuscnicnt arcade by a common owner. Applicants for a Type B amusement arcade license shall pay a license fee of one ,~~ tltousaitd five hundred dollars. (Ord. 0-80-89 § 1, 1980: Ord. t 0-75-98 ~ 1 (part), 1975). 5.46.030 LICENSE APPLICATION -CONTENTS. The 5.4G.U20 LIC[iNSE REQUIRED -FEE. (a) No amusement arcade shall conduct business without first having obtained a Type n or a Type B amusement arcade license. (b) A Type A amusement • d t 185-74 (Lakewood 12-30.80) e ~~ -; 1 ~} ~. q ~_ ,I'i ~~~ 1 y~e~~.¢ r4: t~ Y r. . f~ .. +~ AMUSEMENT DEVICES t Application for an amusement arcade license shall be made to • the City Clerk, shall be accompanied by the fees required by this chapter, and s}iall contain tl~e following information: (1) The name and address of tre amusement arcade; . (2} Tlie name and address of ttie applicant, age, date and place of birth: (3) Evidence from tl~c Zoning Administrator of the city that 185-74a (Lakewood 12-30.80) ~. ~.. i C k s~J ~ ~ ~, ~' t ~. , ' ~ ;~ J s '. ~ ~`~ i ~• 'I 'ry .,,•. ' x,i' - ~ `+ i i AMUSEMENT DEVICES . the location of the proposed amusement arcade meets all of the zoning rcyuirements of the city; (4) Where the applicant is a corporation, association , partnership or private. club, the information required in • subsection (2) of this section shall be furnished as to each . member of the association, or each officer of the corporation and members of the board of directors of the corporation and the holders of ten percent or• more of the corporate stock of any class; (5) Prior convicli~n of any of the persons listed abc 'c of any low except traftlc violations, if any; ((~) 7'he number of amusement devices to be maintained at the amusement arcade; and . (7) The name, abc and prior felony convictions of any proposed martat;cr or managers of the establishment. (Ord. 0-77-15 § 2 197 , 7; Ord. 0-75-98 § 1 (part), 1975). `1 ~ :, 5.46.040 APPItUVAL OF L1C1rNSE. (a) Application for - the license required by Section 5.46.020 shall be reviewed by •I the City Cacrk. The City Clerk shall have an investigation .~ c;onducted by the .Department of Public Safety, sufficient to ~~ verify ull the int~~rmation required by Section 5.46.030. Upon ; completion of this investigation, the City Clerk shall either a j pprove or disapprove the application . (b) No license shall be issued to any applicant unless } approved by the Cily Clerk. The City Clerk may refuse to iss ue "any license for an amusement arcade if the finding is made of any of the following: ~ (1) Where the applicant is under the age of twenty-one years; or ,~ (•~'.)-Where the applicant, manager or any of them have made false statements upon the application; or (3) Where the applicant, manager or any of them are not of ~ good moral cliaractcr. 185-75 (Lakewood ~-15-77) .. " f. ./ .,,.~ i< 1 Ii 3 r~ ~, I AMUSEMENT DEVICES (c) In the event that the City Clerk disapproves a liccnse application, the City Clerk shall make written findings of fact slating the reasons for the disapproval. (Ord. 0-77-15 § 3, 1977: Ord. 0-75-98 § 1 (part), 1975). 5.46.050 TERM OF THE LICENSE. All licenses granted pursuant to this chapter shall be for a term of one year. Said term shall comme~ice on January 1st of each year and terminate upon December 31st of tl~e same year. Applications for a license occurring at any other time during the yeas shall be treated the same as if they were made for one calendar year and shall terminate on the same date as all other licenses issued pursuant hereto, and no proration shall be permitted. (Ord. 0-75-98 § 1 (part), 1975). .~ 5.46.060 LICENSE RENEWAL. Renewal of any of tl~e licenses granted pursuant to this chapter may be had by payment of the licensing fee along with a statement that the information listed on the original license application is still true and correct to the applicant's knowledge, or a statement listing those items of information required for a license application which have changed in the year since the license was granted or last renewed. (Ord. 0-75-98 § 1 (part), 1975). 5.46.070 FOES. (a) Applicants or holders of ail amusement arcade liccnse shall pay a yearly fee of seven hundred fifty dollars. (b) Operators of amusement centers shall pay a yearly fee of thirty-five dollars per amusement device maintained upon, the .premises. (c) Applicants .~~~rzn amusement arcade license shall pay an investigation- fee of seventy-five dollars to cover the cost of in- ves~~~ition required by this chapter. Id) The City ('Ie;rk shall issui~ a receipt for the payment of those fees. (Ord. 0-81-19 ~ 6, 1981: Ord. 0-75-98:1 (part), 1975 ). 18$-7( (Lakewood 3.30.81) i~ . AMUSEMENT DEVICES 5.46.080 SUSI'L-'NSION OR REVOCATION OF.LICENSE. (a) The City Clerk m;ty suspend or revoke any license granted pursuant to this chapter upon a Ending of any of the following factor;: (1) That any of the amusement devices maintained upon the premises arc being used for gambling purposes; (2) "1.1tat repeated disturbances- of public peace leave been occurring within the licensed establishment or upon arty parking areas; sidewalks, walkways, access ways or grounds ' nmediately adjacent to the licensed premises involving patrons, e• ~ployees or the holder of the license of the establishment; (3) Tltat the holder of the license or any employees thereof .arc illegally offering for sale or illegally allowing to be consumed upon the licensed premises, or upon any parking arc.:,s, sidewalks, walkways, access ways or grounds immediately adjacent to the licensed premises, narcotics or dangerous drugs or liquor, (4) T'Itat the holder of the license or an approved manager is not upon the licensed premises at all times; . (S) That the hour, of business of the licensed establishment .arc outside of those sea forth in Section 5.46.120; (6) That malt, vinous, or spirituous beverages are being con- . suntccl by patrons of the licensed establisltlnent upon any park- ing arras, sidewalks, walkways, access ways, or grounds i,n- ntedialely adjacent to the licensed premises; (7) That malt, vinous, or spirituous beverages are being con- sumecl by patrons of the licensed establishment upon the li~enscd premises unless: __ (A) •ffte cstablisltntent legally possesses a Type I3 amusement arcadr license; and (B) fifty pr.rcent or more of weekly gross receipts of said licensed establishment are derived front the sate of food and nclnalcohlic beverages; and . (C) The sale of malt, vinous, and spirituous beverages does 185-77 (Lakewood 12.30.80) „ .. ,. ~' ~~ J 4!. k. AMUSEMENT DEVICES not exceed twenty percent of the weekly gross .receipts of the licensed establishment; and (ll) Malt; vinous, or spirituous beverages are not sold, served, bi~ouglrt into or consumed in any room or area in which amuse- nu:nt devices are located. (b) Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the city from taking any other enforcement action provided for by this code or the laws of the state or of the United Stafes. (Ord. 0-80-89 2, 1980; Urd. 0-77-15 § 4, 1977: Ord. 0-76-17 3 5, 1976; Ord., 0-75-98 § 1 (part), 1975). I85-77a (Lakewood 12.30-80) Y _ _,__,_-_.,,.. _.._. _-.._._,.,.,.._,~ .-.._.~ .. a P ~~ ~+ 4. Ypp! N.•- . Y~~~ . ., ,~' . Acb1USEMLNT UGVICLS 5.46.Uc~U .DISPLAY AND TRANSf ~R OF LIC1/NSE. The holder of any license or recciht issued pursuant to t11e terms of this chapter shall prominently display the same upon the premises fc~r which the license is issued.- Any license or receipt issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter shall not be transferable to any other location in the city. In the event of transfer of ownership of the business at the same location for which a license or tax receipt, is issued punu.uit to the terms of this chapter, a licc..se may be transl'crnc! to the new owner of the business; ,provided, however, lhat application tllercfor stating the same information ax reduired by Section 5.46.030 is first presented to the City Clerk for approval or disapproval, accompanied by the $750.OU application fee anc'. $75.00 investigation fee as required by Section 5.46.070. A . pproval or disapproval of such transfer shall be upon the same teens as approval or disapproval of a license as required by the terms of this chapter. (Ord. 0-77-15 § 5, O77: Ord. 0-75-98 § ~ 1 (part), 1)75). 5.46.100 C;AMBL[NC PROHIBITED. Nothing in this chahler ,hall be constnred to pcnnit any unlawful = wagering within the city. (Ord. 0-75-98 1 bambling or § (part), 1975). 5.46.110 VIOLATION - PENALTY. Any individual, assclcialion, partnership or corporation who is convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be fined in a sum of not more than three hundred dollars ~r shall be imprisoned • nut to uxcced ninety days, or shall be both so fined and imprisoned, as provided by Section 1.16.020 of this code. (Ord. 0-75-~)?3 § t (part), 1075). S.4b.1.'U 1•IUURS OF OPERATION. Any establishment licaisrd pursuant to the provisoes of this chapter shall not be open lirr business Monday throubh Friday between the hours of 1 bs-78 (L~kewood 7.15.77) -= i 1 r • b. .... ,...e+..-.~-....a ... ~ l E, AMUSEMENT DEVICES I?:01 a•m. and ten a. the hours of two a m• and on Saturday and Sunday between m• and ten a.m. (Ord. 0-77-59 § 1, 1977: Orel. 0-77-15 § 6, 1977). 5.46.130 AGE OF MANAGER. No person under the age of nineteen years shall serve in the capacity of mana» establishment licensed pursuant to the provisions`r of any chapter. (Ord. 0-77-15 § 7, 1977) of this 5.46.140 CHANCE OF li~cnsec changes or causes toMb ~AGiM~NT. ~V~,ere any managers of lus establishment the manager or heretofore been a any Person who has not Pproved as a manager by the City Clerk, shall be presented by the holder of the license or shall rese himself to the office of the Cit P nt investigation. (Ord, 0.77.15 y Clerk fora background ~ § 8, 1977). 1 b5-79 (Lakewood 7-15.77) t f E r,. l r i t p&~ .. ~e j { 1~ i i wa Council Bill No. 77-70 Ordinance No. 1423. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTIONS 5-1 .TROUGH 5-8, INCLUSIVE, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ARVADA, COIARADO, PERTAINING 'I'0 POOL AND BT.LLLAR~; FURTHER REPEALING SECTIONS 5-33 THROUGH i, 5-42, INCLUSIVE, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ARVP,DA, OOIARADO, PF~RTAIl~IING 'I'0 MEC~iANICAL AN1[JSII~FI' DEVICES; F[JR'I~~R PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING AND COLLECTION OF FEES UPON ESTAIlLISHN~PI'S G AMUSE[~N'r DEVICES WITHIN THE CITY OF ARVADA, COUJRADO BE IT ORLIAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARVALIA, COIARADO: Section 1. Sections 5-1 through 5-8, inclusive, of the Code of the City of Arvada, Colorado, pertaining to pool and billiards, is hereby repealed. Sections 5-33 through 5- 42, inclusive, of the Code of the City of Arvada, Colorado, pertaining to mechanical amusement devices is hereby repealed. Section 2. Pursuant to the authority vested in the City of Arvada, Colorado, by Sections 31-15-501(1)(c), 31-15-501(V)(g), and (V)(j), C.R.S. 1973, as amended, to preserve the public safety, health and welfare of the citizens of the City of Arvada, and pursuant to the Charter of the City of Arvada, there is hereby added to Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Arvada, Colorado, the following Sections. Section 3. "Article V. Amusement Devices. Section 5-33. Definitions. A. "Applicant" shall mean any individual, association, partnership or corporation requesting a license pursuant to this chapter. B. "Amusement Arcade" shall mean a place of .business, -. where an individual, association, partnership or corporation maintains more than ten amusement devices. C. "Amusement Center" shall mean a place of business where an individual, association, part~~ership or corporation maintains less than 11 amusement devices either as a sole business or in conjunction with same other business. D. "Amusement Device" shall mean any device which upon insertion of a coin, slug, token, plate or disc, or payment of a consideration, may be used by the public for use as a game, entertairnnent, amusement, a test of skill, either mental or physical, whe~r or not registering a score, which shall include, bait be not limited to: pool tables, snooker tables, '~ '= foosball tables and pinball machines; but shall not include radios, devices that provide music only, bowling lanes, television carrying ccsnnercial broadcasts only, or fixed-stand coinroperated kiddie rides. ~ E. "N1~v~ager" shall mean an individual who manages, directs, supervises, oversees and administers the acts and transactions of the agents or servants of any establisYanent governed by this chapter, or who, through his own actions, directs, oversees and administers the affairs of any such establishment." -3- Section 7. "Section 5-37. Tenn of the License. All licenses granted pursuant. to this chapter shall be valid for a period of one.year from the date of issuance unless rewked or sus- pended pursuant to Section 5-40." Section 8. "Section 5-38. License Renewal. Renewal of any of the licenses granted pursuant to this chapter may be had by payment of the licensing fee along with a statem~Zt that the information listed on the original license application is still true and correct to the applicant's knowledge, or a statanent listing those items of information reciuised for a license application which have changed in the year since the license was granted or last renewed." Section 9. "Section 5-39. Fees. A. Applicants or holders of an amusement arcade license shall pay a yearly fee of $500.00. B. Operators of amusement centers shall pay a yearly fee of $25.00 per amusement device maintained upon the premises. C'.. Applicants for an amus~nent arcade license shall pay an investigation fee of $50.00 to cover the cost of investigation required by this chapter. The City Clerk shall issue a receipt far the payment of these fees." Section 10. "Section 5-40. Suspension or Revocation of License. A. The City Manager may susp~sid or revoke any license granted pursuant to this chapter upon a finding of any of the following fact7ors 1. That any of the amusement devices maintained., upon the premises are being used for gambling purposes. 2. That repeated. disturbances of public peace have been occurring within the licensed establisYBnent or upon. any parking areas, sidewalks, walkways, . access ways or grounds immediately adjacent to the licensed premises involving patrons, ~nployees or the holder of the license of the establishment. 3. That the holder of the license or any employees thereof are illegally offering for sale, or illegally allowing to be coristuned upon the . licensed premises, or upo~~ any parking areas, sidewalks, walkways, access ,rays, or grounds immediately adjacent to the licensed premises, narcotics or dangerous drugs.. 4. .That the holder of the license or an approved manager is not upon the licensed premises at all times. ~ 5. That the use of the amusement devices in the licensed establishment occurs during the hours when such operation is prohibited pursuant to Section 5-43. ~,~ ~ -4- o~ v'~. P ~- ~~ 6. That malt, vinous or spirituous beverages are ~~~(~ ~ . ~ ~ being consinned by patrons of the licensed ~ , establishment either upon the licensed premises ~ y or upon any parking areas, sidewalks, walkways, ,h ~ access ways or grounds ism~ediately adjacent to n~~~ ~~~ ~ the licensed premises. T -` ~ ~~~ 7. That a person under the age of 19 years is fir 5 being used as a manager of the licensed premises. ~~~ ~a ~ B. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the City frcm 'p1 (~j taking any other enforcement action provided for by this Code or the laws of the State of Colorado or of the United States." Section 11. "Section 5-4I. Display and Transfer of License. The holder of any license or receipt issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter shall prominently display the same upon the premises for which the license is issued. 'Any license or receipt issued pursuant too the terms of this chapter shall not be transferable to any other location in the City. In the event of transfer of ownership of the business at the same location for which a license or tax receipt is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter, a license may be transferred to the new owner of the business; provided, however, that application therefor stating the same information as required by Section 5-35 is first presented to .the City Manager for approval or disapproval, acccanparLi.ed by the $500.00 application fee and $50.00 investigation fee, as recuired by Section 5- 39. Approval or disapproval of such transfer shall be upon the same terms as approval or disapproval of a license as rte,,; red by the terms of this chapter. "' Section 12. "Section 5-42. Gambling Prohibited. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit any unlawful gambling or wagering within the City of Arvada." Section 13. "Section 5-43. Hours of Operation.. Any establishment licensed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall nat be open for business Monday through Friday between the hours of 12:01 A. M. and 10:00 A. M. .and on Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 2:00 A: M. and 10:00 A. M." Section 14. "Section 5-44. Any individual, association, partnership or corporation who is convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be fined in a sum of not more than $300.00 or imprisoned not to exceed 90 days, or be both so fined and imprisoned, as provided by Section 1-9 of the City Code." - Section 15. "Section 5-45. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordisiance is for any reason held invalid or unwnstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof." 41- INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISH this 17th day of October ~ 1977. Mayor ATTEST: Cit Clerk }l 1 ~ ~ -5- PASSID, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 7th day of November , ~.---~ ~ ~ Mayor ATTEST: i Clerk APP TO FORM: W. City torney Publication Dates: October 20, 1977 November 17, 1977 . ,. t"~ Council Bill IVO. 80-81 Ordinance No. 1712 •~~'AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-36 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO, PERTAINING TO THE LICENSING OF AMUSEMENT ARCADES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 5-36 of the Code of the City of Arvada, Colorado; is hereby amended and shall hereinafter be as.follows: "Section 5-36. Approval of License. A. Application 'shall be reviewed by have an investigatio sufficient to verify 5-35. On completion shall either approve for the license required by Section 5-34 the City Manager. The City Manager shall ~ conducted by the Police Department, all the information required by Section of this investigation, the City Manager or disapprove the application. B. No license shall be issued to any applicant unless. approved by the City Manager. The City Manager may refuse to issue any license for an amusement arcade if the finding is made of any of the following: 1. Where the applicant is under the age of 21 years or 2. Where the applicant, manager or any of them, have made false statements upon the application.; or 3. Where the applicant, manager or any, of them, are not of good moral character. C. No license shall be issued for an amusement arcade located within 500 feet of any grade school, junior high school or senior high school. Said distance to be computed by direct measurement from nearest property line of the land used•for school purposes to the nearest portion of the building in which :. the amusement arcade is located. D. In the event the City Manager disapproves a license application, the City Manager shall make written findings of" fact stating the reasons for the disapproval. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in fiull force and effect from and after its passage and publication,, as provided by the Charter. ... INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 15th day of December , 198. " ~~ ~ J~~P~ Mayor ATTEST: Ci t Clerk PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED `tS~is 5th ATTEST: day of January 198 1 Mayor ~~g, ~~,.~( ~L ~ APPROVED AS TO FORM Ci tyi Clerk Publication Date r December 18, 1980 City Attorney January 8, 1981 s Council Bill No. 80-60 Ordinance No. 1690 AN ORDINANCE AM~VDING SECTION 5-40 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF A.R~TADF„ ~ COLORADO PERTAINING TO AMUSE[~l'I'. DEVICES-SUSPENSION OR REVOCATIC~] OF LICENSES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARVADA, COIARADO: Section 1. Section 5-40 (A) (6) and (7) are hereby amended and a new subparagraph (8) is hereby added to the Code of the City of Arvada, Colorado, and shall be as follows: "Section 5-40 A.(6.) That malt, vinous, or spirituous beverages or fermented malt beverages are being consumed by the patrons of the licensed establishment upon any parking areas, sidewalks, walkways, accessways, or grounds immediately adjacent to the licensed premises; (7) That malt, vinous, or spirituous beverages are being consumed by patrons of the licensed establisY~ent upon the licensed premises unless (i) The only alcoholic beverages being consumed are malt and vinous beverages as defined by the Colorado Liquor Code; and (ii.) Not less than fifty percent of the weekly gross receipts of said licensed establishment are derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages; and (iii)The sale of malt and vinous beverages does not exceed twenty percent of the weekly gross receipts of.the licensed establishment; and (iv) Malt or vinous beverages are npt sold, served, brought to or consumed in any room or area in which amusement devices are located. (8) That a person under the age of nineteen years is being used as a manager of the licensed establishment, Section 2. This ordinance shall be iri full. force and effect frarn and after i.ts passage and publication, as provided by the Charter. INTRODU®, RFAD AND ORDERID PUBLI5HID this 18th day of August , 1980. ATTEST: ~~~~~~~~~4oA~ Crty Clerk -' ~~ 6, 4 -tC~-~)..L~yyA . Mayor PASSID, ADOPTID AND APPROVED this 2nd day of September , 1980. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk APPROVEp AS TO FORM: City Attorney . Publication Dates: August 21, 1980 _September 11, 1980 APPLICATION FOR MECHANICAL AN!USEMENT DEV""ICE LICENSE - ARCADE Date of Application 1. Name, Address, and Nature of Business to be Licensed 2. Name of Applicant or Applicants 3. Address of Applicant ~+. Date of Birth Place of Birth Age U.S. Citizen (Yes or N~ 5. State whether applicant or applicants have been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or violation of municipal ordinance, other than traffic violations, the nature of the offense and the punishment or penalty assessed therefor, if any: If applicant is a corporation, association or private club, information above should be given for all officers, directors, or stockholders holding 10 percent or more of corporate stock. 6. Describe the machines to be licensed, including mechanical features, serial numbers, and name of manufacturer (More than 10 machines) 7. Name and. Address of Manager of Outlet Date of Birth Must be 19. or Older 8. State whether or not manager has been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or violation of municipal ordinance, other than traffic violations, the nature of the offense, and the punishment or penalty assessed theref or, if any: I have read and fully understand the provisions of Ordinance No. 1+23 of the City of Arvada and agree to comply with all terms, provisions and conditions of said. ordinance. Signature of Applicant(s) State of Colorado County of Jefferson ~ss. being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That (he) (she) is the applicant or applicants above-named; that such information as set forth herein is true to the best of own knowledge. Signature of Applicant(s) Subscribed and. sworn to before me this day of , A.D., 1977. ~Y Commission expires Notary Public Fees Paid: $500 per year for more than 10 machines Zoning Requirements Met: Approval: Planning Director City Manager ~' APPLICATION FOR MECHANICAL AMUSEMEfJT DEVICE LICENSE Date of Application:_ Name, Address, and Nature of Business to be Licensed ... .. 2. Name of Applicant or Applicants 3.' Address of Applicant 4. Date of Birth Place of Birtfi ~~ ~ Age U S Citizen 5. Yes or No State whether applicant or applicants have been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or violation of municipal ordinance, other than traffic violations, the nature of the offense and the punishment or penalty.assessed therefor, if any If applicant is a corporation, association or private club,, information above should be given for all officers, directors, or stockholders holding 10 percent or more of corporate stock. 6. Describe the machines to be licensed, including mechanical features, serial numbers, and name of manufacturer 10 machines or less) 7. Name and Address of Manager of Outlet Date of Birth Must be 19 or Older 8. State whether or not manager has been convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or violation of municipal ordinance, other than traffic violations, the nature of the offense, and the punishment or penalty assessed therefor, if any I have read and fully understand the provisions of Ordinance No. 1423 of the City of Arvada and agree to comply with all terms, provisions and conditions of said ordinance. Signature of Applicant(s) State of Colorado ) - County of Jefferson ) ss. __._ being first duly sworn, deposed and says: That he she is the applicant.or applicants above-named; that such information as set forth herein is true to the best of own knowledge. Signature of Applicant(s) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of A.D. X77. My Commission expires Fees Paid: $25.00 per machine for 10 mach Ines or less Zoning Requirements Met: Planning Director Notary Public Approval: City Manager .,. 1981 Debt Service: TOI~VN OF VAIL 1982 BUDGET OPEN SPACE ~ CAPITAL IMPROVEMNT FUND TEN YEAR FINANCIAi, PLAN 1982 1983 1984 .1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 G.0: Debt 253,000 258,000 262,000 270,000 272,000 274,000 276,000 278,000 285,000 G.O. Refunding 795,000 823,000 843,000 870,000 878,000 884,000 893,000 . 894,000 903,000 G.O. LionsLead 595,000 840,000 840,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 1.;300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 G.O. Librai•~~ 2.'~i -- -- 338,000 380,000 400,000 400,000 410,000 410,000 420,000 G.O.. Li onshea'd T~4a11 1.71 -- -- 95,000 234,000 239,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 270,000 ,, 1~~.V, Fire StatiQfl __ __ __ __ -- 70,000 70,000 90,000 90,000 lease Com3ritments: Existing at 7J31/81 350,400 383,200 378,20;0 278',200 377,900 358,700 199,400 202,5-00 199,900 I:eases Fuses 420[ -- 113,000 113,000 113,000 .113,000 113,000 -- -- ~-- i`iLlni cipal Bldg :+uthorit}': 28,000 58,500. 58,500 54,000 54,000 59,100 -- -- -- C'ther: 3,000 lotal Fixed Expenses 2,024,400 2,475,700 2,927,700 3,399,200 3,533,900 3,658,800 3,398,400 3,424,500 3,467,900 i,.i.ft Tax V.A.I. 259,000 307,000 350,000 385,000 420,000 420,000 420,00.0 420,000 450,000 ~;+l es Tax TOt~~ 1,980,000 2,447,000 2,887,000 3,320,000 3818,000 4,276,000. 4,789,000 ` 5,364,000 5,900.-,000 ;~~:les Tax 1~~'.~±,Y 20G,000 231,000 254,100 279,500 307,500 338,200 372,000 409,200 450,200 5<.Ies Tax Counttir -- ~ 82,000 113,800 ~ 130,400 149,500 167,300 187,100 209,200 230,200 ,.,. - i~tiler 45,0-00 ~ 50,000_. .. . . Total Rei~e~tue 2,490,000 3,117,400 3,604,900 4,114,900 4,695,000 5,201,500 5,768,100 6,402,400 7,030,400 het :\vailable 4651600 641-,700 677,200 '7151700 1,161,100 1,542,70Q 2,369,700 2,977,900 3,562,500 i01' pr07eGt~ ' T41` Sales Tai I~~crease 18% 180 150 150 120 120 120 100 1990 290,000 909,000 1,30G,C00 420,000 270,000 1.10,000 196,900 3,495,000 450,000 6,490,000 495,200 253,200 7,688,400 4,193,400 lOs L ~ 1 ~ 0 ~ 1 Jfi:. ~~ ALL Illil A11'1'PICN'1"a ~ i ~~~ ~ ~ i~,~1 ~m~~r ~fc~men~ s lar~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 4 ~- --• . FUndinO, SOU!"~C ~l!1 ti1CU~ch d:,1 r=C•J:CT ;te` Cpen Open Sp. Space Cum Rec Arlen Rec P,l~en Fund I Cum ~. General G.O. Fund Bonds hedercl Funds ~Fe~i~? Otr~r* ij -r;;,; ~~ •~ ~sse;rn't~ ~ iCir! ~ 1 ~ ~ L[ONSHfAD BIKE PATI~I ~ ~ ~ 40 i 'I ~~ 40 ~ SEIrF,R PLANT BIKE f AT~EI 70 110 ~~ i ~ ~~ 70 1 . ,f 3 I FORD PARK (RATER, SF:ItiER) _ 35 145 ,I _ ~ i~ 35 __ , 4 { FORD P1RK TE\':r'IS COURTS - LAN[SCAPING - I 5 150 ~ { ,,1 ~ fM 5 S ~ BIGHORN PARK EQUIP~ICNT ~ 5 155 ;~ 5 t, ~ BTKG P~1i71S -SIGNS AND POSTS s y ~ 4 ~ 159 ~ ~ I - ~ 4 i f , f GOLD PEi:IK 1~O1,LEYBALL COURT' `~ ~ ~ . 6 165 ~ --' ~ ~' 6 ~ 7 ' S ~ COBSON ItREN,I LANDSCAPING ! - 70 I -~_ ~ `-- r- ~ '~ 70 I ,; t 9 I SHOP L1IPROVI:~IEN'I'S .32 102 ~ __' ~ ~_ , it , ~ 10 ~ INFOfZ~SATIO`7 SIGNS ~~ 3 105 - ~ .~ i ~ ~! I1 ~ '~iUVICIP:IL PARKING LOT-LANDSCAPING 5 110 I i ( i` 5 1? BUS B,~RN EXP;INS[ON ~ ~ 85 ! ~ 195 42b ~ ~ ~I 51i I ~ I3 ~ EQUIP~IE~'T E\P;A:1'SION /ROADS $ STREETS ~ 88 283 ~ ~ ~ ' i ~ j ~5 ` i l•1 ~ ``+hVICIP.AL GUILD.ING I~IPROVEh1ENTS /POLICE 60 343 ~ ~ ~~ :+ ~ -~ bU . ;5 ; L[CNSHEr1D PARKING STRUCTURE-LANDSCAPING ~ ~ ~ 21 ;i~ 21 16 ~ CHILDREN'S FOUNTAIN -ROCK IVALL 5 1348 ~ ~~ 5 ~ ` ~ *S ec ial Parxi n ~ Assessment }•und ;; -- ~ TOTAL _..~,...,,.~._._.,~w._._,_,_------ ti - ~--^ j . I + _... • '348 165 426 l 2i • 96U ~ ~ t I j ~. ~~p'ial improvements plan Ye4r ' ~~~ 1982 ~ ALL DEPARTMENTS Pa G e j_~_. i s ....,~.......v....Y P~QJcCT ~ Ref 7 Funding Source (in ti~ousands Open Open Sp. Rec AmeniRec Amen General ~ G.O. Federal SGecial Other* ?rojeci Space Cum Fund Cum Fund Qonds Funds Assesra't` TOThI 17 I,IO'v'SE{E:~D PL1LL Itw1PR0VEM6NTS 75 423 1'7 75 1 - 18 b'AIL VILL;iGG IMPROVEPIENTS 70 493 - iU 19 STREET SIGNS 3 496 i j - 3 20 i HISTORIC PRESERVATION 8 -- 504 ~ -- ~ S 21 I POLICE DEPART',fENT DISPATCH 15.7 519.7 I 15.7 ?2 I S'I'REE'I L1GlITS _, •15 534.7 ~ 1 15 23 ~ S'I~REET I~iPROVEDtiNTS 24.6 _ 559.3 _ ~ •- _ 82.4 lUl ?4 NE{V PiWICIPAL LIBRARY - ---'-- '; 2~,70U ~ 2,70U i I ' I t ...... i ~' -'- *L'ag e County 1 o Sales Tax 70TAL . ~ 559.3 165 I ! 2,700 426 1.7 103.4 3y.53.7 c I YO;fN ~~ _ ~~~;ol.al mprovements plan:l_ ~ d5 I Pr.CJcCT ~ ~ .Ref 1 ~ ATHLETIC FIELD; PENCE ~ 2 FORD PARK IfOh1E RUN FENCE I - N;11URE CENTER ' d i PAVE SANDSTONE TOT LOT PARKING t S I FORD PARK - F.ICLD N0. 3 6 ~ SF{Of' Ih1PItUVEhiENTS ~ ~~ I ~ .I ~~ ' INFOR!I~ITION SIGNS I _. ~ ~ 8 L IONSHE.AD Ih1PROVEb1ENT DISTRICT ~~ i 9 NAIL VILLAGE IhIPROVEhIENTS 10 A'EST LIOVSf~IE•AD BUS SHELTER 1~1 ~ 'i~iISTORIC P2ESERl!ATION f 12 STREGT Ih1PROVEhiENTS, f Y-~-^; It ~~ . _.. ._..M._._._... funclin~ Source (in thnu~unus) _ ~ Open Open Sp. Rec Amen Itec Amen~Genel•al G.O. federal ~ Cred al ~ Cth_r * ~~~ f r~; .~ nd Cum ~ ~ Fund Donds Funds Assesm't~ I~ iC~r' Space Cum fu 2 ~` ~ ~ _ _ ~ r~ t 3 5 I~ 3. , 1 6 ~I 1 !f r 12 : 18 :I 12 ~ ~!! 9 27 it 9 •. ,~ ~ 28 r •I 2~ I ~. ~ ~.: 3' 31 ~ it 3 .i cc 3 ., i 100 331 ~ ~ ~ 1,700 I~ 6UC ,, 'i 170 401 I 70 ~~ 7.5 •408.5 ~ i; 7.5 - --- ~~ 8 416.5 `I 8 , _ ~ --, 246.9 563.4 113.8 1 260.7 ? ~; 1 -~ ~ 1 i f _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ ~~ r :~ .I '` -"-~~ ~~+ ~: _._. ~ *Eagle County 1o Sales Ta~~~ ~ 1,700 70TAL ~ 563.4 27 I 1"'' .113.4 ~ lUU4.2 ! . t .,._ 3 • Year ;: - ca;~iial im~;~rovements plan ~ ~~-~ i. , PROJECT "~ ~ 1 ~ }i,EST VAIL DIKf:~ PATH EXTENSIONS I3~Ihf10~~~ ;I'rIRK 3 1300TI1 C12,I;Ef; '1;OT LOT I!iPROVEPIENTS ~- ~ a DO~OV:1N ~P:1f21 -SOCCER FICLD ~- ~ 5 ~ ~1~~IL 1't~CNSPO~TATION CEPITER -SOLAR PANELS 6 ~ t.I(3NSIIf:1D ~i~IPItOVF:DIENT DISTRICT -. P;~ ;~,a1L t~Ii~LIGE I~f~ROI?i:T1ENT DISTRICT a H I S~I'OR IC ,PRGSERElr1'CION 9 S'If~I;I:T 1~~1i'RO~+E'~1fti'CS 10 I B00'Tfi Cf~isf:h TQ,'C L.OT GQUIPt`fENT Funding Source (in thousancs) 4 ~_ -..-- Ref Open Open gyp. Rec Amen Rec Amen~General G.O. Federal Special Other *~' Frc~ec: ;r S ace Cum Fund Cum Fund Bonds Funds Asses~n'tl ~I iC"~' P _ 50 I 50 _ ,_J zo ~ i~ 20 25 45 II 25 I 40 85 ;I _ S 50 135 50 100 410 ~ i~ 550 2,000 ~~ 3 270 580 r ;i ~~,3 585,3 ~ ~ 5.3 IL ' 130.4 ~~ 13U.4 20 70 _~ • ~ ~ ~. . , •_........~......_._._. _, w *Eagle County 1% Sales Tax .__.,. TOTAL ~ 585:3 70 ~ 130.4 _ . ... ®r oar, ,eecr j 2U ~~ ._..r._; 1230.7 i J ~ __~3 Year ~- r • "' C.',~I!~1I ii~i~171"OV211'121~iiS bCll l ~__~ _"..., f ,_. ~! ~~.®..~__.~~.w....._. ......_..~.. ~ Funding Source (in thousands) j Yi-QJECT Ref Open Open gyp. Rec Amen Rec Amen~General. G.O. Federal Special Other *~' rrC~t.:~ # Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Donds Funds Assesm't I i`r'e. 1 <<'ES•P VA1L B[KE PATII EXTENSIONS 50 t ~` _ _ i,._ 5~ ~ itlGl!0}~V I':1RK 40 ~ !~ ~ - I, 40 3 DONO1t;1N P;1RR IMPROVEPI!:NTS 150 190 150 I i TEES' CEO"ICR SITE I~iPROVCh1EN'I'S ~ !~ 35 225 ~~5~ 5 LIONSIIEAD Ii<1PROVE~IENT DISTRICT 50 500 ~ • ~~ _ ~ 550 6 VAIL VILLAGE Ih1PROVEhiGNT DISTRICT 275 775 ' !5 550 7 ; IIISTOR[C PRESERVATION __._ ~. 11.6 786.6 ~ !, 1; 6 8 DOf3SON ARENA I:XI'ANSION `450 1011,6 ~ ~; 225 `~ ~ I! 9 ~ STREET II~fPROVEh1ENTS 149.; ~~ 149. S co _. ~ ~ l { ' ' ~ -•-•--•-_•.-_._.•..._.._. ., -,~ _ *Eagle ounty 1 a Sa es Tax ~ t _, ToTnL ~ 1011.6 50 ~~_ ..~. 149,5 1761.1 • Yf'a" r^~' ,~ ~~ -~I- ~ ~- ~ enl s Icon' 1986 ~~iJ~~al n~~ouem p i~ C 1 ~ ~~ GJEC7 I ! DOa?1~1N F1RK I`~;PROl~E~1ENTS Z ~ LIO?iSl{L;AD I~ii'RO~rE~1CN'i' UIS'iRICT~ `PAIL VILLAGE Ib1PROVEDiGNT DISTRICT HISTORIC PRIiSERVATION _ ;. P(L'1II6IP.AL S!~'I~~1ING POOL 6 ' A'EST ~+~1IL 13IKC PATf~I E\TENSIONS i pEBl' CO`ii'INGE~CI' I~l1ND $ ) NF.Iti E3US L.EASr 9 1'~EST VAIL~EIRC STATION I0 ~ STREET ~I~IPRO'dEi!IlN'I'S Funding Sou°~ce (In thou~~i~~s Pen Ref O Oren Sp. Rec Amen Rec Amen General G.O. Federal Special Othar~ ~ rrc~=s= ~ ' . ~ Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Dorids ^ - Funds Ass. ! ' 225 •~ I 250 ~'_"'_' I -- - 275 j` ~5U 50 ____ 225 ~~ 450 225. 500 ,;- I _ 10.4 ~) ? 10.4 510.4 r i~ ' _ iI 225 225 735.4 • 50 50 ~~ 50 - ;; - ~ ~ {~ ~ if ISO 18U 915.4 ~ _ ~ ii 300 300 1215.4 500 i 160 ,~4, 1375.4 ~ - 167.3 ~ 167.3 - ---9. ~ ,~ - i~ ~_. ._,_. ' - -----' TOTAI..~.__._. Y...~._....._w. 3 ~.~. _.,,_. ..._-.~ I.-....Z...--- ""'"'~~ _ *Lagle County 1 o Sales '1_ax 1375.4 50 5~® 500 167.3 . ~. _. i ~2s42.7 i. box 100 vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5613 February 11, 1982 T0: TOWN COUNCIL department of community development FROM: Department of Community-Development RE: .Colorado Insight Sign Uariance Request Attached is a memo explaining the sign variance requested by Colorado Insight for their location in the Vail 21 Building. At their January 20, 1982 meeting the Design Review Board voted 6-1 to recommend denial of the request to the Council. The Design Review Board felt that since the Sign Code allows . placement of signs inside the windows which identify services provided that there was no hardship evidenced. mi~a~ o M' !~ ~' ~~1 ~(~ ~S 2 ~"Y ~t ~..~~ .. \~ _~ . ~~~ \ r 't t• ~~ i~~. r `'1 75 south fronlaoe rd. T January•• 15, 1982 vail, color2~o 51657 (303)476-7000 T0: DESIGr11 REVIEtti' BOARD department of community development FROM: Department of Community Development/Peter Jamar RE: Colorado Insight Sign Variance Request for Vail 21 Buildin Description of Variance Requested The applicant, Colorado .Insigf~t, requests a variance to the Sign Code to allow 3 signs of approxiirately 3.8 square feet each Sri th the irorki ng "Ski P,ental s" to be erected along three sides of the Vail 21 Building in Lions head. The Sign Code does not a l l o~•r signs arhi ch advertise the service of a business. The purpose of any exterior sign is to identify the business or organization located within a building. The Sign Code does allow window signs for the purpose of identifying products, services or events. In this case it would seem that ski rental is a service provided'by Colorado Insight and that the appropriate placement of these signs would be afrixed to or hung inside the uri ndow of the' store. The applicant has not related any special circumstances or conditions ~•rhich would prove to be a physical hardship in this case. Criteri a for Approval before the b~.ard acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove p'~.ysical hardship, and. the board must find that: >y~ ~ A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to tare land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-ti•ray, ~•rhich t•rould subst~~ntially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, hot,~ever, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to tvhich the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises; B. That such special circumstances t•rere not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant; C. That the granting of the variance wil_1 be in eeneral harmony t•ri th the purposes of thi s title, and ~•ri 1 1 not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to tfie neighborhood, or to the public ~~relfare in general; D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use; E. Such other factors and criteria as the design review board deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff Recoi~~mendations The Department of Community Development Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance. There ar°e no circumstances in this case ti•lhich would make it difficult for the applicant to identify the business and services offered under the provisions of the sign code.. z. MEMORANDUM T0: Toti,m Counci 1 FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 18, 1982 SUBJECT: Purcell parking fee Of the dozen parking fee assessments made since July, only two establishments have not paid the fee. One owner has indicated that he will pay the fee; the other owner, John Purcell, has strong objections abainst paying the fee. The purpose ' of this memo is to inform the Town Council of the situation and to obtain their approval to collect the fe.e through Municipal Court. John Purcell~s objections are outlined in the attached corres- pondence. i ~ i ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~< 4 t ~v n~ C~ f:~ Si' t~ 6 8 A ~` box 100 vail, coloraclo 81657 (303) 476-5613 Purcell's Restaurant 549 iVest Lionshead Mall Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Purcell: department of community d~:velopment July 15, 1981 Purcell's Parking Fee The Town of Vail is now collecting the parking fee. The parking fee is assessed on the basis of new or additional development in the commercial cores. This letter outlines the law concerning the parking fee a.nd presents a schedule for the payment of the fee. (See Vail's zoning code: 18.52.100, 18.52.160B.) The Town Council has set several different parking fee formulas for different types of development. In May 1980 the 'Town Council lowered the commercial. parking fee rate for two years to encourage dcwelopers to begin work on their exp~.nsion or alteration plans. T'he commercial rate was lowered from $5,000 to $3,000 for each 300 square feet of expansion. Eating and drinking establishments are assessed differently. They are assessed at the rate of $3,000 for every 10 seats of new seating capacity. The Town Council did not lower the residential parking fee, and it remains at $5,000 for every parking stall required for new development. (See the ordinance for details.) The commercial parking fee may be paid over a five year period, but the residential fee must be paid in one lwnp sum. Payment of the first fifth of the connnercial fee is due at the time the construction permit is issued. The second fifth is due one year after the permit is issued, the third fifth is due two years after the permit is issued, and so on w~til the fifth fifth is paid. A schedule of your parking fee payments appears on the attached page.. f 1'trrcui is IZcstau~,.,ut. t',~r:ki_ng I~ccs 1'otr,l. Commcrcinl P,,rk:in4; Pccs Duo $7,200 D~~tc Duc Amount First Fifth October 15, 1980 $1,440 Second Fifth October 15, 1981 1,<140 Third Fifth October 15, 1982 1,440 Fourth Fifth October 15, 1983 1,440 Fifth Fifth October 15, 1984 1,440 The parking fee due at this time is the first fifth or X1,440. Receipts from the parking fe e are channelled into a special fund designed to help solve Vai.l's parking prob lems. }Ve appreciate your contributions. Sincerely, . °J~ ' ,` ` \ ~- rixM~ ~ ~o~e o~ ~~1~~ box 100 department of community development vail, Colorado 81657 (303} 476-5613 . November 18, 1.981 John Purcell Box 1134 Vail, Colorado 81658 Re: Purcell's }testaurant Dear John: On July 15, 1981 this department sent Purcell's Restaurant a bill. for $1,440---the first installment of the parking fee due as a result of your restaurant expansion. After considerable discussion, we are not revising the parking fee assessment.- The central issue is that the total parking fee due--$7,200--is the correct application of the law. R'e should i~ot deviate from the legislative directives of the Town Council. To~deviate from the Town Counci.l's directives <<~ould b e to grant a special privilege. It is this department's duty to apply the law fairly and evenly. The purpose of this letter. is to outline the minicipal code concerning the par}~.ing fee and explain how the fee was calculated. The purpose of the parking fee is outlined under the chapter of the bfunicipal Code entitled "Off--Street Parking and Loading". It reads "In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of off street parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to new structures, enlargements of existing dti~elling units, accommodation units, meeting rooms or convention facilities to a new use..." (Vail Aunicipal Code 18,52.010). The Tok~i Council exempted two areas fz om on site parking requirements-- Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. R'ithin these excrr~t areas, property owners are required by law to contribute to the 'I'otit~n parking fund. The appropriate passage reads: "At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel of property within an .exempt area...thc owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee..." (Vail Municipal Code 18.52.160.8). Purr '1 -2- 11/18/81 f • The parking fee was calculated using the following inform:.ition: 1. Section 18.52.100 Par};ing - Requirements Schedule Use Parking Requirement Eating and Drinking One space per each 10 seats, based Establishments on seating capacity or building code occupancy standards, whichever is greater 2. In your case we applied the seating standard, because it would be difficult to assess a fractional part of a building occupancy standard. 3. Your addition houses 24 restaurant seats, or 2.4 stalls. 4. In A4ay of 1980 the Town Council set the commercial parking fee rate at $3,000 per stall. S. 2.4 stalls x $3,000 = $7,200. I understand the source of your irritation. On June 23, 1980 this department sent a memorandum to the Planning Corn°nission. Item number three mentions a parking fee charge of $6,000, which is $1,200 under the actual amount due. But this should not, and will not, stop this department from collecting the fee as required by municipal law. The courts will support our position on this stopped by the courts from enforcing the law our position. To enforce the law, as repress does not create a "manifest injustice~~,* nor collecting the parking fee where such action the law."** matter. }4e should not be simply because we have changed anted in my previous letter, will a court stop us from "would require violation of Fortunately, our system of government protects us from the whims, mist;tkes and arbitrary decisions of fallible men. {v'e are, as Sam Ervin put it. during the tiYatergate hearings, "a nation of laws and not men." * University of Colorado v. Silverman. Colo. 555 P.2d 1155 ** Van Cleve v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Adams, Colo. App., 5}8 P.2d x '~ . ~ Pu. ~.,,U 1 -3- 11/18/81 At one time you told me t}lat "if I owed the fee, I would pay it." According to Municipal law you do ow the Tow~~ the fee.. Come in and talk things over with me. Yours, JIM SAYRE Town Planner JS:br I ~ ' 9' n~/"~ 6 /~Z, A ~~/ I VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION _o 241 E. Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado 81657 (~_ MARKETING/CHAMBER SERVICES/CENTRAL RESERVATIONS November 25, 1981 Mr. Richard Caplan Town of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, Co 81658 Dear Rich: The Vail Resort Association wishes to express its appreciation to the Town of Vail, its staff and Council, for the many years of support of the marketing and chamber efforts of_ the VRA. With your budget process underway and the budget hearings approaching, we would like to once again request your support towards the pro- motional efforts of the VRA. This past year, the VRA experienced a higher level of funding from businesses, Vail Associates and the Town. This, along with better financial planning and fiscal guidelines, has enabled the VRA to become a more effective marketing arm for Vail. (I would be happy to give you a summary of our marketing plan, how the dollars are being spent, the philosophy to our approach and the results we expect.) The VRA feels that it is appropriate for the Town Government to be involved in the promotion of Vail and that last year's decision to become more committed to the marketing of Vail was a good business decision. We believe the phased approach, as Rich presented it last year with a 50% increase over a 3-year period of time, is best because it allows both entitites to plan ahead. As you know, we requested $120,000 in 1980-81. The council approved $100,000 but, with the low snow year causing town revenue projections to come in below budget, we were cut by 15% along with other budgeted expenditures. At $85,000, VRA was at the level of funding originally proposed by Rich. We are requesting that this year's budgeted level be $120,000, the same as we requested last year and the amount Rich suggested last year for the second phase of the 3- year plan. The $85,000 last year was allocated within our budget as follows: Summer Advertising $42,000 Special Events Kiosk 23,000 20,000 INFORMATION AND GROUP SALES (303) 476-1000-in Denver 595-9488 CENTRAL RESERVATIONS (303) 476-5677-(S00) 525-3875 Mr. Richard Caplan Nocnmber 25, 1981 Page Two We propose the $120,000 to be allocated in the following way: Summer Advertising $70,000 Special Events 25,000 Kiosk 25,000 In addition, the Vail Resort Association would appreciate the opportunity to make a proposal for a share of the rebate on the 1% county sales tax. The proposal would be our plan for using the dollars to intensify our marketing efforts. As you are aware, the commissioners wished the.~rebate to go towards economic development specifically mentioning the VRA as a recipient for a portion of those dollars. Since business and government are partners in the economic success of Vail and since VRA's primary goal as outlined in our Business Plan is to promote Vail year round, we are hopeful the town will continue in the coop effort with VRA to secure our economic base. I look forward to talking with you at a work session and to appearing at the public hearings. Let me know what information you would like presented to help you make a decision. Sincer , ~~ Paula A. Palmateer President PAP/src VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION, INC. Budget For Y/E 10/31/82 Marketing Expenditures Direct Expenses Salaries & Wages Payroll Taxes E~loyee Benefits Educational Opportunities Telephone Agency Retainers Advertising Cor~nission Rebate Collateral. Publicity Research Trade Shows Travel Enter~ainment Total General & Ad~runistrative Expenses TOTAL MARKEI'TNG EXPENDITURES 74503 5341 1691 1750 10263 18665 85800 (10991) 59700 5400 2000 5000 12000 .3000 274122 98774 372896 11/5j81 (9) i t COLORADO ~, . t ~WES'T REGIONAL ~IE1~T'TAI. HEALTH CENTER ~~~ SOPRIS AFFILIATE ~-~ P.O. Box 701 D Eagle, Colorado 81631 /` Telephone (303) 328-6969 Serving Eagle, Gartield, Pitkin Counties February 11, 1982 Mr. Rod Slifer, Mayor Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Slifer, This letter is to request that the town of Vail "grant $7,490,000 in this year's budget as the town's contribution to the Vail operation of Sopris Mental Health Clinic. Last. year we requested $1,1.00.00 from Gypsum, $2,200..00 from Eagle, $3,500.00 from Avon, $7,000.00 from Vail, and $10,000.00 from the county. We felt with this level of local funding we would be able to add a badly needed third clinician. The county and all the communities except for Vail, approved contributions at the requested level. The town of Vail indicated that because of the very poor snow fall and resultant loss of tax revenues last year it would be' unable to provide $7,000.00. Ultimately Vail did contribute .$5,000.00 and we are appreciative of that response, especially considering the reduced revenue posit- ion the .town was experiencing. Due to the positive response to our local funding requests and a grant from the Upper Valley Mental Health Association, we did add another therapist and Linda McCaskill joined our staff in February, 1981. We believe we are fortunate to be able to add another clinician of Linda's experience and ability and we are especially pleased to have someone on our staff with exper- tise in working with children. The majority of Linda's time is spent in Vail. This year we have asked local governments for a simple 7% increase over last year's requests and the county and the other communities granted the increase. T.he $7,490.00 we are requesting from Vail represents a 7% increase over last year's request as opposed to the $5,000.00 you were able to approve. Because of the very tight funding situation at the federal arid.state level (we received a zero in- cr~ease in our state funding this year), local contributions are particularly im- portant to the maintenance of community mental health services. Our clinic served 161 people-from Vail in 1981 as well as continuing to provide 24 hour emergency evaluation service to the hospital and the Vail Police Depart- ment. We appreciate your support to our program in the past and your consideration of this year's request. Should you have further questions I would be happy to meet with you. Sincerel Thomas W. Hill, ACSW, LSW II Team Leader al /b~PL Eagle County Offices •~ ~ Sopris Mental Health Clinic CC: R. Kaplan/Council Members~~~ R~ • ~ ~Ig~~ ~~ ~ o : ~ic~ C~I~C~~ Z'/G l~~ ~ f ~~~ opt ~~ 8 /vez. u~ ~ j ~-- ~~~~ CL®R~4~4 M®UNTi41N C®LLEGE Hon. Rodney Slifer February 16, 19$2 Mayor, Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Rody I am writing in behalf of the staff and many of the students at Colorado Mountain College to express our desire and support for a new Vail Municipal Library. The public library, as the public school, is a distinctively American phenomena - an affordable source of exposure and learning for every citizen. Most of us remember when Vail had no library and we have witnessed the growth of interest and use in the the library once it was estab- lished. Over the years Charlyn Canada has provided excellent leader- ship for the library and has worked diligently with the community to plan for its future. We support these efforts: A. public library is a vital resource for our town; an oacis for the visitor, the local, for the young and old and most importantly, for future generations. An expanded library will provide additional books, periodicals, newspapers, recordings and audio-visual instruments but as importantly it will offer discussion and meeting spaces, walls for exhibitions, places where community organizations will gather. An alternate library site will accomodate Vail's administrative office needs by freeing space in the Municipal Building.. Vail is presently planning activities to celebrate its 20th anniversary. One fitting tribute to the founders of Vail, as well as a confident salute to its future, might just be a groundbreaking ceremony for a new public library. I hope you will share our thoughts with members of the council and we urge this matter be brought to the .attention of the voters for their consideration. If we might be of assistance in any way, please let me know. S Randy///" Mil oan DirecJto COnAMUNII'Y E® CATION CEN'TEFiS/UPPE6i EAGLE VALLEY P.O. BOX 111 AIL. COLORADO 81657 303-467-4040 - VAIL CENTER P.O. 80X 117, MINTURN, COLORADO 81645 303-827-5703 - MALOIT PARK COLORADO INSIGHT 492 EAST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE VAIL, COLORADO .81657 " ^ URGENT ^ PLEASE RESPOND BY_ ^ NO REPLY NECESSARY (303) 476-3689 ~®= _~___, Town of Va i 1 ~, Town Counc i 1 ~,e~,~ _„ ~,, Town of Vail Offices .. ,_.~.__ __._.~.._._...___.__.._ W.,__...._... __,._.._._._„__~~___. _ ..._._,__,. _v. ___...__._._..,~.._ .,_..___.____~__~..__ . _~..,_..,__~.,.,Vai1,,_ Colorado _._,___ ~~ __~__.__.~_._~.._r,_~.m._,~...~~,. DATE :~F ~b I"5~1 dC,y _ ~ ~? ,,w._~l_~ ~ ~_._,~, ..__ .............~...,,....._._.--u._. SUBJECT: l ~__,_To whom, i t,_may..,_concern,~_,,.C,oloradq, _I_n_s.i_ght~r_.e~qu_est_s..~t.haa.~t.h.e__wS:i._gn..__V.a.ri..en,ce_Req_u.es~t,....~.~. FOLD FOLD _~~, be tabled unti 1 the_ next,.,_.Asaw.n._,Oa_u.r~.c_i~l.~Mee~t_i.taq t.o~b.e he_1_d.~_o.n_~Tu,es.da_y_,..._.Ma.rch_.2.,~._19.$2..~. E' Thank you for y,ou r„,cons i de.rat i on~_i n th i~ mat~_er_,..~_._..._.M_.. ~~__...,~._.___..___..m..~.~.~ _._W_..._._._.~... SIGNED:_..~,_ ~.._ _,~._.__.. JANE OMER ORD, BOO a~pd~r SIGNED: DATE: 5~.~®~~: SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES. FORM N0. MR13N, THE STATIONERY HOUSE. INC.. 1000 FLORIDA AVENUE, HAGERSTOWN. MD. 21740 i February 16, 1982 Susan J. Britton, Public Accountant P. 0. BOX 1261 Vail, Colorado 81658 The Town of Vail Town Council Members Vail, Colorado Re: Vail Resort Association's Request for Sales Tax Revenues Dear Town of Vail Council Members: I understand the Vail Resort Association will again be coming before the Council to ask for additional marketing funds. I believe this is the third year in a row that the request at a Town Council meeting has taken place. I must admit I am surprised, as I thought the VRA would have not only done their homework, but also spent most of last year assessing the pitfalls inherent in their "Association". I would request that before the Town of Vail Council grants any portion of the one percent rebate from sales tax revenues, that it satisfies itself on the following points: The legality for a profit organization to receive County revenues. What advantage additional marketing funds will accomplish when: 1. Vail charges almost the highest price for lodging and lift tickets; it is no surprise the lower priced ski resorts are surpassing the Vail area in volume. 2. The economy is at an all-time low; the VRA should have anticipated this, and reacted accordingly. The finest marketing efforts simply cannot attract those who simply cannot afford the costs. Simple economics teaches us this. In lieu of granting the Vail Resort Association additional funds, I would hope the Vail Town Council will address the issue of the ability of the VRA to properly represent the Vail we all love and would like it to be. I would hope you would consider a few personal comments which have been on my mind for several years: Continued Page Two Continued Perhaps Vail Associates, the lodging industry, and the restaurants and shops have become a bit too greedy. They may have inadvertently formed a sour taste so to speak in the mouths of many of our tourists. Will extra marketing efforts reverse this trend? Or will perhaps identifying the problems and dealing with them reverse this trend? The Vail community is in need of much; examples I can think of might include decent roads, a public library, a new park and playground for our children, a public swimming poor, and exercise club locals could afford, etc. I realize much of the sales tax revenue comes from the tourist; but, I would reiterate that it is the Vail local that has supported much of the tax dollars in recent years. We shop here, we eat here, and we play here. I wonder if Vail Associates, the VRA, and the merchant and. lodging facilities were to assess their own budgets and begin to address the question of "what can we do with what we have", and "how much can we expect the tourist to pay for what we have to offer", that you might see great marketing strides and efforts emerge at no additional costs. In closing, I would like to commend the efforts of Paula Palmateer and the Staff of the Vail Resort Association. My comments are in no way meant to discredit the hard work and dedication these people have demonstrated this past year. I simply believe there are unanswered questions which this year need to be addressed and dealt with and solutions presented before the Town of Vail can channel revenues to the VRA. Thank you, all of you, for listening to my thoughts. I am sorry I cannot attend this evening. This is important enough an issue to me that I at Least wanted to express my thoughts on paper with you. Sincerely,. e Susan J. Britton, Toian of Vail Resident Eagle County School District RE50J-Board Member SJB: s B:'#~ARD OF TRUSTEES John A. Dotson, PresidF~nt Gail E StrGUGh, V ~c:e-Pres idr~nt William c Bisr~~ap, Secretary C. Frederic; i•~.4e~yer, Treasurer Richard E. Truchses Member-at-Large Beverly GrEt~n, Executive P.drninistrator ~" ~ F11a~ ~ ~ . ~~~~ ~: ~yr ~ t ~ ~ ~x ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~i ~ ~ ~,;~ fog t~~ ~~~.~~~Oi~~i~~ ~r~s February 16, 198 Rod Slifer, P4ayor, and Town Council Town of Vail Vail, CO. 81658 Dear: Rod and Town Council P1embers: Charles ~. /'~,r~,ea~~rson Margaret S E3urdick Rict~iard n. Ccr,~!an Kathryn S. f-layd She~ka Gram~hr_rmrr,~r Wendy C~u ~tafsan Susan B fVi~lf~lC:~r.::;n Susan O. Shr_rmaker Elaine E. G^/t~~ite Craig M. White- It is self-evident that the community of Vail must spend money to attract visitors, but it is not quite so evident that money must also be spent to provide visitors with reasons to come to Vail. For the past ten years the Vail Institute has continually expanded its programs of music, dance and theatre to .the point that today our operating budget is in excess of X200,000.00, a budget that allows us to provide a variety of entertainment to Vail visitors and locals. In 1978 and in 1979 the Town of Vail assisted our endeavors by contributions of X15,000.00; in 1980 this contribution bras reduced to $10,000.00, and in 1981 the Town of Vail eliminated its contribution. It is not coincidental that the Vail Institute incurred a deficit of just over X10,000.00 in 1981. The attached article from the Vail Trail last July does a good job of explaining the contributions of the Vail Institute to our community; and vae hope that when you have had the opportunity to give your most thoughtful consideration to our request for X15,000.00 this year you will agree that it will come back to the town of Vail many times over. Sincerely, ~~f ,t ~ ~ ~ ~. J,, ~ ,`' ~~ ~ i'l ? 1 'V . , C, Frederic ~~eyer, Treasurer The Vail Institute p.o. box 1243, vail, Colorado 81657 303/476-1871, in denver 825-8572 .. ,... - ' ,tr.4 . ~-: 7 i " The Vatl Tmil -July 3. 1981 - Section A 9 Vail Institute keeps music in the.mountain air The Vail Institute, from humble origins nine years ago, has expanded and grown, partly because of the growth of Vail and partly because of the demand for more and varying offerings. As John Dobson, one of the founders and still a trustee of the Institute, recalls, "In the early days, there was nothing to do but hike and look at the flowers. We needed a summer attraction." That "summer attraction" has evolved from "modest with The Governor's Celebration of the Arts, featuring the Arvada Center Chorale. There will also be three performances in August by chamber groups comprised of advanced students and teachers from the Aspen Musical Festival. If that isn't enough to keep the- 16 trustees and Bev Green, the Institute's administrator, busy, the non-profit organization will underwrite the costs of two plays this summer by the year-old Vail Community Theatre Co. The The Institute's first program this summer, by the Dixieland jazz band, The E1 Jebel Syncopators, will be held July 4 after the parade through town. Dobson said there will be an open house and free food at the Institute's tent to kick off the beginning of the summer programs and to celebrate the use of the large tent for the first time in several seasons. Dobson said the .Institute's purpose-to bring various forms of art to the mountains-is particularly evident in the summer programs. Dobson said the organization underwrites 40 to 50 percent of the costs of the programs, thus making it possible to keep ticket prices well below what is normally charged elsewhere. Tickets to all the performances are $6 each or $50 for a book of nine tickets. To encourage attendance, Dobson said, tickets can be used at any or all of the Institute performances. The Institute, rejecting aone- shot, international extravaganza, is attempting to offer a diversified, increasingly all- season program that will fill in the cultural gaps of mountain living. "We're trying a lot of new approaches," he explained. "We're testing the waters to see what people want." To further that end, the Institute is seeking donations from local businesses and private individuals. The ,Institute depends entirely on these private donations to operate its program, Dobson said. With sufficient money and the completion of the amphitheatre in Ford Park, Dobson said he envisions the Institute will expand the scope and variety of its offerings. - But the offerings this summer (see accompanying calendar) look plentiful and varied enough to keep even the most diehard concert-goer hopping. From a rented tent and a stage built by the founders, the Vail Institute has grown to an organization that provides high-class concerts, theatre performances and children's programs. programs," a rented tent and a stage built by the founders to a multi-faceted organization that provides residents and visitors with year-round concerts, theatre performances and children's programs. .Still, Dobson said last week, people consider the Institute only as the sponsor for eight concerts a summer. "But we're much more than that," Dobson said. For example, he said, the Institute sponsored one program a month last year in the Eagle County Schools, featuring such diverse art as ventriloquism, jazz, poetry reading, an exhibit from the Children's Museum of Denver and music by the Denver childrens' Chorale. Those programs, which cost the Institute about $3,700 to sponsor, will continue this coming school year, Dobson said. To keep local children stimulated during the summer, the Institute will present a free children's concert each week during July and August, Dobson said. In addition, there will be a free concert Aug. 7 in conjunction theatre group, which was started by seed money from the Vail Recreation District, was the victim of the town's budget cuts this year that were brought on by lower-than-normal town sales tax revenue last season. With another separate group of volunteers, the Institute stepped in to help the theatre company. Two of its performances-"Bus Stop" and "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown"-appear in the Institute's schedule for July and August attractions. Then there is, of course, the bedrock of the Institute's offerings-the summer concerts held near Gold Peak, at the Dobson Ice Arena and, for the two theatre performances, at the Opera House. This season's schedule includes performances by the Colorado Philharmonic, the Gary Burton Quartet, the Utah Symphony Orchestra in conjunction with the Governor's Celebration of the Arts), a beerfest party and the "Very First and Hopefully Annual" Vail Institute Bluegrass Festival. t Summer Concerts July 4: El Jebel Syncopators, 4 p.m., Institute Tent, $6~per person. July 9-12, 16 & 17: "Bus Stop" theatre performance, 8 ' p.m., Opera House, $6 per person. July 18: Colorado Philharmonic, 6 p.m., Institute Tent, $6 per person. July 25: Gary Burton O,uartet plus Michael Moryc, 8 p.m., ` Dobson Arena, $6 per person. August 1: Vail Institute Bluegrass Festival, 2 p.m., Institute Tent, $6 per person. August S: Utah Symphony Orchestra, 8 p.m., Dobson Arena, $6 per person. ---August 9: Utah Symphony Orchestra, 1 p.m., Institute Tent, $6 per person. August 15: Beerfest Party, time to be announced, In- stitute Tent, $6 per person. August 22: Up With People, 8 p.m., Dobson Arena, $6 per person. August 27-30, September 3-4: "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown" theatre performance, 8 p.m., Opera House, $6 per person. childrens' Concerts All childrens' concerts are free; they will begin at 3 p.m. at the Institute Tent. July 9: Bonnie Phipps, autoharpist. July 19: Berg and Prince, mime artists. July 23: Praire Rose, folk singers. July 30: The Puppet Company, muppets, puppets and marionettes. August 6: Colorado State Ballet, dance. August 13: Steve Aldrich and Kathi DeFYancis, magic and music. August 20: Rene Heredia, flamengo guitar. August 27: Michael Moryc, music on the stick. Free Concerts August 7: Arvada Center Chorale, in conjunction with the Governor's Celebration of the Arts, Institute Tent, 5:30 p.m. August 5: Chamber music by members of the Aspen Music Festival, Institute Tent, 4 p.m. August 12: Chamber' music by members of the Aspen Music Festival, Institute Tent, 4 p.m. August 19: Chamber music by members of the Aspen Music Festival, Institute Tent, 4 p.m. Children's Museum The Institute, in conjunction with the Town of Vail and the Colorado Ski Museum, will present asummer-long exhibit from the Children's Museum of Denver. The ex- hibit, "Movies to Go," examines how movies are made. The museum is open Tuesday through Sunday, noon to 5 p.m. Tickets Tickets for all Institute programs are available at Eagle Valley Music, The Mole Hole and Overland Express or at the Institute office, P.O. Box 1243. For further information, call 476-1871. Reprinted by permission of The Vail Trail BOARD OF TRUSTEES Jof-rn ~. Uobson, ~~, ~~ ~~~~ ~ President ~ti ~ ~. ~~ ~ `~ Gail E. S~rar.,ch, C'ti ,• f y L ~1ice-f~resident~ ~ ' William E. Bishop. `•~~~ ~4~ t ~ .,,1 ~.11~~~ ~w~i`c_: Secretary ~O f ~~,~, .~ ~ ~~~ C. Frrd~nc~ i~fe•yrr ~• ~...3"~~JfTT'lIP1C~ Treasurer Ricf~xard E. Truchses Member-cat-Large Beverly Grr~~n, February 16, 1932 Executive Administrator Rod S1 fifer, t`1ayor and Town Counci 1 P•lembers Town of Vail . Vail, CO. 81658 Dear Rod and Council Idembers: Charles A. l~.ndr~rson Roger !~• E;chler Margaret S Burdick Richard A. Ca; ~krn Katf xyn S. Floyd Sheika Gramsf-rr-~mmer Wendy ~~~~.rsf~:7fson JaC~ r•,i~.,~; f ~r;ll Susan f; i•fi~ir ~oc;n Susan O. Shur~r~oker • Elaino ~ ~`Jhite Craig M. Waite During 1979 the Town of Vail gave a donation of X15,000.00 to the Vail Institute, and in 1980 a donation of X10,000.00 was made. However, in 1981 the Town discontinued financial support. On behalf of the Vail Institute, I am asking that the To~vn of Vail reconfirm its commitment to the Institute and the diverse cultural activities it brings to the town. The Vail Institute is projecting a budget of X200,000.00 for the 1982 season and requests a donation of $15,000.00 from the Town of Vail. On a related subject, the Board of Trustees of the Vail Instit~~te would like to recommend that the To~~an Council de]ay any decision concerning the apportionment of the county sales tax at tonight's meeting of the Town Council until more information is available. ~,le feel that it is still too early to commit the funds available from the county sales tax until actual revenues are known. Sincerely, ,,I \ ' Jam,,! .-... ,. Gail E. Strauch, Vice President The Vail Institute p.o. box 1243, vC7il, Colorado 81657 303/476-1871, in denver 825-8572 - --- .,,.* ~,~ / .a. / ~ ~~ ~ 4 . ~ , ~ ~~ ~, /<. , ~,, ~ ~ ~ ~ -~. ~ . h . ,,. ,,jj `.~4~R.1 i~_:~ ~i'fL'SH:.:i;~~.+.QB~9~DQIlti.~ .;~~4~(~ ihl P. O. DRAWER 369 o VAIL, COLORADO 81658 (303)470-1234 DENVER / 571-1833 February 16, 1982 Mr. Richard Caplan Town Manager Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 HAND DELIVERED SUBJECT: VRA GRANTS IN AID Dear Richard; I wish to address the matter before Counsel. on the subject of additional grants of public funds to the Vail Resort Association, Inc. (VRA) for what are purported to be marketing purposes. I have not always shared the same views as our former mayor, John Dobson; but, with respect to his views on this subject (expressed in a recent letter to Counsel) I agree completely. Available public funds, regardless of source, if they are. to be spent at all, should be used for amenities, maintenance and improvements that will benefit the guest. Many of us know all too well that there is a prevai]_ing feeling among our guests (and potential guests) that Vail is over-priced for what one gets, as compared to other resorts. Ho«=ever, I believe there are several other reasons why additional public funds should not be granted to the VRA° The Town has al- ready budgeted $120,000 for the VRA, but this doesn't tell the whole story! The VRA also benefits from valuable services-in- kind, subsidized rent, "free" information booths (from which the VRA conducts remunerative business activities) provided to the VRA by the town of Vail. The true value (cost) of all this, if indeed ever calculated, has not been publicized to my knowledge. (A conservative estimate, I think, would exceed $100,000 annually! Secondly, as a benefit of creative accounting methods, grants-in- aid, while ostensibly not going to the VRA's "independen.t reser- vations operation, actually benefit that operation immensely! This is because VRA's marketing directs potential tourists to call only the VRA's reservation service. Tn effect, the VRA's supposedly independent reservations company is not required to pay its fully allocated marketing costs (b.rochures, mailing ex- penses, phones, computers, etc.). Check their own budget figures (copy enclosed). /~~~ SF_RVING THE VAIL AND BEAVER CREEit RESORTS BQ© r, tS~ C~`~ TOLL FREE RESERVATIORIS 800``525-8930 ~~~°®9s Americon Society LODGING e SKI PACKAGES e SKI TICKETS o ACIIVITIESJ o TRANSPORTATION ~'°"'°"°~~ G hovel Agerni February 1.6, 1982 Mr. Richard Caplan Page Two Thirdly, the VRA does not, in fact, represent the entire Vail business community. True, anyone may join; but many choose not to spend what it costs to main~.ain membership and/or do not share in the VRA's marketing philosophy. Others, such as our- selves, do not belonor because ,. in the words of the VRA President, the VRA is engaged in a "competing business" to ours. Also, unlike marketing done by individual businesses, VRA mar- keting, by its very nature, benefits areas and businesses outside Vail. Witness the already serious drain of business away from Vail to the Beaver Creek/Avon areas. This will become f.ar more serious in time and, in my opinion, results in part from the fact that the VRA appears not to be 100% devoted to the in- terests of this community. Should our tax money be used for such purposes? Finally, the Town of Vail may be contributing to the creation of a monopoly.' There are several entities in this community capable of marketing Vail. To the extent that public funds are used, the process should be open for competitive bidding. Secondly, no argument has been presented that a single, centralized reservation system is in the public interest...to the contrary! I have ad- vised you and Counsel on several occasions that these grants of money and services-in-kind to the VRA are damaging this organi- zation and making it very difficult for us to compete. We implore you to consider this in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court anti-trust rulings in the Boulder case. Thank you_v,ery much for your attention; would you please see that this-i's brought to the attention of Counsel. i /~ Very truly"~ yours, VA I L RE,S.ERVAT IONS , INC . Trevor T, Bradway; President enc/VRA Reservations Company Budget file/ TTB/pc APPII~~UI:i - 2 VAIL P.LSO£{I' ASSC~IATION, INC. F~:idget For Y/E 10/31/82 Fwenue RESEF.'Vt;TI~~S Dues i Lodging/Property *"~anagernent ~ 51406 Vail Assxiates ~•;-~n. Operations 6000 Cor~nissions Lodging -Non-Group 280905 Vail Ps: ~ciates Lirts 10000 St.~r 3ckaces 300 Transportation 200 O~~er Miscellaneous `` 3000 .Total ~. 351811 A1~,'ZKr~`I'T~vG . Dues Vail Assxiates Mtn. Operations - 31200 IAdging/Propei-ty i~~anage:-~nt 15E35 Food ~ Beverage ~ 295F8 !' R°tail 2.96'78 Service 10303 Real Estate 6913 I~ve lop.^znt 1719 Financial 4241 _ Professional 3453 Associate 1319 .........,... Canmissions . Lodging -Group 93S81 Su~»ort ~ Ta+~n of Vail - Su;~n~r Advertising 54360 Vail t'~ssociates - i•'iarketing 32=~ 16 Other r~n~rican E.+.~-mss 57000 Miscellaneous 2500 Total 372896 ~ i ~~!~~ VAIL RESUF~' ASSOCII~TIOi~: ~ INC. Budget Fbr_ Y/E 10./31/P,2 P.evenue CiiT~~'~ER ~C~J Vai 1 Assxiatvs r~tn. Q~rations La~?ging/Prcrerty N~nac ~-~nt rbr~3 & 5eti~rage :btai 1 Service Peal Estate Dsvelo~~r~nt - Fi ri,31"1Cia1 Fro~essional Associate Su~~rC TG'wTi of Vail - Special Events & Prairr~~ion Taan of Vail - k,iosn Funding Other nailing Lists - Econcfinic Profiles i~",iscellaneous Total 2Cri'~ ~L RL'VL'~TI.TE 28800 1514 27292 27390 9973 5 ~?2 1587 3914 3196 1216 25000 L V b 2 2 2250 750 2925 184717 909424 11/5/81 UAIL RESG~"I' P,:~JC~LATIO?1, INC. Bud,~t ror YjE 10/31/81 CaJltal i;r~•nd~tuins t LeaSenold IIiP~rOV~i1tS Equip~~nt ' F1.u~ziture Total Capital .Ez~Y~ditu_~s R~airi:ng C~atlay of Cash 1C6a 7.035. 1018 9121 i i /~, /~i ~iIL R:'SOr~' PSSOCII~TION, I?"~C. Budget For Y/E 10/31/82 C~neral :-~~d ~~y ~snistrati•,re F~:rr~nditu~'-es t Salaries & ~•~~ des Payroll Ta.•:es i r ~l~.l`e Jre~itS t.Jt?C:~tlO: ~~? 1 ~~~OrtUrlltl~S Professional F`zes T°lephone Oaerating S ~pl.ies Stati.oner~~ & Printing Postage Fi~i~,ht }:eroh Rent & Air Su~stern• Co.,~~'lt`r Lase ~; i ` T~r3S~Q ;.g'llip.':~nt i ~1 i ~: ,ant ?~~intenance ~~!Zeral ^Saintenal~~ce & Cleariing Supplies ~nsur ncz ~. j i~ersanal Property Ta:1e: I ~preciation t-~te rest 'inal,~ & Saitirice u'~arges ad :.~bts i ra~~l tentair,.~nt I~'' sce l.lai~eous TCJI'I~L Gc:`?vEFv~.L & .~I?tii:'v1~;I':~'I'I~~ F`~'I,::~DITURES 11/j,/~1 161962 9910 4378 4250 3500 24190 9000 2000 .16200 500 360 1°274 30646 1263 2264 1045 1679 1500 7330 6894 80 5000 3750 2650 1500 321125 VT~IL R~:SJiT .''+`~3~~'j~~`jIOI~, II~C. fiudg~~t For Y/E 10/31/82 i~;3r :Gtli': j _ . ''.' .. Direct I~:~_nses mw . Pa•~~ro1- 1 ~ :es ~1Q~ ee Eenefits , ~iucational Cp~ortunities Telephone t'~~ '.lC'1~ ~~?t.all~er5 ;,dvLr-itising t C~~^ission R~~.ate Collateral Publicity R`search i Tr ~.a° Si;~~: s . i. Travel i i Total _ + t C~neral i& ~~nini.strative ~'~-p~nses z ~r~ 7^~03 5341 1691 1750 10263 I8o65 8800 (10991) 59700 5400 2000 5000 12000 =000 27^122 :'8774 372.896 11/5/81 V:%~IL I?LSOi•.'!' f~:~G:'?x'TLU~I ~ IJC. Buds^t Fc~r Y/E_10/31,/82 .-._.~,_'1-JcltiO:i.~ 1:.: :~CI~'Ratu?"~:~ r ' t D11'~Ct I~'~.~ ~':S°S . ~` - (('' { ' Sala~1~J CY Y~1?~J~J . ' Ps1ioil Taxes E~lo;: ~ I~nel i is • Educational CT~partu-nit=yes Teley ~c::ejTe~ e:~ C1~rating Sz:~~plies ~ ,' Printing Progr~:m ~.velo~~nt Adverb=i~q Colla moral • Pr~~bti-~:. of Central I~servati ans x~. ~~:~-e1 ! En per ~ ,:` __.~, ,~ .. ;: I mineral s Ac~inistra,~ive E~~nses TO'I'~~ R`~~.?!'.'•.?~i'IONS F~'u~'=r~~I`~JEES I i 10921 7726 ,345 _725 48599 745 510 200 20500 4950 3275 400 100 201396 1?0339 331735 11/x%81 ~. VIGIL ~1'SO~:1`~' Ik~cGCL•~TIO'.~, INC. Buy?get For `:'; L ].0/31/i32 r~~:ra~.. ~~r E:.;~-r~._.itures Direct E}~°rises Salaries ~ Tvages 'Pavrol.l Taxes E,;~lo•.~ee Ber~e~its Educational importunities Special Events & Prc~notion Collateral Publicity t Prin'~inq Vail Orientations ' Afiiliatio:zs & ?'ublications i. Total i ~~ C-r_neral & ~~.:-finil.istr~~tive E:i.~~:iditures i Z~'I~I., Ci'u'~'~~r:R EX~~.~`'DITU:~•ES l 512JJ37oo .JUJp 1547 750 25000 2800 3600 3000 500 i 260 133 92705 92012 164717 VAIL TOtitiN .COUNCIL Work Session Tuesday, February 16, 1982 2:00 P,M. MEET AT ENTRANCE TO DOBSON ARENA (1) Review Library Plaza plan. (2) Tour of Vail/Lionshead Structure Auxiliary Building. (3) Tour of Cascade Village Parking Structure site. RETURN TO MUNICIPAL BUILDING (4) Discussion of Cascade Village Parking Structure. (5) Discussion of Red Lion Porch enclosure. (6) Discussion of PEC and DRB Compensation Program and appointment process. (7) Report on Transportation Center security cameras. (8) Report on proposed traffic information radio station. (9) Discussion of Street-Use Tax Ordinance amendment. (10) Executive Session. . . ..... __. _,.a ~ ._. .~..,.... _. _.. ._. .. ~ , ,., ~"~.. toL=~n a box 100 vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5613 February 11, 1982 T0: TOWN COUNCIL department of community development FROM: Department of Community Development RE: Colorado Insight Sign Variance Request Attached is a memo explaining the sign variance requested by Colorado Insight for their location in the Vail 21 Building. At their January 20, 1982 meeting the Design Review Board voted 6-1 to recommend denial of the request to the Council, The Design Review Board felt that since the Sign Code allows . placement of signs inside the windows which identify services provided that there was no hardship evidenced. fr ~ ;~ ~ r ~. ~~ t ~~` ~~~ 75 south frontage rd. vail, cotorado $1657 (303) 476-7000 f r,~ I t~ f~r~ ~ I ~w pa January•15, 1982 T0: DESIGiV REVIEtd B0,4RD d~ department of community development FROi~1: Department of Community Development/Peter Jamar RE: Colorado Insight Sign Variance Request for Vail 21 Buildin Description of Variance Requested The applicant, Colorado Insight, requests a variance to the Sign Code to allow 3 signs of approximately 3.8 square feet each with the ~•rorking "Ski Rentals" to be erected along three sides of tine Vail 21 Building in Lions head. The Sign Code does not allow signs ~•ahich advertise the service of a business. The purpose of any exterior sign is to identify the business or organization located within a building. The Sign Code does a11o~•~ window signs for the purpose of identifying products, services or events. In this case it ti•.ould seem that ski rental is a service provided by Colorado Insight and that the appropriate placement of these signs would be affixed to or hung inside the wi ndo~v of the' store . The applicant has not related any special circumstances or conditions which would prove to be a physical hardship in this case. Criteria for Approval before the beard acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove pf~ysical hardship, and the board must find that: - . M..e..~.. ~.._ --,. l P ' ~~'''~ • x.47 A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to tFre land, buildings, topography, vegetation, siyn structures or other crafters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way, which i~rould substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, hot~rever, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises; B. That such special circurstances l~rere not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant; C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony ~~ri th the purposes of this title, and ~~ri 1 1 not be mate rially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public arelfare in ger;eral; D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use; E. Such other factors and criteria as the design review board. deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff Recommendations The~Department of Community Development Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance. There are no circumstances in this case which t~:ould make it difficult for the applicant to identify the business and services offered under the provisions of the sign code., ,,, b}Lh10RA1~'DUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development/Peter Patten DATE: February 1., 1982 SUBJECT: Two amendment requests for Special Development District 4-- Cascade Village/Glen Lyon. Applicant: Andy Norris Andy Norris is requesting two amendments to Special Development District 4. One is for area A of the District--Cascade Village, to allow the parking structure/ athletic club building to encroach into the exterior property line setback. The second request is to allow Lot 39 of Glen Lyon Subdivision (Area C), an existing 2.48 acre primary/secondary lot to be resubdivided into ttivo single family lots. I . ADfENDT`-LENT REGARDING PARKING STRUCTURE SETBACK A. THE REQUEST The request .is to allow the relaxation of Sections 18.46.100 Setbacks with regard only to this building and 18.46,170 Parking of SDD4 so that the building containing the parking structure and athletic club can be constructed to within 2 feet of the northern property line, abutting the South Frontage Road, rather than the required 20 feet. The Parking section dictates that .no parking shall be located in any front setback area. The proposal is for underground parking to be so located. The reason for this request at this time is an earlier oversight in.t}ie original Master Plan for Cascade Village. . B. BACKGROUND The original Master Plan was approved as a basic guide for placement of each structure, but was not a detailed design for each individual building. Indeed, minor adjustmeni:s in the placing of each structure naturally has occurred at the Design Review Board level. In terms of the parking garage and athletic club, the master plan simply did not allow for adequate room for a full size viable tennis court facility with regard to the north-south dimensions as restricted by the existing road. As the Cascade Village project progresses according to the adopted Master Plan and regulations contained in SDD4, each building site is restricted by such givens as buildings both existing and planned, roads, utility locations, etc. This piece of the "puzzle"--the parking structure a.nd athletic club--has simply been squeezed into the exterior property setback by some of these restrictions, a situ.3tion not envisioned., of course, in the 1.979 Master Plan. Cascade Village -2- 2/1/82 C, IMPAC'T'S OF T[-IE PROPOSAI. The building is proposed to be located 50 feet from the existing pavement of. the South Frontage Road., except where the new right turn lane ~vill be located, the structure will be 45 feet away from the pavement. As one travels west on the road the grade changes so that one experiences less and less of the building impact the further west one gets. The building is 12 feet high at cave line on the north elevation with approxi- mately a 6 in 12 roof pitch. The roo.f_ material proposed is a gray metal similar to the Millrace Condominiwn roofs. No unsolvable problems exist with regard to utility locations. A substantial landscaping proposal with a large amount of evergreen trees is proposed for the area between the building and the South Frontage .Road. It is highly unlikely that the South Frontage Road will be'expanded to four lanes due to physical (grade on the side of the road) and traffic amount factors. The conclusion from the above facts indicate no significant negative factors in moving the building close to the property line. Mainta.i~iing 50 feet from the road is a sufficient "breathing'" distance for snow removal, minor road improvements (wi.den shoulders) and visual proximity, A physical hardship exists ill the givens of mandatory design criteria (tennis courts) and the existing road and adjacent buildings.. RECOMbTENDAT.I ON The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the amendment to Sdd4 allowing the parking structure/athletic club to encroach 18 feet into the north property setback and to qualify the requirement of no parking in the front setback to apply to parking other than entirely underground. The staff feels that there are minimum impacts of this amendment due to the large distance to the road surface. The building is designed to mitigate visual impacts on the north side, and the landscaping should provide a visual screen, further improving the aesthetics of the site development. iUe agree that the setback exception should be made only for this building; wit}~~ the provision that other underground parking could be located within required exterior setback areas, subject to Design Review Board approval. II. ,'DIV`ISION OF LOT 39,. GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION A. T]-IE REQUEST Lot 39 of Glen Lyon Subdivision (Area.C of SDD4) was created with the original approval of SDD, 4. The duplex lots are developed basically in accordance with primar}'/secondary development regulations. '1 he lot currently contains 2.48 acres of total. site area., and the proposed division would 'easily meet the requirement in the Single T~amily District of contain- ing 1.2,500 square feet of buildable site area. Proposed is to have two lots, one of .888 acre and one of 1.48 acres, while dedicating to the town .115 acre of land along Gore Creek. T'he stream tract proposed to be dcdi.cated is :adjacent t.o pr.opcrty already owned by the town throu~,h a previous dedicat:i.on. Cascade Village -~- 2/1./82 Mr. Norris is proposing and will co~r~rnit to a master plan for .the develop ment on these two lots. He proposes two low-rise (1 to 2 story) luxury single family homes with extensive landscaping and water features. }ie requests that each house be allowed X100 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area and will restrict the houses to a 25 foot height limitation.. B. IMPACTS OF REQUEST Currently, the lot could be developed into 'a duplex with a maximum floor. area of 4200 square feet. This is the covenant restriction of which the town is a CO-SlgllatOr~ and consequently, enforcer. ~'he proposal would increase the allowable GRFA by 2000 square feet to 6200 square feet total. Visually, the site is quite open and contains only one tree, a large evergreen lying very close to the proposed common Iot line of the ttivo new lots, Thus., any development on the site will be readily seen by passersby on the South Frontage Road and I-70. Dividing the lot and accepting the development plan allows .two separated structures of a low profile nature, but covering more of the site than under present restrictions. The 25 foot height limitation reduces by approximately ten feet the allowable height of the structures which could be built under current regulations. The development plan reflects a very high quality design of st7~uctures and their surrounding grounds, and would assure such high quality if the amendment is approved. Access for the new easterly lot would be provided by an access easement on.the northern side of lot 1. The access drive would be heavily planted on the north side to reduce the visual impact from the nort}i. In summary, the result of approval of the requested amendment is that development of a larger portion of the site would occur, but the development would be of a guaranteed high quality with minimal negative visual impact. C, ~RECOb111ENDATION The Department. of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed division of. Lot 39 into two single family lots with t}le conditio~l that each residence be restricted to 2100 square feet of GRFA. lUe feel. positive about the development plan proposed, but we consider an increase of GRFA of 2000 square feet to be excessive and a grant of special privilege. There is no special circumstance or hardship involved in the request for the extra GRFA, and we feel that we must be consistent in judi;ing such requests. Thus, we reco~mnend approval of the amendment requested with a revised development plan reflecting a maximum CRFA for each. residence o.f 2100 square feet. PLiC -2- 2/8/82 M applicant had built on the property line, and that Breakaway West was having to go to court against the applicant. ,Jim Clark, owner of a Ireakaway-West unit stated that hi.s unit faced the west side o.L' Sandstone Creek Club, and that it was unattractive and un:landscaped, reducing the value of his unit. Dick Ryan informed them that the 'Town of Vail didn't have the right to enforce landscaping regulations because of the court decision. Dan moved to amend his motion to include the words, "as per the findings stated in the staff memo dated February 1, 1982." The vote was 6-0 in favor of denial. Gerry }White'reminded the applicant that he had 10 days in which to appeal to council. 3. Two amendment requests for Special Deve~lo~m~ ent District 4, Cascade Village. Applicant: Andy Norris. Peter Patten explained that there were two amendment requests to be dealt with separately and~that technically, neither was a variance request. First, the request to allow the parking structure/athletic club building to encroach into the exterior property line setback. Peter stated that the purpose of setbacks in general was for elbow space, utilities, aesthetics, distance between buildings, and that the staff. dial not feel that this encroachment made a significant negative impact. The setback was toward the frontage road and the staff felt that the frontage road would not be widened because of the steep grade and lack of traffic. It was felt that SO feet was an adequate setback for snow removal and for substantial landscaping. It was explained that this building .was part of a master plan, but that the master plan was not detailed for each building. Andy Norris, the applicant, spoke of a survey error that had been made many years past, which was one reason for the problem of locating the building where it had been planned. He added that this particular part of Vail contained many survey errors. Jim Morgan expressed concern about snow removal and how the removed snow would affect the landscaping. Andy pointed out that they were not looking at construction plans, and that this could be looked at when there were construction documents. Discussion followed concerning possibly mooting the building, using possibly rock on the wall, and protecting the landscaping. Scott moved to approve t}ie request for an a.rnendnrent to Special Development 4 to allow the parking structure/athletic club to encroach 18 feet into the north property setback for a distance measured parallel to the South Frontage Road not to exceed approximately _350 feet and to qualify the requirement of no pirking in the front setback to apply to parking other .than entirely within a structure. This was seconded by Jim and the vote was 4-0 in favor with Dan abstaining. PEC -3~ _2/8/82 .. Seconc{, the request to allow lot 39 of Glen Lyon Subdivision (area C), an existing 2.48 acre primary/secondary lot to be resubdivided into two single family lots. Peter Patten explained the memo and showec{ the site plan adding that .the staff recommended allowing the amendment with the restriction. that each house not be larger than 2100 square feet. Andy Norris explained that the lot was planned originally for CMC to use and was very visible from the frontage road. Jay Peterson stated that he had brought the project before the commissioners originally and felt that in light of Andy's track record, there should be some trade off given. He reminded the members that Andy had invited the town to be co signatory to be able to enforce the covenants. Discussion followed concerning whether or not a precedent would.be set if the request were granted. Will moved and Duane seconded to recommend to the Town Council an approval of the amendment without the condition of limiting the GRFA to 2100 square feet for each dwelling, but allowing 3100 as the applicant requested. The vote was 4-1 in favor with Jim voting against the measure, and Dan abstaining. Jim voted against, because he felt the GRFA should not be increased. Peter stated that this would be heard at the next Council meeting on Feb. 16. 4. Request for a conditional use permit to operate a real estate office in the lower level of the Mountain Haus. Applicants: Les Cufaude and Bill Stoabs Peter Patten explained the staff memo and explained that .this business would only be marketing earth sheltered housing and would not generate traffic. It was explained that this space had been used only commercially or for offices for a very long time, and also it was subpedestrian level. Dan moved and Will seconded to approve the request per the staff findings in the memo dated 2/3/82. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 5; R~tlest for. exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I to enclose with glass 992 square feet of the existing patio on the west side of the Red Lion. Applicant: Jeff Selby. Peter Jamar explained the memo and added that the staff recomlended approval with the restriction that the glass panels be removed by~at least June 15 and reinstalled no earlier than September .l. 5. Bill Ruoff explained that the roof would be metal faith an awning covering i_t to make it appear to be a. canvas roof. lie explained that the panels on tllc Margaret S. Burdick 1720 Vail Valley Drive, ~•lo. 1 Vail, Colorado 81657 February 15, 1982 TO : (Q- ~ - ~~'' ~~~ a.t,l I FROM : `~ ~,. bC~ ~.}`(~. ~ ~ lJith the recent awareness .that beyond the budgeting of X120,000.00 by the Town Council to the Vail Resort Association (URA), an additional 50% of revenue from the county sales tax is being considered, I have decided to speak out. Asa business~voman, I supported the URA with membership and enthusiasm. I certainly support it now and highly regard and encourage advertising of our community. However, I uelieve a more far-reaching concern is being overlooked. From. the very beginning, there have been relatively few people who have shown a thorough understanding of the need of a town to be nurtured and enriched as it grew. It could have been devastating that for some, the rapid gro~vth was paramount and the "brittle bones" of that growth would never have touched t~ieir conscientiousness. Fortunately for Vail, that was not allowed to happen. However, if some staunch people had not constantly cared and been alert to tine weaknesses ready to under- mine Vail's growth, it would never have had the solid base it has. Do you see cracks in that base? So do I, but on the whole, it is a sound town and I love it. I don't believe one loves wood, brick, stone and stucco because they make a house; one loves the house because it becomes a home. One loves a town when it has enough heart to be a home. It takes a lot of work to give a town a heart, to help it emanate a sense of caring and concern for its people, to give it joy in its existence. It simply does not come purely from advertising; it comes from Laving something wonderful to advertise. If you, as the Town Council mernbers, believe in the enrichment of our home for ourselves and our visitors, I urge you to carefully consider the t•~isdom of your disbursement of tax funds which come from the people. There is a vital need for consideration of how important-the cultural enrichments of Vail are to you and those you represent. As a founding member of The Vail Institute and The Gerald R. Ford Commemorative Fund Committee, I would truly like to know if all the past effort involved has given the enrichment we hoped for, if the enormous present and future commitments of these groups for the town seem a~orthwhile and worthy of your utmost consideration and serious contribution; i it has not and does not, I think many of us need to know now. Margaret S. P,urdick 1720 Vail Valley Drive, ado. 1 Vail, Colorado 81657 February 15, 1982 lJith the rece t awareness that beyond the budgeting of $120,000.00 by the Tot•~n Council to the Vail Resort Association (VRA), an additional 50°0 of revenue from the county sales tax is being considered, I have decided to speak out. Asa businesswoman, I supported the URA with membership and enthusiasm. I certainly support it novr and highly regard and encourage advertising of our community. However, i oe]ieve a more far-reaching concern is being overlooked. From the very beginning, there have been relatively few people who have shown a thorough understanding of the need of a town to be nurtur°ed and enriched as it grew. It could have been devastating that for some, the rapid growth was paramount and the "brittle bones" of that grov~th would never have touched t~~eir conscientiousness. Fortunately for Vail, that was not alloyed to happen. However, if some staunch people ,had not constantl~• cared and been alert to tf~e t•~eaknesses ready to under- mine Vail's growth, it would never have had the solid base it has. Do you see cracE;s in that base? So do I, but on the titi~hole, it is a sound town and I love it. I don't believe one loves wood, brick, stone and stucco because they make a house; one loves the house because it becomes a home. One loves a town when it has enough heart to be a home. It takes a lot of work to give a town a heart, to help it emanate a sense of caring and concern for its people, to give it joy in its existence. It simply does not come purely from advertising; it comes from raving something wonderful to advertise. If you, as the Town Council members, believe in the enrichment of our home for ourselves and our visitors, I urge you to carefully consider the vrisdom of your disbursement of tax funds which come from the people. There is a vital need for consideration of hov: important the cultural enrichments of Vail are to you and those you represent. As a founding r:~ember of The Vail Institute and The Gerald R. Ford Conr„e,iorative Fund Committee, 1 would truly like to know if all the past effort involved has given the enrichment are hoped for, if the enerr,ous present and future commitments of these groups for the town seem vrorth~,•.hile and v,~orthy of your utmost consideration and serious contribution; if it has not and dces not, I thin}: many of us need to G:novr now. a~~~-- ~///~e ((~~ ..r ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ et° o- an~I n ® o-n s ov ~ . Tnn P. O. DRAWER 369 • VAIL, COLORADO 81658 (303)476-1234 DENVER / 571-1833 February 16, 1982 Mr. Richard Caplan Town Manager Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 HAND DELIVERED SUBJECT: VRA GRANTS IN AID Dear Richard; I wish to address the matter before Counsel on the subject of additional grants of public funds to the Vail Resort Association, Inc. (VRA) for what are purported to be marketing purposes. I have not always shared the same views as our former mayor, John Dobson; but, with respect to his views on this subject (expressed in a recent letter to Counsel) I agree completely. Available public funds, regardless of source, if they are to be spent at all, should be used for amenities, maintenance and improvements that will benefit the guest. Many of us know all too well that there is a prevailing feeling among our guests (and potential guests) that Vail is over-priced for what one gets, as compared to other resorts. However, I believe there are several other reasons why additional public funds should not be granted to the VRA. The Town has al- ready budgeted $120,000 for the VRA, but this doesn't tell the whole story! The VRA also benefits from valuable services-in- kind, subsidized rent, "free" information booths (from which the VRA conducts remunerative business activities) provided to the VRA by the town of Vail. The true value (cost) of all this, if indeed ever calculated, has not been publicized to my knowledge. (A conservative estimate, I think, would exceed $100,000 annually! Secondly, as a benefit of creative accounting methods, grants-in- aid, while ostensibly not going to the VRA's "independent reser- vations operation, actually benefit that operation immensely! This is because VRA's marketing directs potential tourists to call only the VRA's reservation service. In effect, the VRA's supposedly independent reservations company is not required to pay its fully allocated marketing costs (brochures, mailing ex- penses, phones, computers, etc.). Check their own budget figures (copy enclosed). SERVING THE VAIL AND BEAVER CREEK RESORTS ~ii`~- TOLL FREE RESERVATIONS (800) 525-8930 ~ --~!~y ^^~~^s«~e[y LODGING • SKI PACKAGES • SKI TICKETS • ACTIVITIES • TRANSPORTATION cf Trovel Agen[s February 16, 1982 Mr. Richard Caplan Page Two Thirdly, the VRA does not, in fact, represent the entire Vail business community.. True, anyone may join; but many choose not to spend what it costs to maintain membership and/or do not share in the VRA's marketing philosophy. Others, such as our- selves, do not belong because, in the words of the VRA President, the VRA is engaged in a "competing business" to ours. Also, unlike marketing done by individual businesses, VRA mar- keting, by its very nature, benefits areas and businesses outside Vail. Witness the already serious drain of business away from Vail to the Beaver Creek/Avon areas. This will become far more serious in time and, in my opinion, results in part from the fact that the VRA .appears not to be 100% devoted to the in- terests of this community. Should our tax money be used for such purposes? Finally, the Town of Vail may be contributing to the creation of a monopoly. There are several entities in this community .capable of marketing Vail. To the extent that public funds are used, the process should be open for competitive bidding. Secondly, no argument has been presented that a single, centralized reservation system is in the public interest...to the contrary! I have ad- vised you and Counsel on several occasions that these grants of money and services-in-kind to the VRA are damaging this organi- zation and making it very difficult for us to compete. We implore you to consider this in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court anti-trust rulings in the Boulder case. Thank yob very much for your attention; would you please see that this.-d's bro~ght to the attention of Counsel. Very truly yours, VATL RE~S,T~RVATTONS, INC. Trevor T, Bradway; President enc/VRA Reservations Company Budget file/ TTB/pc APPENDIX - 2 VAIL P.ES0~7I' ASSOCIATION, INC. Budget For Y/E 10/31/82 .- _ --~,=` - Revenue ` RESERVATIONS i DlleS. Zr~dging/Property Management Vail Associates b1~.n. Operations Corrrnissions Lodging - Non-Group Vail Ps: ~ciates Lifts Su~~mr ' ~cxages Transportation Other Miscellaneous :Total fYi r~r~G Dues Vail Associates Mtn. Operations Lodging/Property Management Food & Beverage ~ F~tai 1 Service Real Estate Deve lopm~t Financial Professian?1 Associate ......::..... Commissions . Lodging - Group '`` Support . Tcxan of Vail - 5~.~~~r A.dvertising Vail Associates - ~~9arketing Other Arr~rican E.~ ,ress Miscellaneous Total 51406 6000 280905 10000 300 200 3000 351811 31200 15835 295E8 29678 10803 6913 1719 4241 3463 .L 319 93881 54360 32416 55000 2500 372896 ~ ~c ~?, VAIL RESOF{I' ASSOCIATION, INC. Budget Fbr Y/E 10/31/82 Revenue Dues Vail P.ssxiates Mtn. Orations Lo~?gingjProperty Manag~nt rood & Beverage P~etai 1 Service Peal Estate L~velo~rrent Financial Professional Associate Sup~~ort Town of Vail - Special Events & Proration Tawas of Vail - Kiosk Funding Other nailing Lists Econc~nic Profiles Ili scel laneous Tgtal ToTr-~L ~E 28800 14614 27292 27396 9973 5382 1587 3914 3196 1216 25000 2822 2850 750 2925 134717 909424 11/5/81 VAIL RESOKl ASSOCIATION, INC. Budget For Y/E 1Of31/81 Capital Expenditures _~='.: Leasehold Irr~rov~rents F~uip, rent Furniture Total Capital Exp~..r~ditures R~.ziring Outlay of Cash { t{; rss iI ' 1, I 1053 105. 1018 9121 l l J~ ~r~i VAIL RESOt"~ ASSOCIATION, INC. Budget For Y/E 1.0/31/82 General and I~c3r'snistrati ve Ei.~ndit~.ires __~:~ i Salaries & Wages Payroll Ta:;es ~lcs~ee Benefits Educational Opportunities Professional Fames `telephone Oaerating Supplies '~ Stationery & Printing Postage ' Freight Xerox tint & Air System Corp~lter Lease i rased Er.3uiprr~nt i rr~i:ip:~~nt ?~'Laintenance I C~!~eral ^laintenance & Cleaning Supplies ~, ?nsur~~ce ~, i ~e.rsonal Property Ta.~es i Depreciation Interest Finance & Service Charges ~ad I~bts 'l ravel to rtaininent i~'~ sc~l.lai~eous 'IC1I'AL Gtr VEFAL & AD~'ffNISI'RA'I'I~IE F'`~'Ei~1DITURES 11!5/81 161962 9910 4378 4250 3500 24190 9000 2000 16200 500 360 19274 30646 1263 2264 1045 1679 1500 7330 6894 80 5000 3750 2650 1500 321125 VAIL RESORT~?1~3~J'~'IATZON, INC. Budget For Y/E 10/31/82 i~larketirg E,:~~e:'~ditures _.~~`" Direct E,,~=?7ses Payroll Taxes lcr~ ee Eenefits mod? scat i oval Q~?~ortunities Telennone Ag`ncy Retainers Advertising Commission Reba Collateral Publicity ;,f. R search i Tr~_~~e 'S1ic~:~S i. Travel i L~~tE'1"':31n~i~??I]t I Total i General ~& Administrative E~~nses I, ~ _ 'Tt7i~1-~L "~1~>~'~I'i-?vG ~~Pi;:vz~I.i U%i:~S t 74503 5341 1691 1750 10263 12065 85800 (10991) 59700 5400 2000 5000 12000 274122 98774 37~g4ti +'6~ 11/5/81 VAIL RESOKI' ASSOCIATION, I?JC. Budget For Y/E 10/31/82~~, ,----" ~ F~seivations E-r~nditures Direct E:>z~nses ' Salaries & ~i;ages Pal roll Taxes ' • Employee Eenef i is • Educational Op~rtunities Te le ~~:one/Te lex Operating Su~~plies ; Print~ng Program Develo~~ient Advertising Colla~eral PrcTr~oti.or, of Central F~serJations C~'? i°l ~ ~T+rave l ! 1.11 1 tE: r~G. I r'_..,~t .t ~I Total i General & Administra,'tive E.~~enses ` TCIi'~?1 nF~S ~;?'JA`I'IONS i _ , ,~, '4' 109321 7726 X345 _725 48599 745 510 200 20500 4950 3275 400 100 201395 130339 331735 11/~i81 VAIL t:P.SO~ ~~SSOCI~TION , INC . Budget For_ Z'/E 10/31/82 ~~~aru~wsr Expenditures _ ley. Diri.~ct E}menses Salaries & j-ages ~Pa~~~roll Ta,.es E~loyee Benefits Educational Opportunities Special Events & Prc~notion Collateral Publicity t Printing Vail Orientations ' Affiliations & Publications Entez*~.:.irli:~nt ! Total , i ', General & r~itii:ist.r_ative E:~~~ic7itul-es I TOTAL Q-~.%-~.~'t3r:R Er~ENDITUI,ES 51237 3878 1.547 750 .K 25000 +' 2800 3600 3000 500 260 d~, 133 92705 92012 184717 ,' ~ / \~) y j ~ A ., ~ f ~•~ ~. ~~' ~ CENTRAL RESERVATIONS (303) 476-5677 ,y' <.. (800)525-3875 MARKETING/CHAMBER SERVICES _ (303)476-1000 VAIL RESORT ASSOCIATION Denver Line 595-9488 t 241 E. MEADOW DRIVE VAIL, COLORADO 81657 1 VRA PRESENTAT I O"! TO THE VAIL TO~J"J COU~JC I L FOR ADD IT I OVAL ADVERTS I ^JG DOLLARS FROM THE COU~aTY SA(_FS TAX REBATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED; 1, IMPORTANCE OF TOURISM TO THE VAIL COf~1MUNITY AND TO THE TOWN GOVERNMENT Z. PRESENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3, IMPORTANCE OF MARKETING AND EXPENSE OF ADVERTISING ~~~ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ~~ HISTORY OF VRA MARKETING EXPENSES G, PRESENT VRA P1ARKETING PROGRAM; ~~ YEAR CELEBP,ATION PLAN ~~ WHO SHOULD PAY? S, WHAT IS THE STATE DOING ABOUT MARKETING? g. OUR COMPETITION 1.0. RATIONALE FOR EMPHASIS ON FRONT RANGE II. RESULTS WE CAN EXPECT ~.2, TOWN OF VAIL CONCERNS ` ~ 1 A 20 YEAR CELEBRATION. From 1931 VRA Marketing Plan (~UAI.S A1vll OPJECTIVES A. Primary Goals - To successfully fulfill the purpose of the VRA. . . To market and promote the Vail, Colorado resort area . To operate a central reservations system To perform the functions of a Chamber of Cormlerce - To develop a balanced year-round economy - To operate the VRA in a business-like manner B. Specific Objectives (prioritized) - To build awareness of Vail as a summer destination - To maintain Vail's•pre-eminent winter market position - To build a solid financial base ' 1. To expand membership and support of the VRA in excess of 75% of business licenses within the Town of Vail by the end of '~ FY 1983 2. To increase the marketing budget by 30% annually over the next three years 3. To increase VRA business booked in the community 4. If all of the above is met, build a contingency fund of $100,000 by the end of FY 1984 C. General Strategies - Develop a sustained, positive coca-unity perception of the VRA through a comprehensive communications program.,.Sell the VRA to Vail - Retain professionals in all key management positions and develop an active, credible committee structure and Board of Directors - Develop an equitable, stable and adequate method of permanent funding while testing new fund raising techniques - Develop and execute a comprehensive Marketing Plar. that has low season emphasis - Improve VRA internal efficiencies and corr~nunications (Reservations, rarketing/Sales, Chamber, Administrative) - Work closely with Town of Vail and other local organizations - to represent business needs - Rc--main up to gate and become active, when appropriate, on tourism and transportation issues affecting tourism at the local, state and national level - Develop and promote educational programs and me:~bership activities, similar to those provided by a more typical 'Chamber of Commerce" - Become the primary marketing arm for Vail; develop an appropriate and sLooth transfer of marketing responsibilities from Vail Associates to VRA From 1981 VRA Marketing Plan ~ECUTIVE SLIMi~RY Preface: The life blood and only business in Vail is tourism. As in any good business, success is predicated on: 1. A quality product ' 2. Continuing to develop and market that product 3. The ability to adjust to changing economic and corr~etitive . factors VRA is the marketing and promotional arm of that business. The pr_irrzar_y marketing goal of the VRA during FY 1981-82 is to aantribute to the stabilization and profitability of .the Vail Economy through effective marketing and pronx~tion of the Vail product. Specific objectives necessary, to reach this goal are as follows: 1. To increase group, convention, meeting and seminar business in Vail, particularly during theXSummer season. 2. To increase individual tour and travel business in Vail, particularly during the Sumner season. :. 3. To increase business and improve relations with the Travel Indus try. The Secondary marketing goal is to expand VRA's credibility and leadership position in the Vail community. Specific objectives necessary to reach this goal are as follows: 1. To provide effective means of communication to tiZe membership, the Town of Vail, Vail Associates and the Cai<mnanity as a whole, as to the philosophy, ideas, implementation and results of VRA activities. 2. To take a leadership role in the coordination of VRA, VA and TOV activities. 3. To remain up to date and become active, when appropriate, on tourism and transportation issues affecting tourism on the local, state and national level. From 1981 VRA Marketing Plan V. Roles of Marketing A. Sales The "people" part of marketing where one-to-one contact is key. Requires a high level of organization to be effective. Follow-up and follow-through are essential not only to secure initial business but to ensure repeat business. B. Advertising Is usually the first thing thought of in marketing - and with good reason. Advertising is the front runner for sales, representing the product to the public eye for better or worse. Everyone knows that some advertisements are more effective than others. Advertising men are fond of quoting a statement attributed to that successful 19th Centuzy merchant, John jvanamaker, "I know half the money I spp..nd on advertising is wasted; but I can never find out which half." Whenever possible and practical the important elem°nts of an ad- vertising campaign should }~ measured to increase the validity of future decisions. Collateral material provides the "nuts and bolts" information to the consumer, provides tools for sales persoiznel, and generally pro- motes the product. C. Public Relations The on-going "personality" of an organization is maintained through a good public relations program. In this area, and of utrnos-c i~or- tance, is the pursuit of publicity through the maintenance of good meaia relations, regular and quality news releases, and above all a sense of what is newsworthy and interesting about an organization. D. Promotions .lust about any positive activity of an organization can be looked on as a promotion if the public hears ak~ut it and has the desired reaction. Soecial Events, direct mail and souvenir items are pro- motional traditions but many other non-traditional activities can also be promotional with the proper approach. E. Market Research The role of research in marketing is often the last thing to receive time and attention when it should be the first. Research is necessary to identify markets, prioritize appropriately and measure results. It is particularly i~ortant ~a'nen adar_essing a relatively new market segment (Nail's Summer and Group Markets) or one that is undergoing significant changes (Nail's wis~ter Market). In each. market segment _. of this plan research strategies are listed :with specific action steps to follow. F. Conrrninity Relations In our present society, even large corporations must designate a portion of their marketing trine and dollars to the area of conanunity relations. In the case of an organization, such as VRA, that is commzunity supported and answers directly to that community, this beccxnes an even more important role of marketing. -ra- VRA BUDGET I ~IFORP~AT I ON 11/1/81-10/31/82 BREAKDOWN: SOURCE DUES - .. 39~ COMMISSIONS - 430 OTHER - 6 TOWN OF ~~A I L- 12~ CAT120,000 LEVEL) 100 - - X909, x'..24 - REVENUE 389;348 - EXPENDITURES 20,076 - SURPLUS IN RESERVATIONS SECTION OF BUDGET CATEGORIES LODGES - - 50% VAIL Assoc - 120 MEMBERSHIP - 20 OT H E R - ~~-6 T 01~;°l OF VAS! t__-12°; . CAT ~1~~, ~`~~ F _F HISTORY OF VR,q BUDGET 3 ~ I 5/1/79-4/30/80 - ~623,000,~~DIRECT MARKETING EXPENSES = ~170,o0O (Y/E, ~~'~,~~`~ DEFICIT) (27~ of BUDGET) 5/1/00-4/30/31 - X546,780, #~IRECT_MARKETING EXPENSES = X125,770 (22~ of (Y/E, ~22,0'~0 NET REVENUE) BUDGET) ADVERTISING, SPECIAL EVENTS, PUBLICITY, RESEARCH, COLLATERAL 11/1/81-10/31/82 - X889, 3<<8, #'YD I RECT MARKETING EXPENSES = X213, 0'?5 (2ll~ OF i .3 BUDGET) # I NCLUDES D I RECT MARKET I fJG EXPENSES FROf~I ALL THREE VRA DEPARTMENTS (RESERVATIONS, MARKETING AND CHAMBER) VRP, f~1ARKET I "!G BUDGET SUf~1P1ARY 11/1/91-10/31/82 `372,896 98,774 - GENERAL AND ADMI!~INSTRATIVE 107,778 - sALES (SALARIES, TRAVEL, TR,4DE SHOWS, TELEPHONE,ETC) o,OO~ - AGENCY RETAINERS (TASHIRO AND LUSKY LESS COMMISSION REBATE _ FROM TASHIRO ON ADV BUYS) 1?0,344 - DIRECT MARKETING EXPENSES (DIRECT EXPENSES BUDGETED TO _ _ ._____ _ _ RES AND CHAf~1BER = ~5~',F81 FOR ~~- TOTAL VRA DIRECT PARKETING EXPEf~!SES OF °213, O25) OF X889, 3~;~~ BUDGET, X427, 5 7 REPRESENTS MARKETING EXPENSES (5372,96 PLUS DIRECT MARKETING EXPENSES BUDGETED IN RES AND CHAMBER) OR 4~~ OF BUDGET REPRESENTS MARKETING (RESERVATIONS = 35;°~ CHAMBER = 17%) TON REVEf~!UE SIDE OF BUDGET, COI~1MISSIONS GENERATED FROM THIS SALES EFFORT = 593, g~iil; TH I S I S AT 1.0;? OF LODGING VALUE SO 5._.938.,.881 IN LODGING REVENUE IS GENERATED _1,:>57,629 ESTIMATED IN REVENUE TO REST OF BUSINESSES 52, 81_6, 50~_ X 4,15 SALES TAX = 5116,8°4 TO TOWN OF VAIL FOR EVERY DOLLAR VP,A SPE~lDS 0~! ITS SALES EFFORT, THE RATIO OF RETURi~J TO THE TO~J-~ I fl SALES TA DOLLARS I S QLOSE TO 111_; TH I S DOES NOT INCLUDE REVENUE FROM RESERVATIONS BOOKED THROUGH CENTRAL RES OR TO RESPONSE TO ADVERTISING THAT IS NOT TRACED THROUGH THE VRA ~ :1, ~ s~ ~ _ ~~- ~"`~~~aci ~` HEADQUARTERS OFFICE: 4100 EAST ARKANSAS AVENUE, DENVER, COLORADO 80222 ~ (303) 753.8800 Tne Sym~ol o~Service LOCAL AAA AUTO CLUB SEP,VICE OFFICES THROUGHOUT COLORADO January 1982 T0: AAA APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS AND TOURIST RELATED OP.GANIZATIONS FROM: ROB MOODY, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON TRAVEL PR0240'TION COLORADO TOURISM REMAINS HEALTHY Results from our 9th Annual Tourism Survey indicate an increase in Color:~do tourism for the second consecutive year. However, because of a mild '80-81 winter, most of Colorado's ski areas are unable to share that increase. Actual statewide figures show the following: 1) ,Dollar volume, 1981 =- up 8.5% over 1980 2) Occupancy, 1981 -- up 2.5% over .1980 3) Attraction attendance, 1981 -- up 9% over 1980 4) Restaurant meals served, 1981 -- up 1.8% over 1980 The state was divided into eight zones plus a special tally of Colorado's ski areas (regardless of their location). Complete figures are reflected iri this chart : ' ' Dollar Volume Attraction Meals Occupancy Attendance Served Denver + 6.4% + 2.2% + 1.6% + 2.8% Colorado Springs +13.1% +11.9% + 8.4% +22.0% Estes Park +16.3% + 8.5% -1-27.6% * -1-10.0% * Eastern Plains + 6.9% + 4.8% + 7.1% Northwest + 7.1% + 4.1% -26.0% * '^ I-70 West + 0.9% - 5.0% ~Tll.Ei% - 6.6% Southwest +12.2% + 2.9% +11.7% + 1.5% I-25 + 2.6% - 1.9% +25.0% * ~~ Ski Areas - 6.6% -17.6% + 2.6% -11.8% Statewide + 8.5% + 2.5% + 9.0% + 1.8% *(insufficent number of responses to reveal a valid percentage) Colorado Springs and Estes Park showed the biggest gains of any zone. However the 2.2% increase in Denver's occupancy, seemingly small, is quite significant given the tremendous increase in guest rooms in that area. Once again, the figures would seem to suggest a large clientel of Coloradoans spending dollars and being counted as tourists but eating and sleeping at home. _ The dominant reason reported for being up was the availability of gasoline and its reasonably. stable price. Other comments°includea longer guest stays and more foreign visitors. Ski areas made up the only group showing a significant loss and of course that was attributed to the lack of natural snow in the first half of the '80-'81 season. Some ski-related businesses also sited increased airfares as a secondary problem. Approximately 250 establishments participated in this year's survey, representing about 25% of that part of the tourist industry associated with AAA. To them we extend our thanks for their cooperation. Affiiiaied With 1'he American Automobile Association 1981 Rooms Available Rooms Occupied Occupancy % January February March April May June 24343 !22854 14203 17484 58.3 76.5 24645 14656 18949 124299 j 19052 ~ 5359 3368'12326 77.3 136.6 17.8 50.7 July August Septemb 24799 24772 23983 16143 16397 11170 65.1 66.2 ` 49.1 October November December Totals I 203300 ;116102 a j 57.1 1980 ~~ i l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ Rooms Available 25388 24039 25432 1 19229 '19398 ! 24839 ~ , 21116 25818 !25017 j 25026 25214 24944 285460 Rooms Occupied ~ ~ .20595 22346 ~ 24746 9194 ' 4281 113051 X 15916 ,18304 14338 ~ ~ 10345 j 6541 ~ 16677 `176333 Occupancy % i 81.1 92.9 97.3 47.8 ~ 22.1 ~ 52.5 75.4 ~~ 70.9 ~ 51.3 I 41.3 ~ 25.9 66.8 ~~ 61,8 1979 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` 'Rooms Available '1 25193 j 22905 j 24776 j24785 ;25884 i 24225 24548 i j24993 X24109 118346 ~~23416 24545 ;281125 Rooms Occupied ~ 20621 i 21308 23000 i 9789 5240 .14744 17875 19626 .12914 5822 ~ 7134 18869 176942 Occupancy % 81.8 ~ 93,0 ~ 92.8 ~ 39.5 !, 20.2 ~ 60.9 ~ 72.8 i 78.5 ~~ 53.6 ~ 31,7 30.5 ~ 76.7 ~ 61.5 1978 ~ ~ ~ i Rooms Available ~ 15430 14859 15839 23890 ;21625 ~209~50 25006 24797 22603 '23045 25275 24082 257401 Rooms Occupied ~ 13681 13972 115679 110506 ~ 5108 115556 118515 19085 11710 ~ 6011 ~ 4901 11755 ~~1153019 Occupancy % 88,7 94.0. ~ 99.0 , 44.0 !, 26.4 74.2 74.0 77.0 51.8 ~ 26.1 19.4 73.7 59.5 1911 1 + I ~ i Rooms Available ~ 19635 21046 X17639 5040 ~~ 5168 17085 23040 !23199 .11070 3720 -10388 10908 173938 Rooms Occupied ~ 15845 17068 113995 '2028 1813 ` 8637 ;17631. X18400 ~ 6196 ~ 1970 ~~ 4202 18411 116502 Occupancy % 80.7 ( 81.1 ~ 79.3 40.2 ° 35.1 50.5 ; 76.5 ~ 79.3 ~ 36.3 - 53.0 ! 40.4 ' 77.1 61.0 Representative sampling of eight Vail properties equivalent to approximately 2.5% of total Vail bed base. o Study done by Pannell, Kerr, Forster, Denver 5 International based auditing firm specializing in the hospitality industry.. BOARD OF TRUSTEES John A. Dobson, President Gail E. Strauch, Vice-President William E. Bishop, Secretary C. Frederic Meyer, Treasurer Richard E. Truchses Member-at-Large Beverly Green, Executive Administrator ~J u~ ~~~~~ Qo s February 16; 1932 Rod S1 fifer, h1ayor and Town Council Members Town of Vail Vail, CO. 81658 Dear Rod and Council Members: Charles A. Anderson Roger A. Behler Margaret S. Burdick Richard A. Caplan Kathryn S. Floyd Sheika Gramshammer Wendy Gustafson Jack Marshall Susan B. Milhoan Susan O. Shumaker Elaine E. White Craig M. White During 1979 the Tourn of Vail gave a donation of $15,000.00 to the Vail Institute, and in 1980 a donation of $10,000.00 was made. However, in 1981 the Town discontinued financial support. On behalf of the Vail Institute,~I~am askirig that the Town of Vail reconfirm its commitment to the Institute and the diverse cultural activities it brings to the town. .The Vail Institute is projecting a budget of $200,000.00 for the 1982 season and requests a donation of $15,000.00 from the Town of Vail. On a related subject, the Board of Trustees of.the Vail Institute would like to recommend that the Town Council delay any decision concerning the apportionment of the county sales tax at tonight's meeting of the Town Council until more information is available. We feel that it~is still too early to commit the funds available from the county sales tax until actual revenues are known. Sincerely, Gail E. Strauch, vice President The Vail Institute ..:~ p.o. box q ~~3, v®il, color®do ~q 857 303/76-q ~7q , in d~nv~r ~a5-~57a ' We, the undersigned, support the establishment of an "improvement district" for the express purpose of improving Vail/LionsHead as outlined in the attached Urban Design Plan. It is understand that: 1. This assessment district, if approved, will affect all business and property owners from and including the Crest to and including the Vail Spa and Marriott Mark Resort and the South Frontage Road to Gore Creek; 2. The total maximum assessment will be $1.5 million to be proportioned to property and business owners based on square footage and closeness to the mall center, and spread over a 10-year period; 3. The assessment district must be approved before the Town of Vail will place a matching $1.5 million bond issue before registered Town of Vail voters 4• If the bond issue fails, it is further understood the Vail/LionsHead Urban Design Plan may not be implemented until such time as funds are available, 5. If improvements are to be done in one summer (April - Octob'er), they will not begin until 1983 aside from completion of the Fast Entry to the mall and other small projects not affected by future major construction. (If not agreeable to a one-year project, "other" is to be specified, i.e. 2 years, 3 yearsi 6. The $3 million may not cover everything exactly as established in the Urban Design Plan, but a cost estimate of each phase will be provided to allow property/business owners to establish priorities. nt.Tri rntirv~ / I .,.,.,,r., PROPERTY * N E ADDRESS-~sines5 ONEuYEAR /y // _ ~ d /, -~ a ~^ tnrZv~~ - , Q~~ CD CU f f1;7~Y' SO C) C . L i p rl J h~C~X lei !~G ~~ e ~- l \ ~,l~ll !e s ~p ~ ~P W ~ ~~ 6~tJS~I eA.~ ~1 a ~~ ~ boo ~i~~ U U~,P soo ~, ~ %~~ ~ ~, r~ ,, I ~ I G`~ at /' 11 n 5~~~'~~1 ~ Gay ~ ~ - ~~~ ~~ f ~~' % ~~~_ ~. ~', Within boundaries of Vail/}.,ionsl~lead, described in No. 1 above. ' lde, the undersigned, support the establishment of an."improvement district" for the express purpose of improving Vail/LionsHead as outlined in the attached Urban Design Plan. It is understand that: 1. This assessment district, if approved, will affect all business and property owners from and including the Crest to and including the Vail Spa and Marriott Mark Resort and the South Frontage Road to Gore Creek; 2. The total maximum assessment will be $1.5 million to be proportioned to property and business owners based on square footage and closeness to the mall center, and spread over a 10-year period; 3. The assessment district must be approved before the Town of Vail will place a matching $1.5 million bond issue before registered Town of Vail voters 4• If the bond issue fails, it is further understood the Vail/LionsHead Urban Design Plan may not be implemented until such time as funds are available, 5. If improvements are to be done in one surruner (April - Octob'er), they will not begin until 1983 aside from completion of the East Entry to the mall and other small projects not affected by future major construction. (If not agreeable to a one-year project, "other" is to be specified, i.e. 2 years, 3 yearsi 6. The $3 million may not cover everything exactly as established in the Urban Design Plan, but a cost estimate of each phase will be provided to allow property/business owners to establish priorities. WN CO OTHER THAN C ~~/ PROPERTY N/aME ADDRESS ONE YEAR / ~~ l~~ C ~%~~1~/~~C~~v~ ~i~~.ai TQ~ssre.Cfi~s'' ~2 U zv. ~ ' _ u ~~d.~~ o,: ~,o ,~:o ~ C~, ~'G~I _ ~ c~ ti ~ ~r~~ C` ~~ :~ .. ~~~' vx~ ~~~1 / 1 2 i oes ~! oS 2~r ~ ~~ ~ ~iauo~eaa~ -~ J ~ ~ ' X , - ~ ~ vo L~~Q ~(~Q,G % ~ . / ~ / ~ ~.~i~~i~/f ~` m~%. ~ i ~ -~~ 1 h z-1~- 1-l c~ / ,. .Goti.. -¢ 8 3 (.~ . l., ~ o ,KJ ,-.~ oVAO i~ Y / ,q~t,l, of ~ ZG -y-,_. ~ w~~ Y~c~ r . L .'c~-r ~ r/~/!~-z ~' ._ z', Within boundaries of Vail/I,ionsl-lead, described in No. 1 above. "We, the undersigned, support the establishment of an "improvement district" for the express purpose of .improving Vail/LionsHead as outlined in the attached Urban Design Plan. It is understand that: 1. This assessment district, if approved, will affect all business and property owners from and including the Crest to and including the Vail Spa and Marriott Mark Resort and the South Frontage Road to Gore Creek; 2. The total maximum assessment will be $1.5 million to be proportioned to property and business owners based on square footage and closeness to the mall center, and spread over a 10-year period; 3. The,. assessment district must be approved before the Town of Vail will place a matching $1.5 million bond issue before registered Town of Vail voters 4• If the bond issue fails, it is further understood the Vail/LionsHead Urban Design Plan may not be implemented until such time as funds are availableg 5. If improvements are to be done in one summer (April - October), they will not begin until 1983 aside from completion of the East Entry to the mall and other small projects not affected by future major construction. (If not agreeable to a one-year project, "other" is to be specified, i.e. 2 years, 3~_.years; 6. The $3 million may not cover everything exactly a s established in the Urban Design Plan, but a cost estimate of each phase will be provided to allow property/business owners to establish priorities. OWN CONDO/ PROPERT.Y~ ~ NAME OTHER THAN ADDRESS ONE YEAR s ~. 6 S s o ~~ ~ 5~ r u %', Within boundaries of Vail/LionsHead, described in No. 1 above. ~~ ~~ ~ TOiVN OF VAIL 1982 BUDGET " OPEN SPACE F, CAPITAL IMPROVEMNT FUP1D TEN YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 1981 1982 -1983 1J84 1.985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 i?ebt Service: G.O. Debt 253,000 258,000 262,000 270,000 272,000 274,000 276,000 278,000 285,000 290,000 G.O. Refunding 795,000 823,000 843,000 .870,000 878,000 884,000 893,000 894,000 903,000 909,000 G.O. Lionshead 595,000 840,000 840,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,30C,000 1,300,000 G.O. Library 2.74 -- -- 335,000 380,000 400,000 400,000 410,000 410,000 420,000 420,000 G.O. Lionshead Mall 1.7T1 -- -- 95,000 234,000 239,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 270,000 270,000 P~.V, Fire, Stat~,on __ __ __ _- -- 70,000 70,000 90,000 90,000 - 110,000 Lease Commitments: Existing at 7/31/81 .350,400 383,200 378,200 278,200 377,900 358,700 199,400 202,500 199,900 196,900 ,?e~~ Leases: Buses 420M -- 113,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 -- -- -- -- ~~tunicipal Bldg authority: 28,000 58,500 58,500 54,000 54,000 59,100 -- -- -- -- t h 000 3 ~'? er: . , ;'etal Fred Expenses 2,024,400 2,475,700 2,927,700 3,399,200 3,533,900 3,658,800 3,398,400 3,424,500 3,467,900 3,495,000 f..i:t't Tax V.A.I: 259,000 307;000 350,000 385,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 -420,000 450,000 450,000 S,~ies Tax TOV 1,980,000 2,447,000 2,887,000 3,320,000 3,818,'000 4,276,000. 4,789,000 5,364,00.0 200 9 5,900,000 200 450 6,490,000 200 495 ;ties Tax 1~'.~;'.n C 206,000 -- 231,000 (100 -~ 82 254,100 8 113 00 279,500 400 130 307,500 500 149 338,200 167',300 372,000 ' 187,100 40 , 209,200 , 230,200 , 253,200 ounty S.Ies Tax ~ , . , , , ~"~` 4.5 .000 000. 50 . ;~e. , , Ioal Revenue 2,490,000 3;117,400 3,604,9.00 4,114,900 4,695,000 5,201,500 5,768,100 6,402,400 7,030,400 7,688,400 \'et Ati~ailable 465,600 641,700. 677,200 '715,700 1,161,100 1,542,700 2,369,700 2,977,900 ' 3,562,500 4,193,400 for profe~cts T0~` Sales Tax ~Inc,~ease 18% 180 15a 150 120 120 120 10.0 10~ c ,~,t~l i ~I ~mt~roucmen s lar-. ~ ~ {,~~~~ A}.}. Ulil~A~l'}~~~},N',~s ~~..~.r~ __ _ ____ Fund~inC~ ~o~~r~e (in ti~cus~nd,; ' , i '~~'=~ ~ ~ Vie` Cpen Open Sp. Rec Ar~en Rec Amen ~~~ ~' Geneeal G.O. Federzl ~Fe~~l Ot ~ ~' ace Cum S Fund Cum Fund Eonds Funds >issesrn't ~~:,., ~ p t ~ >1lo~siicAD.BIKF PATE{ ~ ~ 40 ~ ti 4O f ____ i '_ ~ SE(iER PL:1NT BIKE ['.1T{i 110 70 I` i I- 70 3 j FORD PARK (Iti',1TER, SEItiER) ~ ~ 35 145 ;, •' ~~ i 4 ~ FOi?D P;1RK TENNIS COURTS - LMIDSCAPING ( 5 150 - ~ ~ ( ~; 5 '--- ~--~-- ~ , : 5 ~ BIClfORN PARK EQUIPM1fENT ~ ~ ~ 5 155 ~ ~ ;I 5 ! 6 ( BIKE: f ;l'1?iS - SIGNS AND POSTS ~~ I,~ ~ ~ 4 ~ 159 ~ ` ~ ; ~ ~ ~~ i -T ~ ( GOLD PEAK 1~O1,LliYBALL COURT 6 165 ~ ~~ b ~' ~ 8 - D0350N ARENA LANDSCA°PING 70 I -~- ~' "r0 { ` ~ _ i ' 9 I S}lOP It•iPROVE~IC:N'1'S .32 102 ~l j ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1D 1~FOR~I~ITION SIGNS i 3 105 ~ ~ li ~ j 11 ~ ?~IUNICIP;IL PARf;ING LOT.LANDSCAPING 5 110 ~ ~ ;. ;~ 5 ! i I ' ~ ~ F { 1'_ 13US EARN E\P:~NSiON 1 85 ~ 19S 426 ~ ~ ~~ 511 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 ~ EQUIPIfE1T E\P;1:~SlON /ROADS Ii STREETS ~ B8 283 ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ la ~ ~fU~'ICIP.aL 3UILDII'G IPIPR01'EPiEN'fS /POLICE 60 343 , I~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ bU :~ 15 ~ LIONSHE;ID P;IRKING STRUCTURE-LANDSCAPING ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 21 ;~ 21 IG ~ C1fiLURcN'S FOUNTAIN -ROCK iVALL 5 1348 ~ ~ !~ 5 { - } ~ *S ecial ParKin~~ Assessment }~un~ ' !. T TOTAL ~ ~ l '348 ~ ~ ~ 165 426 21 1. 96U .~, ti Year ,~~~ ,~ 1 c~~.~~,a, ~maravements lan~ 1982, ALL DEPA.RTbiENTS Pace f~..~.. i Funding Source (in ti~ou~ands PFOJECi Ref Open 'Space Open Sp. Cum Rec Amen Fund Rec Amen Cum General G.O. Fund aonds Federal Special I Other* Funds Asses~u't Project TOTF~L 1 ~ L IONS("iEAD hL1LL I i~1PR0VEhfE1yTS 75 423 _ _. 1.7 ~ ^_ ; ~ j ]S f V:IIL VILLAGE. Ih1PR0Ufh1ENTS 70 493 70 _ 19 ~ STREEI' SIGNS 3 496 Y i 3 ~ 20 ~ }~IISTORIC PRESERUATION - 8 --- 504 ~ ~ S 21 f POLICE DEPARTh1ENT DISPATCIi 15.7 519.7 15.7 22 ~ STREET LIGH1"S •15 534.7 ~ ~ 1~ 23 ~ STREET IPIPROVEhIENTS 24.6 559.3 ~~ ~ ~ 82.4 lU1 24 ~ NElS' hMlICIPAL LI(3RARY --~-- 2~, 70U~ 2, 7UU I ~ .,. 1 ~. *Eag e County 1% Sales.'Tax TOTt1L ~ X59.3 165 ~ 2,700 426 1'7 103.4 . 3y5s.7 __.._ _ . _ .... ~.....~....~ _..,.~ .~._._ .~.....,~~.....W.,......~.~.~....... _ ...M:~~~~.~~~~~v,.::~.:.:,.:.:~~ ' ~ YP~r ~ ~, _ ~c;~;+~1 im~rrovements plan !_~ {~ ~, . ~~ , f'undinG Source (in thousarus) ~ Y(',vJ r ~ rr,.;:... '.CT Ref Open Onen gyp. Rec Amen rtec Amen~General G.O. Federal Special Ctha *~~ ' '_ " + ' ~ Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Qonds Funds .=~sses~r,'t it TC r'_ . '' ~ , -: _ ~ } ' 1 I ;~T?{LETIC f tELD PENCE 2 r-,, I ~ ~ _ ~ - ,~ 2 FOP,D PARK Ii0h1E RUN FENCE 3 5 ~~ II 3 N;ITURE CEITER ~ 1 6 ~~ 1 4 ~ PraV~E SANDSTONE TOT LOT PARKING 12 ~ ~ I8 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 12 ~_ , ii 5 ~ FORD PARK -FIELD N0. 3 9 ~~ 27 i~ 9 "'~ 28 ~j Za ~ i (, SI;OP I`dPROlI:h1ENi'S =.9_~ 7 I I\rQRh~~\'fION SIG1'S 3 31 ~ ~ ~ ii 3 i {~ 8 ~ L.IOVSNE;.ID Ih1PR01 Fh1ENT DISTRICT 100 331 ~ ~ 1, 700 ~ ~' 6U0 i "'~ ~ ~ {~ g ~~ FAIL VILI,A(~IE Ih1PROVEh1CNTS 170 401 ~ ~ i0 I ~---- ~ i ~ 10 iti'ES~:C LI0~5}{E:1D~ B:US S}iELTER ~ 7.5 •408.5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.5 ~ _ _ ,{ l I1 HISTORIC ~RtiSERVATION 8 416.5 ~ ;~ 8 ~~ 12 FSTREET I~iPROVEh11:N1'S 246.9 563.4 113.8 ~ 26U.7 L ~ ~~ 1 i -- ~-1 ...... ~ ~ .. ~ ~, .! .._.._,.~...._..._. _.____._.._ ._~...... ~ _ _. ~~ *Eagle County 1 o Sales Tax ._ ~~_:._~ , t TOTAL r...~._ _1,700 ~i ! y 563.4 27 I ~~~.. 113.8 lUU4.1 ~ C co l~E~',r _ cc;oi~al improvemenis r~lc~n ~ ~ ._.^._i . 1 PFO~J~CT 1 ItiTST VAIL BIKE PATH E!(TENSIONS .. ~~ i; l Gi iORN PARK ,i ~ I)OOTII CREilif; '101' LOT I~iPROVtiD1ENTS a ~ DO\OV,~iti P;1RK -SOCCER FIELD S I PAIL 1'RIWSPORTATION CENTER -SOLAR PANELS 6 ~ LIO~'SI11~,1D 1~iPi?OVEt'fENT DISTRICT ~~_ _ "~ ~ VAIL VII,LAGF I~9FROVE~fENT DISTRICT S ~ 1{ISTORIC PRESC:RVfI'CION ~I ~~ S'I'Rf.•ET I,~IPRO~'E'df;A~fS 10 j IIQOTiI CREEK TOT 1,OT L'QUIPDIENT ___. ~ ~ Funding Source (in thousancs) _ _ y ~. -~----- ~, i Ref Open . Oren gyp. Rec Amen Rec Amen~General G.O. Federal Special Other *~' ~rc~_.; Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund (3onds Funds Assesm't II +C ~.! _ 50 _ ~ 50 ~ 20 ~ II 20 ~ 25 45 I 2~ ._ - ~ 40 85 ~ :~ 40 - i~ 50 135 ~ 50 100 410 270 580 2,000 ~~~ X40 ~ ~. I !i ~0, 3 585.3 I~ 5.3 I 130.4 13U.4 -- - 20 70 ~ 2U l ;~ i _~ .~ I - - ~ .ti. ~ ~T~ ~w _._._.. .TOTAL ._._._~.. Y...~...y.~ 585:3 ~' 70 ~ e i b I' - *Eagle County to Sales Tax 1 130.4 ~lZ3U.7 . _~ .. Year r= „~ ~ f f~__......, . ~.,~.;~~ ~~~ ~r~~ ~ eve~~enl-~ I . I 1985 A L ~ ~. j 1. ~ ~~ ~..~~ L DEPARTMENTS C P~OJ~CT 14ES'P VA 1 L B [ KL• PATI I EXTENSIONS nIGNOR.~' f ARK 3 DONOVA\' P:1RK 1hIPROVGMEN1'S 4 TEEN CENTCR SITE Ih1PROUEh1ENT'S _ 5 ~ ~ LIONSHEAD Ih1PROVGhiENT DISTRICT 6 VAIL VILL,4GL IhiPROVEh1C;NT DISTRICT 1JISTORIC PRESERVATION 8 ~ DOBSON ARENA EX{'ANSION 9 ~ STREET IhiPROVE6IENTS _ Funding Source (in thous~ncs) f Ref Open Open Sp. Rec Amen Rec Amen~General _ G,O. Federal Special Othar ~i ~,•c;_.:~ Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Bonds Funds Assesm't II TS'r~ 50 ~ ~ I 50 1 _ ;, i. ~ _ 4o i 40 150 190 I 150 -' +----+ - 35 225 ~ II ` ;I .i5 ~ 50 500 - I' 550 --- L 275 775 ; 550 ~) i ~, x..11.6 786.6 ~ I~, 11.6 i A 450 1011,6 ~~ 225 149.5 149.5 -r-- ,~ 1 TOTAL _....~.__r....~ Eagle ouZ''my to 5a es Tax 1011.6 50 ~ ~ 149,5 ~.~ ~. ,~ ~i ~~ I i 1761.1 i ~_ --~ ., ,. , .: r~ . ~~ ,~ . '"""'"~""'"~'~`l : Funding Source (i n thousares ) r-;~r-;~~I',rr~~r~vemen~s plan l ~~I t~%OJECT DO\'OVri,~ PARK IDIPROVEPIENTS ~ LIONS11IiAD i~1PROVEDII:N'I' UIS'1'R1CT .; VAIL VILLAGE I~IPROVE~IENT DISTRICT d FIiSTORIC PRESERVATION • 5 I,1U~'ICIPAL S19IPL•1ING POOL j 5 ?;F:ST V:AIL B[~E Pr1"I'fi E\TE~SiONS ` ~ DEBT CO~TIVGEVCY FU1,D ' i ' $ ~ \Ei4' BUS ! E;iSE g ~~ ~1tiEST 1~A1L FIRE STATION IO ~ STREET' I~1PROlrF.~fENTS Ref Open Open gyp. Rec Amen Rec Amen~General ^ G.O. Federal Special Otherr` it Ft~_`~~i ~ Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Donds Funds Assesm't ~ T,;,r~ • I 250 225 - '~ -- ~ 275 iI ~~,u 50 ~~--- 500 225 ~ 4~ 50 225 ---- ~,~ 10.4 _ 10.4 510,4 _--- .i • i 225 225 735.4 -- 50 50 50 _____,__ ,, ~ i ~, , 180 915, 4 ~_ -- `I_~,. -.. _. _' ~ ~i 300 300 1215.4 500 ~ 160 -~4~ . 1.375.4 ~~ - ~ 167.3 j~ 16; .3 -~ I M '~ ~ ---------~- ""'~ *Eagle County 1 % Sales 1~ax _ ` ~ 1 .._...,....r.v _._.... _._.._ _ .._._...... _. ....._.....~... ..... 500 500 167.3 2341.7 ~ . TOTAL ~ 1375.4 50 ' ~, ~- ,,.~a.,~ ' •, i ~, x - TO1VN OF VAIL 1982 BUDGET OPEN SPACE ~ CAPITAL IMPROVEMNT FUND TEN YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 debt Service ' G.O. Debt 253,000. 258,000 262,0.00 :.270,000 272,000 274,000 276,000 278,000 285,000 290,000 G.O. Refunding 795,000 823,000 843,000 870,000 878,000 884,000 893,000 894,0.00 903,000 909,000 G.O. Lions}~ead 595,000 840,000 840,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 G.O. Librar~~ 2.701 -- -- 338,000 380,000 400,000 400,000 410,000 410,000 420,000 420,000 G.O. Lionshead i<9a11 1.71 -- -- 95,000 234,000 239,000 250,000 250,000 25-0,000 270,000 270,000 1,,~.tr. Fire. Station : __ __ __ _- -- 70,000 70,000 90,000 90,000 110,000 ',ease Commitments: Lxistin~ at 7/31/81 350,400 383,200 378,20'0 278,200 377,900 358,700 199;400 202,500 199,900 196,900 ,~;eh Leases Bt.ises 4201`1 -- 113,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 -- -- -- "- :Municipal Bldg authority: 28,000 58,500 58,500 54,000 54,000 59,100 -- -- -- "" ~_~th 000 3 er: , 't'otal Fixed Expenses 2,024,400 2,475,700 2;927,700 3,399,200 3,533,900 3,658,-800 3,398,400 3,424,500 3,467,900 3,495,000 Lift Tax V.A.I. 259,000 307,000 350,000 385,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,0.00 450,000 450,000 ~~ales Tat TOE+" 980,000 1 2,447,000 2,887,000 3,320,000 3,818,000 4,276,000. 4,789,000 5,364,00.0 5,900,000 5,490,000 `:ales Tax 1t'.t~~.Y , 206,000- 231,.000 254,100 279,500 307,500 338,200 372,000 409.,200 450,200 495,200 ;;ales Tax County -- ~- 82,000 113,800 130,400 149,500 167,300 187,100 209,200 230,200 253,200 !)t} 4'5 '000 000 . 50 . .. .. . per , , 'otal Revenue 2,490,000 3;117,400 3,604,900 4,114,900 4,695,000 5,201,500 5,768,100 6,4,02,400 7,030,400 7,688,400 ;~:et :lvailalile 4.65 600 r 641,700. 677 240 > `715 700 > 1 161 100 > > 1 542 700 ~ , 2 369 700 ~ , 2 977 900 , > 3 562 500 > , Q 4 1.3,400 ~ for protects -iOt' Sales Tax increase 18" ~ ° 18~ ~ 150 ' 150 ~ 12.0 120 ' 12$ 10$ 10% Y ,~ 1 J~~~~1 ~i ~norovcmon~s pan p 1 ! ~-~--s~--~'-^ , TOTAL '348 ~ ~ 165 426 i J 21 ~! 96U ~~ :I i f f r~ Yr?Y, ray: ,_,.._....~_,,,~ ,_,~,,,,~ r ~,..~_ ~ t lof~z ~ ni,i, u~:rnu~rru;N~r~ ~ .~~.~_r_...®.. ..~ ___ ___ 'UnCilniJ _ SOUL"!:e (1!1 tnCU:,~n d~~ , r~C;FCi ~ ref Cpen Open Sp. Space Cum ._.._ Rec Ar;en Rec Amen Fund Cum ~. General G.O. Fund fonds ', , hederzl special Otr~r* j~ ~r~.•:: Funds Asses~r't` i,~rL 1 ' 1 ~ LI0ISHEAD BIKE P,4TI1 40 ~ ~ y .- t ,~ 40 ~ ~ } SE1tiER PLr'~1T BIKE PATH 3 r IORD P:1RK (IV:ITER, SEINER) 70 110 35 145 i ~ ~~~ ~ ~_ ~ --t~' %0 ~ . I~~ i~ ~-~ ' 'r_ ~ ~ ~ ~ `E 4 ~ FURD PARK TENNIS CUURTS -LANDSCAPING ` 5 150 ~ ~'_ R f! 5 5 ~ BIGFIORN P:1RK EQUIPMENT ~ S 155 ~. ~ ~ ~ ;I 5 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 'i 6 j LIFE PA'111S -SIGNS AND DUSTS ~ ~ 4 ~ 159 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;i 4 GOLD PEAK VULLEY(3nLL CUURT 6 165 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 6 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ DOI350N nRE1A LANDSCAPING 70 ~ ~^ .~ , ~, 70 i ~ ~f ~ _ < ~I { 9 1 SIiOF 1~1PROVCPiEN'I'S .32 102 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ _ I ' t 10 ~ INfOR~i!1TIUN SIGNS ~ i 3 105 - ~ ~ .I 3 ~ 1l ~ ~VUNICIP;IL PARKING LOT-LMIDSCAPING ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ 110 ~ ~ ~ t~ 5 I { 1' ~ BUS &1R~`1 E'IP.~'SIUN ~ .I.____ 85 ~ 195 ~~~ 426 ~ ~~ 51~ ~ ~ 13 ~ EQUIPMENT E\P.A.'~'SIUN /ROADS P, STREETS 88 283 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i ~b ` I i4 MU'vICIF:IL (3UILDING IMPROVEhIENTS /POLICE 60 343 ~ ~ j~ ~ ~ ~~ tiU 15 j L10NSHE.4D PARKING STRUCTURE-LANDSCAPING ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 21 ;) 2I 16 ~ CHILDREN'S FUUNT,~1IN -ROCK WALL ~ 5 1348 ~ `~ 5 ~ ' I *S ecial Parxin~~ Assessment urn-^' :~ ' Year ~'' , i r,---~-------r- 00 0~ io I ~morovement I n ~ 1982 snn ~~ ALL DEPARTMENTS '~ rPace `' ~ ~~r . ~"OJECT ~ Ref .__~.__._ FundinG Source (in ti~ousands Open Open Sp. Rec Amen Rec Amen General G.O. Federal Special Other* Frojzct Space Cum Fund I Cum Fund Qonds Funds Assesrn't .TOTAL l"' ~ Li0NSI1f;;ID hb1LL I~11'ROVE1`1ENTS 75 423 1.7 ! 75 i I8. ~ FAIL VILLAGE IDIFROVEh1ENTS ~ ~ 70 493 ~ ~ . ~ ~_ ~ 70 19 ~ Sl'REEI' SIGNS 3 496 _ ~ j 3 i ZO ~ IiISTORIC ARC:SERVATION 8 504 ~ 8 2l ( POLICE DEPARTP.fENT DISPATCH 15.7 519.7 15.7 ?2 STREET LIGIfTS ~15. 534.7 ~ ~ 15 2s I S"IKEET I~IPROl!G~itiNTS 24.6 559.3 ~ 82.4 lU7 24- ~ NEI4 DMVICIPAL LIBRARY ' ~~ 2~, 70U 2, 70U ' l _ -^ (. I I i i ' *Eag e County la Sales Tax TOTAL 559.3 165 ~, 2,700 426 1'7 103,4 3y~3.7 e: . L ,.a. _...... ~..._... r.,._.....•.~........, i •• ~ YP'r - cac~,'~ol ~~mprovemen+s plan ~_ ,.~! r• ! I ~. Yr,C;~CT 1 ~ ATIiLET'IC FIELD FENCE 2 FORD PARE; f:i0~1E RUN PENCE S I NATURE CENTER . ~S i PAVE SANDSTONE "fOT LOT PARKING S ,! i~4RD PARK -FIELD N0. 3 ~ G ~ ~ SIiOP 1PIPROV1311LNT'S 1 _ INFOR~L1T1-0N SIGNS ` II 8 L LIONSIIEAD IPIPROVGPIENT DISTRICT ~ 9 _ l VAII. PILLAGE IhIPROVE~fENTS i ~-- k ]~ 0 I ItiEST LIOVSfIEAD BUS SIiELTER 11 ~IiISTORIC PRESERVATION I2 ~~ S'fRECT I~if'ROVEhIEN'CS~ Ref ~ Open ;~ Space __ FundinG Source (in tho~,isoncs; _ ~ O en 5p. Rec Amen Kec Amen~General G.O. Federal Special Cth_r* ~ r;:_. pCum Fund Cum ~ Fund Qonds Funds ;sses~r't iI TC~~' ~ _ 2 '~ 1 r - - ~~'' 1 3 5 Ii .i 1 6 kI 1 12 18 ~~ 12 ~~ 9 9 ~ 2 7 ~ I~ 28 ~ ~ ~ ~! ~5 j 3~ 31 ~ ~ ~ ~ ii 3 _ } 100 331 ~ ' ~ ~1, 700 ~ ~~; 6U0 ~~ l 170 401 70 it 7.5 408.5 ~ ~. 7.5 I , i - ;~ 8 416.5 ;! 8 246.9 ~ 563.4 ~ ~ 113.8 ~ 26U.7 I I y ~ .__ 6 .~ i ..... ~ a _____i ~ - ~, ., f ___~_.._ ~4 ~~~ ~_.......-.,._,~. M *Eagle County l o Sales Ta~~ ~~ _ _ _ ~ ~r TOTAL ..._.._ _.___~._ Y...~._.._~~.. _.. _. _.._~ - ~1 700, ...__._..~ ._._._ ~j._._,__~ 563.4 27 ~ ~"' 113:8 ~lUU4:2 I YPu"~ i:~i~a ~m~,~rcvements r~lryn:(-a ~ f -~ I- PROJECT 1 itiEST 1rAIL 13If;E PATH EXTENSIONS RIC~IIOIL~ !',~~Rh it007fi CItGi:F; 'fOT LOT li1RROVE~IENTS ---.I ~ DO`~'0141N P,IRE; - 50CCEft FIELD 5 ~ 1'AIi, 1'Ri1~NSPORT,ITION CENTER -SOLAR PANELS __~_~~__ 1.I0?dSF{}:AD 1PIPROI'Eb1ENT DISTRICT i ~ 1~';tIL 1~ILLr1Cl: II{PR01'Ei`1FNT DISTRICT -_---~ . S IiISI'URIC PRESERVr1'fION 9 ~ STREI:1' I~11'R0~'E!1fa"IS I 10 ' ~ ~00'I'H CREEX TOT LOT EQUIPb1ENT ~~ 2U ,~~ .~_ ~._ .( .. ~. .. b ~I _ 1 _._._._ __„"__,_,__._,_,_, ,~,~ .. y *Eagle County 1 o Sales :I'ax _ _ ~ TOTAL ~.~"_ 585;3 70 130.4 11230,7 ~ `" ' _3 _~ Fundin0 Source (in thousands) __ 1 Ref Open Onen gyp, Rec Amen Rec Amen~General G.O. Federal Special Othar *'IIi F,c~_c: Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Donds Funds Assesm't i~ i~-r.~ . 50 i, 50 ~ i 1 20 ~ I~ 20 1 _ :;---~ 25 45 I, 25 - - - I 40 85 40 , _ __ f `' •U 50 135 i, 50 100 410 ~ !~ 550 .- ;; -I 270 580 2, 000 ~I 5.I0 I r ,i -1 ~ ~U.3 585.3 i~ 5.3 ~~ 13U,~` l.iu.4 20 70 Year "•- r-. 1./\ ~'''~~ I I / ' ~~ y ' ~-T ~o ~.~ I I~i ~ Ire r o~emenl I 1985 f ALL D s ~ an DEPARTMENTS ~ i f~,..._....~.~,~......e.~. ...,, .._..,...._.. 1 3 4 5 6 r" 8 9 Pr;OJ~CT {vGS'I' VAIL EiLKE PA'C}I EXTENSIONS DIGfIOR:~~ ?':1Rn DONOVAN f':1RE; IPiI'ROVEPiENTS TEEN CENTER SITE; Ii1!'ROVE61Eh~'S _ LIONSFIEA~D I~IPROVEDIENT DISTRICT VAIL VILLAGE I1IPROVEbIENT DISTRICT fIISi°ORI~ PRESCRVATION DOaSON :1RENA Iaf ANSiON STREET I;~fPROVE~IENT'S 149.5 II 149.5 :v to _I~Ii i o r_._ ~ --.- -..-_....._.._......I~.~. TOTAL. I FundinG Source (in thous~ncs~ ~ _ ___ __ + Ref Open Open Jp. Rec Amen Rec kmen~General G.O. Federal Special Othar *'II' F,•c;~c;~ ~ Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Donds Funds Assesm't i~ TC'r'_ 50 _ I 50 _ r 1 40 ~~ I i 40 150 190 150 35 225 II r " i~ 50 500 ~ 550 275 775 ~ ,j i 550 I . ,; -~ 11.6 786.6 ~ ~I! 11 b '~ 450 1011.6 ~-i I' 225 ~ ~ ~ ,i '" ~r. r *Eagle ounty to Sa es Tax ~ ~ _ 1011.6 50 ._.. - ~- 149, 5 1761.1' C. . ., ~ r ~ ~~- ~ r uemen~_ ~c,o~~al ~m~ o "' ' ' " "' "' ' "' ' ' ' ' " ° 1 i i ~# 5 6 &• IO P~OJ~CT DOtiOt'AN PARf~ I~:IPROVE~IENTS Li01~S1{fi:1U IMP{tOVEMEN'l" DIS'i'R1CT VAIL VILLAGE IhiPROVEDiI:NT DISTRICT Hi~STQRIC ;PRESERVATION ~ t•iUNICIPr1L SI~'I¢~IING POOL f '~~EST ;':111, GI};E PATH E1TF:NSIONS j C~E(sf CC~~TItiGI:~CI' FUND ~ 'SEW E3US LEASE 1~ 1t`EST V:IIL~ FIRE STATION STRE:E~1' I~1PROVi:!1CNTS 10.4 225 180 300 •-4 Fun~iin~ Source (in thousands) Open Jp. P,ec Amen Rec Amen~General G.O. Federal Special Otharr` i, rig,;-.~ Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Qonds Funds Asses.n t 250 ' _ I:._______1 i ' ~ Z75 {~. S~0 { 225. I 450 500 _ -- _-.----- i '-- 1U.4 510.4 s , iI j ii 225 735.4 ~ -, • ~ ~~ 50 I 50 50 ____~ ,, j 180 915,4 •~ - ~~ 1.215.4. ~~ 300 500 ~ 160 1375.4 ~ 167.3 ~ 167.3 - ii -~ . ~ ~-I---~- r , ... Year "'°"°"' s Ian ~ 1986 p ~~. Ref Open ~ Space 225 50 225 ~. *Eagle County l~s 1'ax r 1375.4 50 50® 500 167.3 ~,~ . c ~; . i ~ _ `_ ! ~2s42.7 ~ J1 TOIdP; OF VAIL 1982 BUDGET OPEN SPACE $ CAPITAL IMPROVEMNT FUND TEN YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 1981 1982 1983 1984 .1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 i?ebt Service: G.O. ])ebt 253,000 258,000 262,000 270,000 272,000 274,000 276,000 278,000 285,000 290,000 G.O. Refunding 795,000 823,0.00 843,000 870,000 878,000 884,000 893,000 894,000 903,000 909,000 G.O. Lior~shead 595,000 840,:000 840,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 G.O. Librar~~ 2.7M -- -- 333,000 380,000 400,000 400,000 410,000 410,000 420,000 420,000 G.Q. Lions}Iead Mall 1.7'1 -- -- 95,000 234,000 239,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 270,000 270,000 l~.V. Fire Station ; __ - 70,000 70,000 90,000 90,000 1.10,000 }.:ease Commitments: L'xisting at 7/31/81 350,400 383,2:00 378,20;0 .278,200 377,900 358,700 199,400 202,500 199,900 196,900 ~.e`c LL'ses: Buses 420~i -- 113,0.00 113,00-0 113,000 .113,000 113,000 -- -- ~'- -- `~1u~ticipal Bldg :authority: 28,000 58,500 58,500 54,000 54,000 59,100 -- -- -- -- C;~her: 3 000 , Total Fixed Expenses 2,024,400 2,475;700 2,927,700 3,399,200 3,533,900 3,658,800 3,398,400 3,424,500 3,467,900 3,495,000 i~~:ft Tax V..~;.I. 259,000 307,000 350,000 385,000 420,000 420,000. 420,000 420,0.00 450,000 450,000. gales Tax TOIr 1,980,000 2,447,000 2,887,000 3,320,000 3,8.18,000 4,276,000. 4,789,000 5,364,00..0 5,900,000 6,490,000 ~a;.es Tax 1ti'.~'.* 206,000 231,0.00 254,100 279,500 307,500 338,200 372,000 409,200 450,200 495,200 ~;~ies Tax County. -- _ 82,(100 113,800 130,400 149,500 167,300 187,100 209,200 230,200 253,200 i)},e1• • 45.000 ~ 50,000 . .. ... ~ . local P~euen~.ie 2,490,000 3;117,400 3,604,900 4,114,900 4,695,000 5,201,500 5,768,100 6,402,400 7,030,400 7,688,400 '~;~~ :available 465600 6417700 677200 '715,700 1,161,100 1,542,700 2,369,700 2,977,900 3,562,500 4,193,400 for pi•oj eets COl' Sales Tax T.ncrease a 180 180 150 150 120 120 12% 10% 100 ~~o~~~'ol in~~ro~omoni- r,~. Yr~,~, ~ i ~ C~ ~ ~ v to n ~ ~ I ~i;~> ~ ni,i, uernli~rru~N'rs p ~_ ~_ __ ~ ~ __ Y~~ ~ ._...~.~..~ ~ - ----- ~U7C'i1n~J - - -_ - - __ SO'Jr~e, ~ltl ti~CU~~h d~) -~ rC~~FCT ~ ref Coen Open 5p. ,._..~ Zec Ar;en Rec Amen Gene?•al G.O. Federal Special Ott;:; * j~ -r;;,;~~, 4 ~~ Space Cum ~~ ~ Fund Cum Fund Conds Funds k iC;~! ~ssesrn't 1 ~ LIONS1jE,aD E3IKE; PA'Ill ~ 40 ~ ~ I 'f- ~ ;~ 40 ~ _ ~ SEl'~ER PLANT BIKE PATH ~ 110 70 ~ I~ 70 j FORD PARK (DATER, SERER) ~ _ ~ 35 145 I ;~ ~ -,-- ~ ~i s5 ~ t ~ ~. 4 ~ FORD ~PARK~TEV'N IS COURTS - LnNDSCAPING ~ ~ 5 150 ~ ~ j `:I I ~ I; 5 5 ~ DIGIIORN PARK EQUIPr1ENT ` S 155 ~ !~ ~ ,~ 5 ~ t, ~ BIh~E P,1111S -SIGNS AND POSTS ~ - - ~ l 4 ~ 159 ~ ~ ~ -• ~ ~~ 4 y. - 1 ;' I GOLD PEAK 1~O1,LF:~'IIAL,L COURT - -. 6 165 f -, ~ ~ I~ 6 8 ~ DOf~SON r1RENA L~yNDSCAPING I~_ 70 I ~- ~- '~ i0 I ~ ~ ii _ _ i+ I ~ 9 SiIOP IhiPROVEr1ENTS ~ .32 102 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ' _ ' ; ~ lp ~ INPOR~IATION SIGNS ~ ~ I i 3 I05 I ~ j 5 ~ Il ~ nUNICIPAL PnRKING LOT-LIWDSCAPING 5 110 ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ 5 i !I { ~_'~ ~ EUS BARN EXPAi~'SiON ~ j ~ , 85 ~ 195 42b ~ E1 51i ~ I. ( ~ ~ I ' ! i ~ 13 EQ11IPriEN1' C\Pr1\SION /ROADS ~ STREETS 88 283 ~ ~ i ~b E I },~ I ~• ~~ it t' 1~1,ICiPAL EUILDII~~ IPiPROVEriENfS /POLICE b0 343 j~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ tiU t 15 ! LIONSiIEAD PARKING STRIICTURE-LnNDSCAPING y a I 21 i 21 f ~ 16 ~ CIIILDREN'S POIINTAIN -ROCK h'nLL 5 1348 ~ ~ ~~ 5 ~ .. ~ *S~ec al ParKi n~~ Assess ment 'run :; ~' - --- TOT,at_ 1 ~ ~ ' 348 ~ ~ 165 ~ 426 I 21 ,l1 960 ~ ' __.._-_ I cc~!talimpc~vements;~!an:~'r~s -l. ALL DEPARTMENTS Pa c e .~ r~ ~ ' r ....r R~CJFCT ~ Ref ~, Funding Source (in.ti~ousands Open Open Sp. Rec Amen Rec Amen General G.O. Federal Special ~ Other* Project Space Cum Fund Cum ~. Fund Qonds Funds Assesra't TOTAL 17 ~ LIONSHEAD ~1r1I,L I~iPROVE~SINTS 75 423 - 1.7 - ;5 ~ 18 ~ VAIL VILLAGE IPIPROUEDIENTS _ _ - 70 493 70 19 I STREET 51GNS 3 496 I ~ 3 20 HIST'0(21C PRESERVATION ~. 8 ~~ 504 y _ ~ 8 2I (POLICE DEPARTDIENT DISPATCH 15.7 519.7 15.7 ?2 ~ S"fREET LIGi1TS '15 534.7 ~ ~ ~ 1; 23 ~ STREET I;`1PROl'E~~iLN'PS 24.6 559.3 ~~ ~ ~ 82.4 107 2~3 I _ NEIti' PMIICIPAL LIBRARY -.-,---- 2, 70U 2, 7UU I _ _ -.. k I *Eag e County 1% Sales Tax TOTAL ~ $59.3 165 ~ 2,700 426 1.7 103.4 3y.53.7 c .. ~ YPdr ~ -~ ~; ~!~i~l im~~ovements plan^, ~! ~-~- ~~ ~.,,.r. ..._._..._.~, ~..........~ Fr,0~~r7 ~ ~ Ref ~' ' ~ 1 ~ ATHLETIC FIELD FENCE i. 2 FORD P;iRK IIO!1E RLfN FENCE 3 NATURE CENTER . a ~ PAVE SANDSTONE TOT LOT PARKING 5 ~ FORD P;aRK - F1ELD N0. 3 6~ ~~ S({OP Ih1PROVEPifNTS ~ ~~ r "r I INFOR51r1TI0N SIGNS I I 8 I LIONSIIGAD IDiPROVE{ISN'T DISTRICT ~_, 9 I VAIL VILI-.AGE 11.1PROVEFIENTS ~0 11 1' I' ~ES'I LIONSHEAD BUS SHELTER !•• }IISTORIC PRGSER~~ATION ~ r STRF..ET I~IPROVE!ICNTS Open Space 28 3' 100 170 .. 7.5 FundinU Source (~n thou;~res) ~ , Open gyp.. Rec Amen rtec Flmen~General, G.O. Federal Special Cth.r*~' Frc,-~ Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund aonds Funds '+sses~r,'tl I` iC~r.'_ . ~ . 2 ~1 ~ I _ r' ~ ~ 3 5 ~ I~ 3. 1 . 1 12' 9 31 ~- 331 401 .408.5 8 416.5 246.9 ~ 563.4 I 6 18 27 1, 700 1 '~ 12 9 '' 2~ j G ;I i OC q 3 ~ '~ ii 6U0 ~ 70 I i1 ' ~,i ~ . 5 ~~ ~ 8 11s.8 ;~ 26U.7 ~ ' i ~~~ ~ ~ !~ -•- ~ ' ~_ ~ __ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ - ~I _ - ~ ! ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~! ~ *Ea le Count 1 o Sales Tax ~ 1~ ~- ..._.......~...._.._...-____.._.~ .__..._ _. ...... _. B ~_.__ y.r_.._. __...__ i. _.-----i 1,7D0 ~' j '1 OTAL 563.4 27 I ~ !"" .113.8 ' lUU4.2 ! - Year. ~a;~ital im~~rcvements plan j_ ~~ ~ G f . ~ Pt';OJECT 1 ~ 1ti~EST VAIL BIf;E PATI~i EXTENSIONS i>iGi!CP.~' PAitK 3 U'OO1'il CIZfE}: '.'UT LOT IPiPR0VE~IGNTS DO`;OGrU~` PAR}; - SOCCCR FIELD a I l';1IL 1'R;iNSPORTATION CENTER -SOLAR PANELS 6 L,IONSHEAD i~iPROVE~IENT DIISTRICT ~'1IL 1~ILLAGI~ IbIPR01~Ei~1ENT DISTRICT , 8 ~~ISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 ~ 5TIt1.iI:"f 1!f1~'ROVF:'~1EtiT5 10 . ~ P>00'TN CREf:K TOT LOT EQIJIPMiNT Funding Source (in ti~ousancs) ___ -~----, Ref Open Oren 5p. Rec Aa~cn Rec Amen~General G.O. Federal Special Other *i``' Frc~_~: >y Space .Cum Funtl Cum ~ Fund Dontls Funds Assesm't i, ~C"~'_ _ S0 I 50 ' i 20 ~ li 20 25 45 ` 2J k 40 85 40 y - , i, 50 135 i 50 100 410 ~ ~ ~~ 550 I 270 580 2,000 !I 340 ~ ' q '.i ffif~,3 585.3 + 5.3 130.4 ~ 13U.4 20 70 - 2U ~(~ !~ ~i I, I --- ,~...__ __ __ ,~~,~,..,_ ,_~ ~,_ *Eagle County 1% Sales Tax k - _ .._ _......_ __...__ i TOTAL Y..~._ 585:3 70 - 130.4 m ~' ~. ,~ __ .230.7 } .~.,! Year __ . ,y ~ .T .JL~~/I ~~, ~r~ r o~emenl ~ 1985 ALL DEP- . ~ `o an ~ ARTMF.NTS I ~ r Pr;OJFCT 1 ~ 19ES"t VAiL (31XL• PATII EXTENSIONS i - _' ~ BIGI!ORV I':IRf; 3 D01~01~`AN PARE IMPR01'EPIENI'S .~ TEEN CENTER SITE IMPROVEt`IENTS 5 LI01SfiErtD IMPROI'E~1ENT DISTRICT 6 VAIL VILLAGE IMFROVEi`fENT DISTRICT 7 ~ NIST'ORIC I'RISERVaTION 8 ~DOI3SON ;1RENA f;X('~'VySTON 9 ~ STREET IPIPROVEbiEM'S FundinG Source (in thousancs) _ ~~_ _ Ref Open Open 5p. Rec Amen Rec Amen~General. G.O, Federal Special Other *~~ ~.~,_~_~ ~ Space Cum Fund Cum ~ Fund Gonds Funds Asses~n't i~ T~-r! 50 II 50 { - _ - ;~ 40 150 190 35 225 50 500 275 775 ~ , 11.6 786.6 450 1011,6 ~i~ ~~ 40 1~0 I~ 35 j~ 550 '~..... 550 I' 11.6 a ~~ 225 149.5 ~f 149.5 -~- ~ I -- .._. *Eagle ounty 1 o Sa es Tax TOTAL ....._~~~~~ _r~..~~ 1011.6 r 50 ...~_ - ~ .~- 149,5 1161.1 :v w v. . r`~ i ',. ~- Funding Source (in thou;ancs Year ~-1- ~ ~~ ~ ~ end-s Ian ~ 1986 c~r~~ ~a ~m rovem p ~.... Ref 0~ Oren Sp. Rec Amen Rec Amen~General G.O. Federal Special Other* jI r~~_`~- PR01CT II - ~ Space Cum Fund Cum 'Fund Donds Funds Assesm't I ~~'~- .~ ..j CO~;OI:L~ 'P;~.RK I:":IPROVEi•fENTS LIO~,`;S1i[iAl.i ]~1['itOVL;Plli~J'I' U1S'lR1C'I' ,; ~'A~IL VILLAGE IbiPROVI~~IENT DISTRICT ~1 ziISTORIC PRESERVATION 5 !~iU~LC1,Pr\L SI~'i~L~1ING POOL 6 i';':S1' 1:1L BiKC P.1'H EXTEi~'SIONS ~ . ~ DEST CO`;TI~G1~V01' FU1U S i ;rEii UUS LEASt: I ,~ ~ 1 li'rST V.AIL FIRE STATIO'V l ~ ' S ~ REET .IL`PROs'F.~iC~TS 225 _ 50 225 10.4 225 180 300 .a _.r- v - • I I~ 250 ' 275 'I'~- 0 - 225 ~ ~ 450 50 ,- - _- II 1U.4 510.4 ~_ti , i ' 225 735.4 `._ ~L 50 50 50 -._._-- ~, 915.4 ~ +~i 180 °i~ ,oo 1215.4 I'.~--- 500 ~ 160 1375.4 167.3 ~ 16;.3 - it -.~ ~ . .. , .~ ~ ,~ 1r --~ - - '__. . -""' __.. *Eagle County 1% Sales 1'ax ~ _~ - ..._..._ ..r. -- -r........._. ...._..- _. ._.._._..,.... ..._. -50® ~w - _.__ 16 7.3 ~ 2341.7 TOTAL ~ 1375.4 50 500 , ~~onCnt¢r c~K 100 West Beaver Creek Boulevard January 28, 1982 Richard Caplan Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Rich: On behalf of Avon Center at Beaver Creek, I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with us and discussing the expansion of the bus service between Vail and Avon. Ira Adler will solicit the cooperation of Beaver Creek Transit and I have polled several of the members of the Avon Town Council. /' V /~ 2~~. G On Tuesday, February 2, 1982,. I will attend the Vail Town Council meeting and will carry the-message of the-Avon-Council regarding their support of the program which will enable guests in Avon to ski Vail and dine and shop in Vail. I appreciate your support and am hopeful we can achieve this expansion in a week or so. Very truly yours, AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK /~ /,l / Donald Buick DB/js P. O. Box 25, Avon, CO 81620 (303) 949-6263 REVISED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTIOPI COSTS . FOR THE V~.IL L I f3fP,RY r~ AT L 4%°2 1981 1982 Building 1,630,000 1,II00,000 Furniture 220,000 245,000 Architectural Fees 120,000 130,000 Utilities Relocation 35,000 50,000. Art 40,000. 30,000 . Books 100,000 110,000 10% Contingency 217,000 295,000 Landscaping 25,000 40,000 Sub Total 2,387,000 2,700,000. Plaza 100,000 300,000 Total 2,487,000 3,000,000 PLAZA Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Foundations 10,000 10,000 Teen Center Dismantle 4,000 Re-locate 50,000 Drain Culv. 3,000 3,000 Grading 5,000 5,000 Pavers 96,700 96,700 Mas. Walls ~ 20,000 20,000 Stream Wk. 1,500 1,500 Elec./Plumb. 20,000 '20,000 Vegetation 9,000 9,000 10% Des. Eng. 16,920 21,520 15% Cont. 27,918 35,508 Totals $214,038 $272,228 REVISED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE VAIL LI~f2~RY AI G/4/vL ,,~;.. 1981 1982 Building 1,630,000 1,800,000 Furniture 220,000 245,000 Architectural Fees 120,000 130,000 Utilities Relocation 35,000 50,000 Art 40,000 . 30,000 Books 100,000 110,000 10% Contingency 217,000 295,000 Landscaping 25,000 40,000 Sub Total 2,387,000 2,700,000 Plaza 100,000 300,000 Total 2,487,000 3,000,000 PLAZA Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Foundations ].0,000 10,000 Teen Center Dismantle. 4,000 Re-locate 50,000 Drain Culv. 3,000 3,000 Grading 5,000 5,000 Pavers 96,700 96,700 Mas. Walls 20,000 20,000 Stream Wk. 1,500 1,500 Elec./Plumb. 20,000 20,000 Vegetation 9,000 9,000 10% Des. Eng. 16,920 21,520 15% Cont. 27,918 35,508 Totals $214,038 $'L,72,228 `~.-~~ VEHICLE & HEAVY EQUIPMENT NEEDS SUMMARY 1982 - 1986 1982 1983, 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL TRUCK REPLACEMENT 45,000 31,000 36,000 18,000 27,000 157,000 C~,R REPLP.CEi~1EP1T 0 27,000 9,000 0 0 36,000 ..;~•:~~~:~ ~~C??:CIE\T REPLACEMENT 20,000 57,000 83,500 108,000 147,000 415,500 _...?.~.::5~~0~ VEHICLES 97.3nn 135.5nn 7~.nnn 1n3.nnn 1n~.nnn S1d.Rnn iv_r.L "'^~"' 162,300 250,500 204,500 229,000 277,000 1,123,300 HE::VY EQUiPt$ENT CAPITAL OUTLAY 109,300 132,500 46,500- 18,000 27,000 333,300 E~i;IP%iEtiT LEASE 53,000 118,000 158,000 211,000 250,000 790,000 Note: When financed, the annual charges are shown. These are new charges only, not existing debt. 1. Pehicle t i8 7 io 3 35 0 29 30 3? 2~ ~~ 2 ,~ ,z u 7 48 _.: i::L Yr./Model Condition 69 Ford Very Poor 70 Chev. Very Poor 72 Dodce Very Poor 7~ Jeep Very Poor 7~ Chev. Very Poor 75 To~•ota Pcor i3 :ord Poor 75 Dodge Poor 76 Chev. Average 70 Chev. Average 76 Dodge Average 7~ Chev. Good 78 Chev. Good 79 Chev. Good 79 Chev. Good E1 Chev. New 80 Chev. New 81 Chev. .New REPLACEMENT VEHICLES Pick-Up Trucks 1982 1983 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 4,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 45,000 31,000 1984 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 36,000 1985 9,000 9,000 18,000 1986 9,000 9,000 9,000 27,000 . .... ~;, 2 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES Heavy Eauipmen,t . Vehicle 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 ' 644 Loader (financed) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 T8 Dump .(financed) 7,000 ...7,000 7,000 7,000 ~ljor, Staeeper .(financed) 30,000 30,000 ~ 30,000 30,000 ^n.;C12~ . 3o w;.dier)(financed 1 new piece to be determined) 13,000 13,000 13,000 ..:. =19 Du~<<p (financed) 12,000 12,000 12,000 X32 Dump (financed) ~ 12,000 12,000 =10 Dump (financed) 11,000 410 (financed) - 14,000 14,000 644 Loader (financed) 28,000, .Yazoo 1,500 , TOTAL HEAVY EQUIPMENT 20,000 . 57,000 .`.~ 83,500 108,000 147,000 CARS Volvo -Community Development 9,000. ?.udi -Public Works 9,000 Saab -Personnel 9,0.00 Saab -Community Development .~ 9,000 . _OTAL CARS 27,000 9,000 0 0 TOTAL REPLACEMENT 65",000 115,000 128,500 126,000 174,000 EXPANSION -VEHICLES De:a:-cTM:cnt/Division Description 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Pualic riorxs Streets Motorgrader (financed) 33,000 33,.000, 33,000 33,000 33,000 3/4 Ton Flatbed 9,000 Asphalt Roller (f) 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000. Leveling Box 600 Rotary Mower 700 5 yd. Sander 7,000 Mower - Unimog 24,000 10 yd. Tandem with Trailer(t). 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Asphalt Repair Truck (f) 15,000 15,000 15,000 5 yd. Sander & Salt Spreader 10,000 Snowbox for Dump 8,000 ' 3/4T Flatbed 9,000 Trencher 10,000 Cement - Mixer 2,500 Electric Generator 5,000 10 yd. Tandem with Trailer (f) 15,000 15,000 Track Dozer for Landscaping(f) 12,000 12,000 1/2T Truck 9,000 Portable Torch 2,000 Landscaping 3/4 Ton Flatbed 9,000 Carpenter Shaper 3,000 t Department/Division Description ^ransoortation _.._;._ -- -'-;::g Golf Cart recreation 3/4 Ton Pickup Cc:~~~:~anit~~ Development 3/4 Ton Pickup Car TOTAL EXPANSION VEHICLES EXPANSION VEHICLES 1982 1983 3,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9fi;300 135,500 1984 1985 1986 76,000 103,000 103,000 -~. -~- .~ ~-~ ~ ~.. ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,~.'~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~.~ ~~` J ~ ~C~'b ~ C .~' -~C~ ..r-d ~~ ~~ ~~~ `~~.~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~. < 000000 000,000 ~ 000000 ~ 000000 C 000000 '~f1Al_ ~J~i ~~ CV~-i t~M ~~ PETITION FOR CHANGE We, the undersigned, being residents of Vail,Colorado' do hereby request that the speed bump on Buffer Creek Road be removed. It is an obvious hazard to both lacy abiding citizens and even more so to non-abidini; citizens, 'Thr more. fact of it's e_:~istence may cause Loss of. control of a vehicle. It: is a]_s~~ impossible to regain speed mooing up-hill on ice once you have to slow to 5 r9.P.lI. in or.de.r t_n .,void - ~ 4 u~ajor damage to your vehicle. ^IAr:E (Print) ~~~,~~~ __~~~.~~~~ c~ r~n~ JOw~rJ ~d2tc~ _ A/,o~-~E~t Es `~~`u ~ ~ ~~~~ ,~4CI2LL '~CL~,~z,'ns ,. . N ~~-~~C, J ,~~~ ~ ~,s ,. ~t~~Z ~~ 1 ~_ ~~ ~ lam?-~'n 1 l.~ n. SLGNATURE ADDRESS a7~ ~~~-~- ~a ~/~.~z ~j~x .(053 1/a.~-Q, ~o £s'/ to .~~r 6 z z ~ t~/~,.S~ ~$oX /g'g3 ' UAL ~ _.._ ~ ~8a ~ v~ ~~x /~ ~J" ~~~ r ~~~~ 3 l1~ r~~ ~ ~ Z 55'7 V ~-~ o~ ~ ~S (fa,`,~ Cam. ~-4 ~~~,~~ / ~'tc~ ~ e r~ ~~~ .. u ~ ~~ '. ~ ~ ~ ~ PETITION FOR CHANGE . We, th;e~, undersigned, being residents of ~#~-,Colorado do •hereby request tYaat. the , • s~i~~%~'~ bump: on ,Buf€er` creek Road~_ be removed. It is an obvious hazard tp bath law ~ ~;' abiding citizens,and even more sq to non-abiding citizens,. The mere fact o~ it's existence may'.,`cause less of control of. a vehicle.: Tt is also impossible to regain speedVgoing'u~=hill°on ic'e. once; you have to slow to S M.P.H. in order to avoid major damage .to your vehicles NAME (Print ~~' ._ `~' AT ADDRESS ^~ ~//~) Q ~//..,f~,~ p~ D~ ~C /v ~~ ,~~~ / ~C%GU/GU~ ~ a ~lcz.3~ ~~. . a `~~ ~;.~ ~.., ~' 1 s I`~Go ~ ~ ~ ~' sx: ~Z l o ~:Ja ~l ~o. ~~ GSA ~' ~ ~~ ~~ ~:I _S '31~i ,, ~- S , ~ ;' ~~-/i5z f~~~ /S/D .~~ ~zl~~ LD.y-P~d. ~ 4~ /~ ., O. ~ V °a ~~ ~- G~~~~~3 ~ ~<~t c~~ `; ~. •,; -- , , ,~, ~~~, .. . ~; Ya' ~ ~ 1 ' \ • ... , , i , r , 5 r - _- ._ _. .. ~ ~, '.. - PETITION FOR CHANGE • '~' We,,the undersigned, being .residents of Vail, Colorado do hereby z~que.st.that the sp~ea`~bump, on 'Buffer Creek Road~'.be removed, It is an obvious hazard. to bath 1a~a ~ 'e'"-:y' ak~idrig citizens `and even more 'so to non-abiding citizens, The n4ere fact 4~ it's ~~ existence may~causP loss 'of control of_ a vehicle.., Tt is .also impossible to regain speed ,going ~.p,--hill on ice once you have to slow to 5 M.P.H. in order .to avoid major damage to your vehicle: , •, NAME (Prints - SIGNATURE. ADDRESS .._ .. ~ ~~ C a~ ~.~ ~; . - Box 9U2 Vail, bolo. 81657 ;c April 20, 1979 m C +' ~ . ~+ N O rr ... ob tr 7 U . w w of '~ ~ ~ 'lr. Jack Haynes ec H ~ -. ,A ~ ~ '~ Eagle County Sheriff o ~ " ~ Eagle, Colo. - j U a tr O ~ I ~n ~,mw {., {r w O m ~ ~ ~ ; ~, -~ Dear Jack, m G ~ OQ ~ ~ o ~, l•1e, as .resid;;=nts of the Buffei Creek area wish to express our ~O ~ o ~ concern over a problem area of traffic and speed ccntrol. The Buffe~ " ° '~'~ Creek Road which servicas The Valley subdivision has become extremely o ~ _• ~ ~' -~ ~ jO dangerous d~.ze to speeders and stop sign violators. with the sale of ~ ~ ~ ~' all the existing units in The Valley and new development scheduled tt;ere, o ~ ~ s ~ a the problem ~iill only compound without dour help. There are sixteen y ~ ~ children under tine age of tun years living in tr~is area, and we want '~ ~ " ~ to prevent an accident before one should occur. ~ .. G oC L+ d ... ~ v1 a °' `° As constructive suggestions for control ti:e suggest the following: ~ ~ ~ d > s~ .. ..• v a ~' ~ ° (1) 2 speed dips placed on the steep downgrade out of the valley. U eC U w G ~ ,~ ( Cur feeling is that this will be the only ultirrkate w a a~ speed control as it will completely prevent speeding.) a b u d a ~ ~, ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (2) A•larger stop sign at the junction of Buffe ;meek Rd. and o ~ ~ Chamonix Road, ., .-. a -. ,- v ~, . ~ ~ G ~ (3) Several mope 15 m.p.h. signs strategically placed in the ~ ~ o ?3uffer Creek area. .c -o n~ -• ~ v 3 r+ d m ' ~= a ~ (1~) several "children Ulaying "signs strategic=lly placed ~ v a, in the Buff'e~i Creek area. .~ v v ~ L ,C 'p 1J H ar .. ~ ~ t5) Strong law enforcement of ti;e speed limit and stop signs c ~ ~ , ~ on Buf'er Creek Rd, for a period of time r:ith unmarked .., vehicles. d ~ a, .G G 'fl 1J ~ O c6 ~, 0.o Gne serious accident had already occurred on this road because .. m x ~ ~ ~ x of high speed, and had a child been flaying ~n their otiv-n yard, the y '~ ~ ~ ~ would have been seriously in~'nred; or killed. . ° ~ 3 ~ y U ~' ~ ~ Please help us to prevent ;a serious accident from happening. Thank ~ ~ y ~ you for your consideration. G .-~ w ~ .~. of w H cC of 7 _ ~> d a~ ~~ ~ d ~. c c s c ,' . l;' ~~~ - ~~~~'~"~ Sincerely, ~+ H ~ ~ (, ~ --,~--J .--- - ~ '~~y/~_S~%~",~ c'"a l --t.~ ; ',. i • _ ~~ - ..- ~~~ C~ i21~ ~J1~:'11~ r ~;,. r, ~ .~u- ~_, cc: '~' gle Co-anty Com~:issioners ~ _ ~~ -- ..~. / ~- ~ .~,, w- ~I October 23, 1981 v w1 ~~~ v h ', ~~ ~~ `\~ ~-_~ ~, ~ ,~~' ~ J T0: VA IL TOW[d COUNCIL This letter is written in behalf of the speed dip on Buffehr Creek Road by the residents in the Buffehr Creek area. About four years ago when we saw that our area was growing rapidly, and that the traffic on Buffehr Creek Road had tripled within a year, we became concerned with the safety of the many children. in our neighborhood. Cars were not bothering to stop at the stop sign at the corner of Buffehr Creek and Homestead Road (now called Chamonix Lane), some drivers would "drift" through the stop sign, a few .would stop, but many wouldn't even slow down. After several accidents, one near fatal accident when a car rolled several times, ran through a fence, rolled over a sandbox and ended up in .a neighbor's yard (if a child had been playing in his yard that day he would likely have been killed), we started a petition for a speed dip. First the Sheriff's Department wanted to try surveillance of the busy corner, but they did not have the staff to provide an officer to sit there many hours during the day, and the moment the police car is out of sight people ,just run the stop sign again. We continued to have some terrible close calls, some of us could witness these from our home windows. We tried taking license plate numbers, but who has time to sit out on the corner all day and following up is nearly impossible. After four years of pleading, phone calls to the Sheriff's Department, and _ the County Commissioners, letters, etc. we finally got the speed dip installed. We have not had a bad accident at the corner since and it's proved its success Eby slowing every vehicle. Drivers still do not always respect the stop sign ~~ or even the presence of small children, but they are concerned about their automobiles and they slow for the dip. Now the Valley is growing even more. There are numerous cluster townhouses being built. The Talon has 40 unfits going up.....the traffic on this road - is going to triple again. In addition to the many children who live in the ~ area,. the newly acquired park in Buffehr Creek is adjacent to this inter- section and that will bring even more children to the area. There is also a toddler pre-school located near this area, and the school bus turns at this corner to pick up children ,just a few yards away. ,~ Since the' Valley townhouses were first built and occupied several years ago, -"'---b'~ some residents of the Valley have had trouble getting up the road during --,.~.~„~a winter snowstorm. Some vehicles end up parked near the Buffehr Creek ~"~ Condominiums or along the road up the Valley, This has been a problem for 'some vehicles for many years, long before the speed dip was installed. 1 y ,4 The dip has worked ver suc e y c ssfully to help alleviate a serious accident ~ v ~,:(~,~y,~ r/ ~'i~'GWe wish it to remain as a 24 hour "silent cop". Please allow the safety of the children and residents to be your primary concern in this ma ter. nn 4 ~C.; ~~~-~' ~~~~~. Cz~ (~ Thank you very much, i-~.~~~,~ ~~~ •'~<<'u c:l ;~, ~~• ~~°'''~ ' [%// Mary Jo Allen ~-.~~/InnM ~/ ~ A'larka Moser ~ ~~~,{' test ~.~.,...._e z~i~ ~ c, j, ~ - `~- - ~ ~er~~ti-- C'G~,~ 5 ~~~~.<.. stn ~~-~~ :~- /~'f'~ 6 ~~ ~ ~ r~ i rjC.Y ~.~ ~1 ~1 I'! 17'~Gi'` ~' +,.:ti ~,,1 ... .. ~ __., -.~ ,- .-~.. - , . - - - _ ~ ~ _ A ~~ ~j e Gz~~ e ~ fd 3 4t~ it .i` ~ i ' ,~~{~ ~~' r . . .,.~, t!~ / - ~ ~ -. - . ' - i~ ~ f fy~yt•,~.(f /~^lr~' r I'~ . PI y! .~7* ~ ' . ~ _ r l t . ~ = }: ~ ~ ~ `. p e ~ •i ~~.~'~ l 1 ..; _ _ r. ..~, . - - .~ ~ ...~ - -,r. ~ ~ __ _ _. _.-. ..._ __ . _ .. r. . _ ,.. .~ ,. .. .. _ --~ r 4.. 5 ` ,~4. ., . / ~' ~. ~~, 7 ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~s~~rs.~~ ~ S~,Li,~~. d ~~- ~lsG~~S ~ ~ R. ~a,z(_ ~ 7 ~~P~~ ~ /// / .~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~ ~~~ ; ~v~s~, . ~ °~ ~~`~ ~ ~ , ~~ I/ /~ N~ ~~ 0 .,~-/O~ a ^^~ /s Advantage Insurance, Inc. Independentlnsurors First Floor Brandess Building P.O. Drawer 850 Vail, Colorado 81658 303 / 476.4784 AILEEN JACOBSON President Richard Caplin Town Manager Town of Vail Box .100 Vail, Colorado S165g Dear Mr. Caplin: ;~ Sur a J~``n G ri-~~ .. December 11, 1981 I have been reviewing the plans for the upcoming 1982 budget for the West Vail area; being a four year property owner of the area, I would like to request that a portion of the available funds be allocated toward the completion of the bike path from Sandstone to the west end of Vail. As an avid bike rider, I constantly see the need for a continuous bike path, not only for bicyclists but pedestrians as well. The North Frontage Road is a heavily traveled road by automobile and with the advent of a bike path, safety for those not in a motor vehicle would be greatly increased. I do not speak as an individual but on behalf of many concerned owners and renters alike in the West Vail area. Street repair is also high on the list of priority items needed in West Vail and I would like to see funds made available for repairs to Buffer Creek Drive and Chamonix Lane though there are certainly other roads needing repair in the vicinity which Ism not as familiar with. In advance, I appreciate your time and attention to the above sub- jects and look forward to future improvements in the West Vail area by the summer of 19g2• Yours truly, Ellie Hoyt EAH~sr G:~. ...~_ .:_.~+ ELL1E HOYT Vice President at Vail Vail City Council and Mr. Richard Kaplin: Dear Council Persons_and.Mr. Kaplin;, Prior .tii.finalizing the l_982 Town of Vail. Budget, consider the importance of the Northwest Bike and Pedestrian Path. The access, route to. Commercial 'Core III are. all vehicular, The North, Frontage Road :West and `t'he .west Vail interchange are both extremely busy and may be approaching a point of maximum design loading. Pedestrians and bikers impede the flow of vehicular traffic. in. this area. Many of the people. in the west Vail area are pedestrians. Valli- Hi residents are a group where one would not expect that each individual would own a car. At the Roost Lodge, we find that 25-30% of our year round business does not have their own transportation. .The people living in Buffer Creek and Chamonix live close enough to Commercial Core III to walk or bike to that area for their living needs. Add the joggers, people biking to work, .and the, children residing in the area, and you find that the pedestrian type traffic is at a high level. ~ ~~~, G`' " With the additional :growth that is and will occur between Vail Run and Chamonix, we will see increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic. At the present and in the future, the safety of the pedestrian is, q~;~estionable. Continuing the Bike Path from Valli-Hi to beyond the west Vail Texaco would be beneficial :to the. entire community by faciliating vehicular traffic flow,, by meeting the real living needs, safety, and some recreational needs of the people living in west Vail. Please, elevate the Northwest Bike and Pedestrian Path to your top priority in west Vail. Owner Roost Lodge where friendly hospitality cpmbines with comfortable accomodations. P.O: Box 97Q .. Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5451 KARI:`J~~EI~tl~O SC~Ik;IDEGC~'~~. 2702 T~. Cortina Lane Vail ,`•~~~~,.,~8~L657 December ~L2 , 198:1 'T'OWN OF VAlZ, ~30X 100 VA:II,, COLORADO 81657 Dear Town Council. Members and T!fr. Richard Caplan: ~~ ._..--~ L ' ~i; Vnc+/ We feel that top priority should be given to the bike path and that it should be completed till the end of the North Frontage Road by early summer of 1982, Many people in this area would use the path not only for pleasure but also as a matter of necessity. Vlore and more people are biking or walking to work and to the shopping areas. With the increased number of cars on the Frontage Roads, (especia'lly on the North Side due to the Commercial_ .Areas) we are sure that everyone is aware of the danger, loo many accidents have happened already. FrLease do something about this before one of our children gets hurt. Thanking you in advance for your consideration, we ar.e, Sincerely yours, • __ ~~/~~~ l:~a.rin Scheidegger .. .' 7 ~''` .,. c........ Benno Scheidegger lc s To members of the Totixrn Council and Rich Caplin, I~Je would like to support Marka Noser's vi~rws concerning the bike path completion in northvrest Vail. Pedestri~an~ and bi~cyc'le traffic is heavy along this roadway in both winter and summer seasons. The bus has helped alleviate :this problem in the winter months but in the summer persons from Vail Run, the Roost, Valli Hi and residence ~va_lk along the north frontage road in a steady stream. These adults and children travel to the shopping center and to town on both sides of the road. . Bibycling eras possible through the back roads but heavy construction in these areas now makes movement along these roads equally dangerous. UJe strongly urge the completion of both bike paths in tihrest Vail. The most heavily traveled is the north frontage and we urge its completion in the immediate future. Sincerely, Steve Boyd ,; ~i~ ~ ': Susan Boyd `' ,, J 1 .-//S// ~~.u December 13, 1981 Mr. Richard Kaplan Town of Vail, Vail, CO 81657 Dear ZZr. Kaplan: I have just recently been informed of the intent of the Town to delay the bike path contruction to Tnlest Vail from where it presently ends at Valli Hi Apartments to west of the Vail " das~Schoen area. I understand that the Town wishes to place this bike path project on a five year plan rather than complete it in the coming summer. In talking with the residents of your Condominium Association it is the concerned opinion that this delay will cause undue anxiety amongst us who frequently ride our bikes into town. There are quite a few children in the area that would benefit from the increased safety that this path would provide. As you are aware, the North Frontage road is a very heavily travel- ed road at which the posted speed of 35 mph is rarely obeyed. Cars and. large construction trucks have been using the road on a very regular basis in excess of the speed limit. The Condominium Association would delay of construction of the bike Creek Drive and onward (westerly) of distress to those of us living greatly from the safety that this riders and pedestrians alike. like to have it known that the math from Valli Hi to Buffehr would cause a measureable amount in that area who would benefit bike path would provide .for both Sincerely, HILLSIDE CONDO ASSOCIATION Bonnie Ja~ e Secty. 1819-1829 T~Iest Meadow Drive Box 3074 Vail, CO 81657 c a~ v rcS •n a. ~c •~ a~ ~~ lF •r O N t!f cn O +~ a. ~ N ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ N r^ ~ U ~ •r ~--~ ~ a~ -I-~ N N (6 ~~ ~ ~ o~ U O ~ N ~ ~- •r (O f/7 r r Z3 •r ~ i RS ~~ o ~ ~~ ~ r Q ~r O c6 ~ 7 a~ c ,- Town of Vail Council Town of Vail Manager Vail, Colo. 81b58 Dear Council Members and Rich, Box 902 Vail, Colo. 81657 December. 8, 1981 As residents of the Buffehr Creek area, we ask that the Town of Vail consider the completion of the bike path from the Wiest end of the Valli Hi compleJ: to the Safeway-Vail das Schone Shopping Center as a high priority in the 1982 budget. ,pith the high volume of vehicular traffic, as well as pedestrians and bicycles, it is an ever increasing danger. According to the police department, the only safe solution is a separation of automobiles from pedestrians. The problem will only intensify as the growth of the area continues. The bike paths were one of the top priorities of the area residents when annexation was in process and finally did occur. For the safety of all users of the North Frontage Road, we urge you to consider this .,~ when adopting the new budget. Thank you for your attention in this ~ Ve r~ t ti~.~t.s~~u~~~;u_~~~.. matter. ~'L-~~,~~~,~ ~~~~ C~~~9~`z2C° , ~' ~~.~, ~Cjl.~'~.. ~~ ° '`'lit Cc'~bC,~' Sincerely, ~~'l~R, // y.~ .~ / ~+l ~ %/J '~' "/ G~~'~crc?/C/ '~ y'T-C~/J'C../ ~ U~C.N' t~~i/rG~~~ ~ [% ~"t~~~ ~ ~I ~~~. ~ ! ~ ~ . ~ J 1/ ~ ~ ~ _,r ~C(,t~2~ 1, ~ =:~.~~Gf%Ll~-C.~~, ,~•" ~ ~ L ~`` ~~ ,, ~% `~ / ~ ~.~, ~ f'i Wit, G-a~c..~a ` ~tP~GG~ y 2u .r ~ i / f ~ ~' }U ~ ail' ~~tLL~~-~..,,~ ,/, ; ( A ~~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ~1 _ ...- ~~ . ,~; .= ~, ~ ~l~,V -; ~~ ~ ~._. THE COMMUNITY SERVED BY THE LIBRARY The Vail Public Library serves the resort community of Vail, Colorado. It is a homerule town, and the library is supported by a portion of Vail's sales tax revenue rather than a property tax. The current facility is T,.600 sq. ft. and houses 18,000 volumes. The library is open 65 hrs. per week, 52 weeks per year. Besides its own community, which is the easternmost in Eagle County, the Vail Public Library serves as the major resource center for the eastern half of the County since the Eagle County Library, another resource center of similar scope is in one of the westernmost towns. The Eagle County Library supports several small branches but none of any size, nor is there a centrally located branch. The county hopes to build such a facility with a sizable collection, but this will probably be seven to ten years in the future. One of the most difficult things to establish in planning our library was the design population. Although Vail is becoming more popular as a year-round destination resort, the winter months still dominate with the support population the ski season demands. The following populateion estimates come from the Eagle County Tax Assessor's Office and the Town of Vail Com- munity Development Department: POPULATION 19 80 1 85 1990 ~~ YR - INTER YR.-ROUND WINTER VAIL EASTERN..EAGLE,.CO. 4,800 5,595 18,368 11,145 5,160 8,580 19,915 16,580. 10,000* -zs,oo~ TOTAL 10,395 29,513 13,740 36,495 *Vail will reach its maximum year-round population by 1990. In planning the library, we took into account these seasonal fluctua- tions in population. We also considered the fact that our highest circu- lation of library materials and responses to~our special programs occur in June, July and August. This tends to balance the impact of the high popu- lation figures we witness November through April. The site of the library dictated a maximum size to be operated by a minimum of staff, ie. approximately 14,000 sq. ft. with an additional 1000 sq. ft. for employee housing. The high level of education and sophistication typical of the Vail resident indicates that a collection should be developed which would generally be characteristic of a larger community. We feel comfortable designing our building to seat users based on a population of 12,000 people, and to house a collection recommended to serve a community of 13,500 to ~8,700~ people. This translates into 60 seats and 40,500 to 56,000 volumes... 1 Illinois LIbrary Association, Measures of Quality, 1971. J,~ :.. ESTIMATED SPADE REQUIREPIENTS The following are estimated space requirements for the different functions to be included in the new Town of Vail Library Facility. These are approximate square footages that can be raised or lowered by small amounts. The total useable space, however, is not to exceed 15,000 square feet. The estimated gross space requirements are as follows: Program specified Drawing shows I. Adult Services-Reference and Periodicals 8,600 s.f. 7,450 s.f. A. Non-fiction Collection (30,000 volumes) 3,000 B. Fiction Collection (20,000 volumes) 2,000 C. Reference Collection & Desk (3,000 volumes) 500 D. Audio Visual Collection w/user space 500 E. Periodical Display & Reading Area (300 titles ) 650 F. Card Catalog (includes Children's Collection) 450 G. Adult Reading Area 380 H. Glass Enclosed Group Study Room 300 I. Periodical Storage of Back Issues 300 J. General Circulation & Open Space 220 K. Circulation Desk, Copy Machine, Membership 300 Applications & Book Returns 1,600 s.f. 1,700 s.f. A. Children's Collection (7,000 volumes) 700 B. Reading and Project Area 210 C. Story Session Cove 250 D. Outside Deck w/entry & exit thru library 200 E. Children's Librarian-Area :: 150 F. General Circulation & Open Area 90 II. Children's Services III.Staff Areas 950 s.f. 1,016 s.f. A. Library Director's Office 200 B. Technical Services 500 1. Receiving & Processing Books for Circ.(250s.f.) 2. Processing Interlibrary Loan, Mail Area Membership Card Processing, etc.(250s.f.) C. Staff Room w/ kitchenette & restroom 250 IV. Mechanical, Custodial, Storage (250s.f.) (250s.f.) (250s.f.) 224 576 216 750 s.f. 768 s.f. V. Community Room w/ kitchenette (which can be locked off along w/restrooms for late night use) 850 s.f. 960 s.f. VI. Entryway and Restrooms and other Architectural 1,000 s.f. 1,416 s.f. Space VII.Two Employee Housing Units (500s.f. each) 1,000 s.f. 1,056 s.f. TOTALS 13,750 s.f. 13,310 s.f. ".t. ~~~~~ Q0~ ~ z 7S7 S ~ Z~-D 16~~ ._ ~~ ~o S J ~-6~v ~~la-b ~ ~ 5"0 ~~ y5v Snowdon and Hopkins • Architects 201 Gore Creek Drive P. O. Box 1998 Vail, Colorado November 4, 1980 303 476-2201 81657 THE TOWN OF VAIL LIBRARY Library Adult Fiction and Non Fiction Reference Collection/Desk Audio Visual Collection/Desk Card Catalogue Periodical Display and Reading Adult Reading Study Rain Periodical Storage--~- General Circulation/Desk Typing Children ' Gbllection ~. Reading and Project Area & Story Telling Area Children Librarian/Lounge Staff Areas Librarian Office Technical Services Staff Room Book Storage TOTAL LIBRARY Coinntnity Rooms 2 rooms/525 s.f. 1 room Ilnployee Units 2 units/437.5 1 unit 11/4/80 s.f. Program s.f. 2300 s:f. J 3570 s.f. 1400 s:f: 500 s.f. 500 s.f. 500 s.f. 575 s.f. 450 s.f. 600 s.f. 650 s.f. 1025 s:f. 380 s.f. 140 s,f. 300 s.f. 300 s:f. 300 s.f. 675 s:f. 520 s.f. .....60 s:f. ...._~ 7575 s:f, 8600 s:f. 1000 s:f. 700 s.f. 500 s:f. 460 s.f. . 770 s.:.f . ~ ...240 's : f ; 2270 s:f. 1400~s:f. 160 s:f. ~ 200,s.f. 760 ."s.f.. X90 s.f. 740 s:f. ' 750 s.f. . ~I90 s:.f... " "250's:f:~.•: ~`~ ~- 1700 ~ s . f . 11,695 s.f. 11,700 s.f. 1050 s.f. - . 350 s:f. . 1400 s:f. 1000 s:f. 875 s.f. ~ , ' ' '400 's:f: 1275 s.f. 1000 s.f. .: Miscellaneous Areas Mechanical Gt~stodial Edit ry / Rest rooms / Cbrri dor EDTPIRE BUILDING 500 s:~f . 50 s.f. 1250 ~:f. 1800 S:f. 16,170 s:f. 250 s:f. 250 s.f. ..1000 's : f . 1500 s.f. 13,310 s.f. f _ ,~ ~, :~ 1 ~l i rt` Coloradoans For Recycling Jan. 7, 1982 Town of Vail Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Vail Town Council; Coloradoans for Recycling is a non-profit citizens group formed to place an initiative on the Colorado 1982 November general election. The Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Initiative would place a minimum 5¢ refund value on all soft drink and beer bottles and cans to encourage their return for recycling. Eight states, Oregon, Vermont, Maine, Michigan, Iowa, Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts, have enacted this legislation with great success. Their experiences have proved. that beverage container refund values: 1) decrease beverage container litter by 83%, 2) decrease taxes needed to fund litter pick up and solid waste disposal, 3) produce a net increase in jobs, 4) save substantial amounts of energy, 5) produce beverage container recycling rates of 95~ and better, and 6) help conserve our natural resources. These benefits make recycled beverage containers more cost efficient. Currently, consumer prices for beverages in deposit/returnable containers cost 5-58% less than those in throwaways. For example, our•own Denver price survey found that Coca-cola in 16 oz. deposit/returnable bottles currently costs 35% less than Coke in 16 oz. throwaway bottles. Business, as well as the environment, has benefited in states that have enacted refund value legislation. In Oregon, the entire beverage industry had a net increase: of approximately $4 million in income after all costs were deducted. Nationally, the U.S. General Accounting Office found that business revenue and cost would balance during the first year of enactment and produce a $2 billion net revenue increase every 1711 Pennsylvania Suite 104 Denver, CO 80203 863-0292 / 830-0294 1715 Monterey • Suite 70 Colorado Springs, CO 80910 475-7033 page two year thereafter. This income and savings is produced by the fact that recycling beverage containers is more efficient than making new ones from virgin materials. The retail sector does have increased handling, storage, and labor costs. Thus we are including a 20% handling charge to be given to the retailer from the distributor/ manufacturer in our initiative. On a 5¢ refund value container the 20% handling charge would be 1¢. This would transfer some of the manufacturer's increased revenue and lower costs to the retail level. The distributor/manufacturer can then make up the 1¢ because that is the curr..ent scrap value of the container. Perhaps most important to the Town of Vail would be the decrease in beverage container litter. Besides improving the environment for tourism, the bil]_ has actually saved municipalities money for solid waste disposal. Studies by the Resource Recovery Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources found that municipal solid waste had been reduced 8% by volume and 6% by wieght due to passage of their bill. The city of Pontiac saw its solid waste load decrease by 4400 tons, resulting in a cost savings of $132,000. This also extends the lifetime of the present landfills, resulting in mor..e savings to the taxpayers. The Department of Natural Resources also found that numerous Michigan townships, municipalities, and state parks reported that their litter volume decreased 50-g0% from pre-bill conditions. Reduced litter loads also meant that less time was required for trash pick up and more staff time and money could by spent on grounds improvement, maintenance, and development. They found disposal costs dropped as well, as much as 50% in some areas. Would the Town of Vail Council endorse measure? To date, over 35 businesses, many statewide organizations, and several thousand citizens have joined in support of this initiative. Ski towns have been particularly strong with their endorsements. Breckenridge endorsed and donated $100; Aspen, $100; Snowmass $50; and even Pitkin County $100. Please give me a call if you need additional information. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely ,~ ~ti~ ill Sper y State Organizer Current List of Endorsers for the Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act Colorado Farm Bureau Colorado PTA-PTSA Colorado Senior Lobby United Sportsman's Council of Colorado Colorado League of Women Uoters American Association of Retired Persons, Aurora Colorado State Grange Fort Morgan City Council Northeast Coolorado Council of Governments United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 7, AFL-CIO Colorado Food and Beverage Trades Council Keystone Resorts, Inc. Colorado Audubon Council and local chapters Rocky Mountain Farmers Union Colorado Association of Public Employees Breckenridge City Council Boulder County Board of Health Mountain Plains Congress for Senior Organizations Colorado Environmental Health Association Colorado Health and. Environment Council Pitkin County City of Aspen Town of Smowmass Village Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO Musicians Local 20-623, AFL-CIO Rocky Mountain Sierra Club and local chapters Colorado Public Interest Research Group and local chapters Park Hill Recycling Network Colorado Open Space Council Rocky Mountain Greenpeace Governor Richard Lamm Nona Thayer, Larimer County Commissioner Jim Lloyd, Larimer County Commissioner George Fedoronko, Arvada City Councilmember Colorado Wildlife Federation Izaak Walton League of America and local chapters Eugene Fodor, The concert violinist Citizens Party Vail Nature Center Uncompahgre Resource Council Environmental Defense Fund Business Organized for a Safe Society Urban League of Colorado Environmental Corps of Colorado State University D.U. Environmental Action Group C.U. Environmental Center Energy Advocacy, Inc. Grand Junction Solar Energy Society San Luis Valley Solar Energy Association over 3~ small businesses STATE OF COLORADO EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS of : Soto .. 136 State Ca rtol '~~`- ~ ~ Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2471 ~ + ~~ * ; + .; \~* X876 s , Richard D. Lamm, Governor September 25, 1981 Mr. Tony Byrne-Massaro, Director Coloradoans For Recycling 1711 Pennsylvania Street Suite 207 Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Tony: I appreciated the opportunity to learn about the activities of Coloradoans For Recycling from you. I continue to be very concerned with the conservation of resources through reuse/ recycling and the attendant energy savings. I support Coloradoans For Recycling in their efforts to have Colorado become the eighth state to enact refundable beverage container legislation. I believe that this is an important effort which deserves wide support. States that have this legislation recycle 95°s of their beverage cans and bottles. Colorado has an enviable environment, and refundable beverage container legislation will help keep Colorado's parks and highways free of beverage container litter. I believe this initiative can achieve beneficial results for recycling, energy conservation, and solid waste disposal. Your July survey, which demonstrated that beverages in return- able containers are considerably cheaper than throwaways, was very impressive. This is an important message to convey to consumers. Good luck in your efforts. I look forward to continuing to work with you. Sincerely, Ric and D. Lamm Governor Coloradoans For BEVERAGE CONTAINER REFUND VALUES FACT: COLORADOANS FOR RECYCLING has found through an extensive .price survey that, in Colorado, beer and soft drinks in returnables are CHEAPER than in throw- aways. BEER: 9.4°o cheaper in returnables. SOFT DRINKS: ~7.Ei% cheaper in returnables. REASON: It costs the consumer more to buy a container used once and thrown away, than to rent one that can be reused at least 20 times (on the average) or recycled. Recycling SAVE CONSUMERS $ WHA3' YOU PAY POR WHEN YOU BUY BEER d~ \ :$ ~~~ ~ . ~C~D ti ~ v~`,a+. 1~~ COIP!'ABiERS a~clucurcl ~ 55~ Awl on 7171 eott rrriwarrr fer Kt "YiS S"lA~brtnr~AwrD, Mi4r+r/ Sr6/inl fioiw "Orrviwj'trrd~rrry Reds," Derrnrber, l97), Saw~ard C B-Altfit• 6 Co.. WHO SAYS 'RETURNABLES ~ ARE CHEAPER THAN THROWAWAYS? INDUSTRY SAYS RETURNABLES .ARE CHEAPER THAN THROWAWAYS! * J. Lucian Smith, President of Coca-Cola, USA, in hearings before the Sub~- committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, August 8, 1972: "Coke sold in food stores in non-returnable packages is priced, on the average, 30 to 40% higher than Coca-Cola in returnable bottles." * N.E. Norton, President of Royal Crown/Dr. Pepper of Corpus Christi, Texas, in hearings before the Subcommittee on the Environment,' U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, May 6, 1.974: After all industry and retailer costs are considered and compared, "the consumer can still purchase a soft drink in a refillable bottle from 2 to 3 cents less than he can in a throwaway bottle or can." * Chuck Smutny, Marketing Vice-President for Shasta, quoted in .Beverage Industry magazine, January 27, 1978: "The cost per ounce in returnables is in most .cases lower than NR's (non-returnables). 1711 Pennsylvania • Suite 104. 12enver, .CO. 80203 • 863-0292 / 830-0294 ,~ ~, _ ,. .. .. .~s - WHO SAYS. RETURNABLES ARE CHEAPER THAN THROWAWAYS? ~, ~ _ GOVERNMENT STUDIES SAY RETURNABLES ARE CHEAPER THAN m~~ROV1~ ~`.~ . AWAYS!'. .r . , * League of W;omen.~Voters~,•and, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study;„ "Price .~ Comparison survey of Beer"and .Soft . Drinks. in Refillable and NonrefillabTe Cori= ~' tainers," Charles Peterson, E.P.A., 1976: . For soft. drinks in sizes ranging from 7 to 16 ounces, "potential ; savings with refillables ranged from 1 to 10 cents per refillable bottle" or 24 cents to $2.40 per case of 24. If bought by the case, regular beer in refillables ' is 60 cents to $.2.00 cheaper ~ ~ . :than beer in throwaways. .Premium beer in refillables is .30, cents . to $1.05 cheaper than throwaways (pe.r, case). * General Accounting Office Study, !'Potential Effects of a National [Refund; Value)- on Beverage Containers." D~cemb~er 7, ,1977; _ "Nationally, consumers would save between $1.31 billion and • •, ,-$1.~8 .billion annually by the time :the switch had been made ._ ~ ~ ,from throwaways to .returnables." ' RETURNABLES- SAVE YOUR TAX DOLLARS!! "' ' * . LESS LITTER, LOWER COSTS--The United States Brewers' Association, staunch opponents of beverage container refund values, sponsored a study, "Impacts. on the USA of a Ban on One-Way Containers," which revealed, '' "an estimated $58.5 million would be saved (annually) from reduced litter dollection costs." The Resource Conservation Committee, in its -- . ~ Summary Findings of ~ January, 1978, put the savings at $200 million a ... ...year:~~ • * LESS .SOLID WASTE, FEWER LAND FILLS--Beverage containers currently • make up 5.2°0 of the "total post=consumer garbage." According to the 1977 GAO ~study,.,national beverage container refund values would de- crease ..that figure to between' 1:1% and 1.6%, thus lessening the: strain on scarce landfill and dump sites. * FEWER INJURIES, LOWER MEDICAL COSTS--Another $10 million would „ - be saved yearly due. to a decrease in the number of litter-related in- . juries caused by discarded beverage 'containers; .according to the Resource Conservation Committee's "Second. Report to the President and the Congress of the United. States,!' January,' 1978. WHAT YOU CAN' DO! ~ . 1) ~ Join Coloradoans for Recycling. Donors of $15 or more will,.receive our • -monthly newsletter to keep: them informed. ~ ,. 2) Write a' letter to the' editor of -your local newspaper supporting passage of the Beverage Container Refund Value initiative. . 3) Buy beverages in returnable/deposit containers. They cost less! 4} Recycle this fact .sheet 'to a friend! ' - ~ ~ ~ (: This is 100% recycled paper . :i Coloradoans ~'or Recycling BEVERAGE CONTAINER REFUND VALUES ENHANCE RESOURCE RECOVERY WHAT IS RESOURCE RECOVERY? Resource recovery is a general term that encompasses a wide variety of technical approaches to retrieving materials and energy from solid waste. Energy recovery means pulling out flammable solid waste such as paper and plastics; burning it and retrieving steam; or converting the materials into a synthetic fuel that can be burned elsewhere. In the case of materials recovery, it is generally glass, ferrous metal (steel) and aluminum that are extracted for reuse. An expensive, high-technology approach to solid waste management, resource recovery is touted by the beverage industry as one of the most effective ways of disposing of soft drink and beer bottles and cans. REFUND VALUES PROVIDE RESOURCE RECOVERY SOURCE SEPARATION Without the source separation that refund values provide, the quality of materials derived from resource recovery are of less marketable value. ** ALCOA pays $460 per ton for clean, contaminant free aluminum such as it can get from refund value legislation. ALCOA pays only $300 per ton for the. same amount of aluminum presently being recovered at resource recovery facilities. ** High, quality source separated glass from a refund value system brings as much as' $30 per ton. Glass recovered from anon-source separated facility, a glassy aggregate for which there is currently no market, brings only $15 per ton. SOURCE SEPARATION LOWERS RESOURCE RECOVERY OPERATING COSTS Aluminum recovery equipment in a resource recovery system costs about $500,000. Glass recovery equipment for the same system. cost roughly $600,000. High maintenance costs must be added to these figures, because glass and aluminum are abrasive to resource recovery equipment. ** The aluminum magnet at the Ames, Iowa, resource recovery plant never worked well, pulling out copper, zinc and other non-ferrous metals with the aluminum, further contaminating and lowerini; its market value. Says Bob Bartolotta, assistant city manager of Ames, "That magnet cost us $250,000 but after its poor performance, I'd say it's only worth a couple of thousand now." ** The waste being processed must go through a "shredder," a machine with rotating hammers that chop and grind it into one-inch bits. According to G.4V. Sutterfield, former refuse commissioner of St. Louis, Missouri, the hammer faces in the shredder of the resource recovery pilot plant there wore so fast that they had to be turned every day and completely re-tipped every three days. The re-tipping alone cost almost $5,000 over asix-month period. 1711 Pennsylvania • Suite 104 • Denver, C®. 80203 • 863-0292 / 830-0294 Beverage container refund values would remove glass, aluminum and bi-metal cans from the waste stream and save resource recovery operations millions in maintenance. REFUND VALUES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH RESOURCE RECOVERY Beverage container refund values remove the troublesome components from solid waste, and provide ready-to-use, contaminant-free resources that can be reused again and again. ** SPM Group, InG. is a firm here in Colorado that creates energy pellets from solid waste. Asked whether it would help resource recovery to remove a good portion of aluminum and glass from the solid waste stream, Jim Mackin, an engineer for SPM, responded, "It would be ideal." ** Says John Kehoe, President of Refuse-Energy Systems Company, Inc. (RESCO) in Saugus, Massachusetts, "It would extend the service area of a plant by reducing per capita wastes. It would improve per capita costs for disposal, permitting one plant to service more people. And it would improve the BTU value of in- coming refuse and enhance the plant's energy production capability." Perhaps the greatest testimony to the compatibility of refund value legislation and resource recovery is development of resource recovery in states where refund value legislation is in effect or scheduled to take effect. ** In Oregon, at least five resource recovery projects serving populations ranging from 20,000 to 1,000,000 are either under construction or nearing ground-breaking. ** In Michigan, Detroit is actively developing a $1,000,000 facility, which, according to the Director of the city's Environmental Protection and Maintenance Department, will not be negatively impacted by the state's refund value legislation, and in fact will be assisted through the removal of substantial amounts of glass which would otherwise be a "residue commodity that has to be landfilled." ** Connecticut, one of the more recent refund value states, is also one of the nation's pioneers in the development of resource recovery. Russell Branneman, President of t}~e Connecticut Resources Recover Authority, testified in support of refund value legislation as a "constructive adjunct" to the development of resource recovery in that state. OTHER BENEFITS Aside from enhancing resource recovery operations, beverage container refund values reduce waste at its source, save energy and resources, reduce litter and the tax dollars spent to clean it up, and save consumers money. Support the Refund Value initiative in 1982! WHAT YOU CAN DO! 1) Join Coloradoans for Recycling. Donors of $15.00 or more will receive our monthly newsletter to keep them informed. 2) Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper supporting passage of the Beverage Container Refund Value initiative. 3) Buy beverages in returnable/deposit containers. They cost less'. 4) Recycle this fact sheet to a friend. Q~ Printed on recycled paper Coloradoans For lzecycling BEVERAGE CONTAINER REFUND VALUES AND LI'I"I'ER TAXES THE SOLUTION THAT FAILED In 1976, a refund value initiative was defeated at the polls in Colorado in favor of a beverage industry alternative litter tax and anti-litter public education program. The Colorado Litter Control Act, touted by the beverage industry as "the right solution," passed by the General Assembly in 1977, provided for an annual tax of up to $200 on businesses in the state. Despite expenditures of nearly $500,000, the program did little to reduce litter, and absolutely nothing to conserve energy or resources. THE COLORADO LITTER CONTROL ACT: ** Placed YET ANOTHER TAX on already overburdened .small businesses in Colorado. ** Created YET ANOTHER LAYER OF GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY to assess and collect the tax. ** Provided for AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF LITTER RECEPTACLES and litter bags to be distributed, by paid personnel, throughout tt~e state. ** Promised a crackdown on litterbugs, yet FAILED TO INCREASE PENALTIES or STIFFEN ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS AGAINST LITTERING. ** Actually REDUCED LITTER CLEAN-UP EFFORTS in order to fund an anti-litter advertising campaign. The campaign was not targeted to a specific audience, which reflects the lack of . information .about who really litters. ** While theoretically encouraging recycling and resource recovery, the bill CONTAINS NO INCENTNE TO RECYCLE OR CONSERVE RESOURCES. ** The Colorado Litter Control Act .provided for an administrator to enforce it. FNE DIFFERENT PEOPLE HEADED THE PROGRAM during its TWO YEARS IN EXISTENCE. One of those was Dick Powell of Del Calzo and Associates, WHO RAN THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE REFUND VALUE INITIATNE IN 1976. LITTER TAX KILLED BY COLORADO LEGISLATURE IN 1979 AS INEFFECTNE In 1979, the Colorado Litter Control Act was killed by the Colorado General Assembly because it FAILED TO REDUCE LITTER AND FAILED TO CONSERVE VALUABLE ENERGY AND RESOURCES. In addition, it was tremendously unpopular with the Colorado business community, WHICH WAS FORCED TO PAY FOR IT. ** The Rocky Mountain News said of the repeal, "The state didn't need a program to tell people where to throw their gum wrappers." It needed beverage container refund values. "It still does." 1711 Pennsylvania • Suite 104 • Denver, C®. 1;0203 • R63-0292 / X30-0294 STATES REPEAL LITTER TAXES AS "INEFFECTIVE" AND "BURDENSOME" ** The state of Connecticut passed both a refund value bill and a litter tax, feeling that the two together would be even more effective. The legislature later REPEALED THE LITTER TAX AS _INEFFECTNE AND KEPT REFUND VALUES. ** In 1977, the Arkansas legislature passed and repealed a litter tax after it was determined that such a tax "CREATES A SERIOUS HARDSHIP AND UNFAIR BURDEN ON MANY BUSINESSES." ** The Kentucky state courts invalidated the state's litter tax in April, 1981, because it was a revenue producing bill, and passed in the legislature by an insufficient number of votes. ** The California state legislature cancelled the funding f'or the California Litter Control, Recycling and Resource Recovery Act of 1977, which was pegged at 2.7 MILLION DOLLARS. BEVERAGE CONTAINER REFUND VALUES ARE MORE EFFECTNE THAN LITTER TAXES Aside from reducing litter at its source which litter taxes do not, beverage container refund values conserve energy and resources, create jobs and save consumers money. WHAT YOU CAN DO ! 1) Join Coloradoans for Recycling. Donors of $15.00 or more will receive our monthly newsletter to keep them informed. 2} Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper supporting passage of the Beverage container Refund Value initiative. 3) Buy beverages in returnable/deposit containers. They cost less! 4) Recycle this fact sheet to a friend. (, 100% Recycled Paper ~a~lorad.oans For "Recycling BEVERAGE COIVTAIAiER flZEFUAII) VA~.UES CREATE JOBS Refund value legislation will create hundreds of jobs in Colorado. WI-IERE? In the packaging, distribution and handling systems, those sectors of the beverage container industry responsible for getting beverage containers back from consumers once they've been used, and out on the market as returnables once again. According to a study conducted by Governor Lamm's office here in Colorado, in the "worst case" of industry job dislocation in this state, a net increase of 1,541 jobs would occur. The following chart shows the numbers of net jobs created in states with refund value legislation, where available. # OF NET JOBS CREATED THROUGH STATE REFUND VALUE LEGISLATION OREGON 365 (+325 Recycling Centers) VERMONT 350 11~AINE 626 !4'IICHIGAN 4, 648 ** The General Accounting Office has studied the impact of national beverage container refund values, and projects a net gain of more than 66,000 jobs with ;passage of a national bill. THROWAWAYS DECREASE JOBS AND COMPETITION IN THE BEVERAGE INDUSTRY Concentration and consolidation in .the beverage industry, along with the increasing automation which has occurred in tl~e shift to throwaway containers, have led to the shutdown of many brewing and soft drink bottling companies. ** Since 1.958, when over half of all beer production was distributed in returnables, U.S. brewery employment has decreased from 71,700 to 44,000 jobs--although output has increased 50°.0. ** The nation had 735 breweries just after the repeal of prohibition, 170 were still in business in 1960, but by 1971, the number had declined to about 70. Ten companies now hold 70 percent of the rnar.ket. By the end of the decade, there may be only 30 breweries left. ** Although consumption of soft drinks in this country has tripled since 1958, employment has only increased 97,100 to 120,900 nationally, and has actually decreased by 9,000 since 1970. 171. Pe~aas~ivani~ ~ quite 104 ®Denver, C4. 80203 ®863-0292 / 830-0294 ** Glass container consumption has doubled since 1958, but employment has only increased from 54,900 to 69,200 jobs, and there has been no increase since 1969. ** Beverage can consumption has doubled since 1958, yet employment has only increased from 54,200 to 68,500 jobs and has also been stagnant since 1970. LABOR UNIONS ENDORSE BEVERAGE CONTAINER REFUND VALUES ** Ed Gorham, a member of the AFL-CIO executive board in Maine supports refund value legislation because "our initial fears about the effects 'of the bill have not been realized." Ninety to ninety-five percent of the members of the Maine AFL-CIO support the state's refund value legislation. ** Kenneth P. Carroll, President, Brewery Delivery Employees Local Union No. 46, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, with a memberhsip of 1420 people throughout lower New York state has gone on record to endorse beverage con- tainer refund values. (April 7, 1977) ** Anthony Sapienza, Sr., President of Local 1164, Brewery and Soft Drink Workers in Cleveland, Ohio, "Our reasons for supporting deposit legislation are purely self ish--returnable bottles create more jobs in sorting and washing." (August 29, 1978) ** The United Auto Workers/Community Action Program, Statement of Environmental Protection for the Michigan Legislative Program of 1975 recommended: "Adoption of legislation to encourage the development of methods to reuse a greater percentage of products and to develop new products and new uses from waste materials. We urge enactment of state and federal legislation to encourage the manufacture of re- useable containers which would thus save energy, conserve natural resources and reduce litter." Similar efforts to pass refund value legislation by initiative are currently underway in California for 1982, and the following labor unions have endorsed those efforts: California Teamsters Public Affairs Council Bottlers' Union, Local 896 (Los Angeles and San Francisco) Southwestern States Council of Retail Clerks (California, Nevada, Arizona and Hawaii) Santa Barbara Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Concord City Employees Association OTHER BENEFITS Aside from creating hundreds of jobs in the state of Colorado, beverage container refund values will clean up our beautiful Colorado landscape, conserve our energy and resources, and reduce solid waste. Beverage container refund values work! TNHAT YOU CAN DO! 1) Join Coloradoans for Recycling. Donors of $15.00 or more will receive our rnonthly newsletter to keep them informed. 2) Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper supporting passage of the Beverage Container Refund Value initiative. 3) Buy beverages in returnable/deposit containers. They cost less! 4) Recycle this fact sheet to a friend. (: We use 100% recycled paper Coloradoans For Recycling BEVERAGE CONTAINER REFUND VALUES AND FRIENDS IN INDUSTRY Over the years since Oregon first passed refund value legislation in 1971, such legislation has made some friends in the beverage industry. Here are some quotes in support of beverage container refund values from our friends in industry: ** N.E. Norton, President of Dr. Pepper-Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Corpus Christi, Texas, in "The Great Container ~ti'ar," produced by Oregon Educational and Public Broadcasting Service, aired in May, 1979: The refund value bill "is by far the best solution to the problem. It saves alot of energy, it creates jobs, it stops the litter on the beach because if the container is worth five, ten or fifteen cents, somebody will pick it up and turn it in." And from the Oregon Journal, January 25, 1978: A refund value system "is the best and most economical . way to overcome the solid waste, energy and resource depletion problems associated with throwaway beverage containers." ** Ted Gamble, soft drink bottler, Portland, Oregon, in "The Great Container War": "The economic impact [of Oregon's refund value legislation] was that during the first two years we really appeared to .lose a great deal of money because of depreciation factors of all _ the new equipment, new warehousing capacity, additional labor...made it appear that it was going to be an economic disaster. However, after that initial depreciation period, the profits regained by bottling our own product offset these additional costs and we came out clear and ahead of where we'd been prior to the passage of the bill." ** Lee Kilburn, Vermont Coca-Cola distributor, quoted in Bottles and Cans: the story of the Vermont deposit law, 1978: "I can't knock the bottle law...I'm making more money than before." ** Coca-Cola's advertisement for Coke in returnables played on 20 stations in the Washington D.C. market, written by 4Vm. D. Murdock Advertising of Alexandria, VA "How about that returnable money-back bottle of COCA-COLA?! It's looking pretty good in these days of high prices. With YOUR help it recycles itself AND becomes an economical way to enjoy the great taste of Coke. You see, when you buy COKE in money-back bottles, you pay a small deposit on each bottle. BUT, this deposit is reusable each time 'you purchase returnable bottles of delicious COCA-COLA. So you pay only for the Coke, NOT the bottle. This keeps YOUR pocketbook happy and keeps our bottles in circulation. That's the beauty 1711 Pennsylvania • Suite 104 • Denver, CO. 80203 • 863-0292 / 830-0294 of recycling. So start your own program today...you'll discover: WE DON'T CALL THEM MONEY-BACK BOTTLES FOR NOTHING! If you don't see them the next time you stop...be sure to ask for them. They'll save you money." ** Chuck Smutny, Marketing Vice-President for Shasta, in Beverage Industry maga- zine, January 27, 1978: "Shasta is fully committed to returnables and our goal is to enter them in as many markets as we can." ** Even Pepsi-Cola, in a statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission, August 23, 1977, had to admit that: "It will be able to earn an adequate return on the invest- ment which might be required by it as a result of deposit legislation and does not anticipate a material adverse impact on sales or profits of its soft drink business if such legis- lation is adopted. ** ALCOA's Current Position on Deposit Legislation, (October, 1977): "Today, about one in four aluminum cans are being returned for recycling...Where the aluminum can is used widely, returns currently approach one in two. But we have trouble seeing the national figure going beyond 50% through voluntary re- cycling. Making all containers returnable through uniform deposits, on the other hand, will dramatically increase the percentage of returns." ** J.D. Oates, Owner of the Cheyenne, Wyoming Pop Shoppe in a letter to the members of the Mines, Minerals and Industrial Development Committee in the Wyoming House of Representatives: "As a soft drink retailer, I place a refund on all beverage containers that are sold in my establishment. I have found that this arrangement has imposed little hardship in myself or my customers. In addition to promoting environmental cleanliness it is extremely economical. Our glass containers make an average of 30 trips between the customer and the bottling plant which certainly reinforces the economics in- volved in returning containers for deposit. In addition, I am able to offer beverages at a lower cost to the customers. OTHER BENEFITS Aside from being cheaper to purchase, beverages in returnable containers with refund values result in less litter, reduced waste of energy and resources, and a cleaner healthier Colorado. Support the Refund Value initiative in 1982! WHAT YOU CAN DO 1) Join Coloradoans for Recycling. Donors of $15.00 or more will receive our monthly newsletter to keep them informed. 2) Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper supporting passage of the Beverage Container Refund Value initiative. 3) Buy beverages in returnable/deposit containers. They cost less! 4) Recycle this fact sheet to a friend. (: Printed on 100% rerydrd paper Coloradoans For Recycling GAO, p. 22 BEVERAGE CONTAINER REFUND VALUES CONSERVE RESOURCES Along with the rest of the nation, Coloradoans are becoming increasingly concerned with our use and abuse of ,natural. resources. The facts show that significant reductions in the consumption and pollution of our natural resources can be achieved through beverage container refund values. HOW WILL OUR NATURAL RESOURCES BE AFFECTED? *The statistics cited in this fact sheet were taken from: 1) The Committee Findings and Staff Papers on National Beverage Container Deposits of the Resource Conservation Committee, January, 1978 RCC , 2 Potential Effects of a National Mandatory Deposit on Beverage Containers by the Comptroller General of the U.S., the General Accounting Office, December 1977, a.nd an update of the same report in December, 1980. Both reports were commissioned by Congress and are available to the public. REDUCED DEMAND FOR WATER Particularly in the semi-arid I'Vestern United States concern for receding underground water tables runs high. As the figures below demonstrate, beverage container refund values will reduce beverage industry demand for water.. WATER DEMAND FOR 15.1 gallons--recyclable aluminum can ONE GALLON OF 15.4 gallons--l0-trip refillable bottle PACKAGED BEER: 34.1 gallons--bi-metal steel can 36.9 gallons--one-way bottle From mining through distribution, (10 trip) refillable bottles and alumi- num cans use less than 1/2 of the water needed by one-way bottles and bi- metal cans. With Colorado facing severe water shortages in coming decades, beverage container refund values MAKE SENSE. REDUCED POST-CONSUMER. SOLID WASTE Estimated levels, 1985 for Beverage Industry RCC, p. 34 524 million cubic feet & p..42 of industrial solid wastes REDUCED AIR POLLUTION Projected Reduction, 1985 Percent with Nat'l Refund Values Reduction 274 to 453 million cubic feet 52 to 86% of industrial solid wastes RCC, p. 34 1717 million lbs. of 749 to 1256 million lbs. & p. 42 atmospheric emissions of atmospheric emissions 44 to 70°l0 1711 Pennsylvania • Suite 104 • Denver, C®. 80203. 863-0292 / 830-0294 REDUCED WATER POLLUTION GAO, p. 22 308 million lbs. 135 to 215 million lbs. of waterborne wastes , of waterborne wastes 44 to 69°ro REDUCED DEMAND FOR IRON ORE AND BAUXITE GAO, p. 20 Conser`vatron of our iron ore resources is a more critical issue than most Americans believe. We import one=third of our iron ore requirements, while our .domestic reserves are yielding progressively lower quality ore. Mineral Estimated Demand, 1985 Projected Savings, 1985 Percent Resource for Beverage Industry with Nat'l Refund Values Reduction GAO, p. 21 Bauxite 1.9 million tons 1.0 to 1.4 million tons 52 to 86°0 RCC, p. 43 Iron Ore 2.9 million tons 1.3 to 2.4 million tons 45 to 83% ** The bauxite savings would represent _ 2.4 to 3.5% of the U.S. aluminum industry's demand for 1'985. According to the General Accounting Office, "The U.S. bauxite and iron ore supply depends heavily on im- ports.. If the potential reductions in raw materials were made mostly from imports, there- would be important balance of payments trade ac- count benefits." Beverage container refund values spur the economy! ** According to a 1980 report on Michigan's Refund Value legislation, each year 15,000 tons of aluminum and steel and 65,000 tons of glass are being recycled instead of buried irr landfills because of beverage container refund values. The savirigs in energy, bauxite and iron ore are great. OTIiER BENEFITS ' As well as conserving natural resources, beverage container refund values reduce litter and the tax dollars used to clean it up. .Refund values conserve energy, and beverages in returnable containers cost less than those in throw- aways. Support the Beverage. Container Refund Value initiative in 1982! WHAT YOU CAN DO! 1) Join Coloradoans for Recycling. Donors of $15.00 or more will receive our monthly newsletter to keep them informed. 2) Write a letter to the editor of your .local newspaper supporting passage of the Beverage Container Refund Value initiative. 3) Buy beverages in returnable/deposit containers. They cost less! 4) . Recycle this fact sheet to a friend. (: Recycled Paper Coloradoans ~Or Recycling BEVERAGE CONTAINER REFUND ~IALUES SAYE ENERGY Recycling beverage containers through five cent refund values save energy. The actual experiences of six states and countless studies all agree: energy use by the beverage industry would decrease with refund value legislation. Energy would be saved because it requires less energy to refill bottles or re- cycle cans than to manufacture from virgin materials. The diagram shown below il- lustrates how much energy can be saved by refilling or recycling containers rather than throwing them away after just one use. These are energy savings for the total beverage system. "All the system-wide energy use calculations attempt to include all energy use for beverage delivery, including material production, container production, washing, filling, transportation, wholesaling, retailing and return and recycle." (Final Draft, "1\~iaterials and Energy from Waste, U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, June, 1978.) ' Even .with increased fuel transportation costs due to shipping containers two ways for recycling and refilling, rather than one way for disposal, the U.S. general Accounting Office found that a savings of 33 percent in total container energy use would be achieved. (States Experience with Beverage Container Deposit Laws Shows Positive Benefits," Comptroller General of the United States, General Accounting Office, December 11, 1980 , p. 45.) "The manufacture of aluminum cans from virgin materials requires 20 times the energy needed for recycling aluminum." ("Oregon's Bottle Bill, the 1979 Report, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1979, p. 4.) 1711 Pennsylv~a~n~ • ~a~ite 104 • ~env~~, C®. 80203 • 863-0292 / 830-0294 s ' "For every aluminum can thrown ~ away, enough energy is lost to '6 light a 100 watt bulb for five ~ hours." ("An Ecological Approach ~ to Solid Waste .Management," by Dr. Priscilla " Laws, ~ Professor of Physics, Dickenson College, February, 1974.) Recycling through beverage container refund values would '.'save 144 to 169 trillion BTU's annually, the equivalent to saving 70,000 to 80,000 barrels of imported oil per day nationally." (Energy and Economic Impacts of Mandatory Deposits," Bingham, Tayler H. et al, Research Triangle Institute for the U.S. Federal. Energy Administration, 1976.) . Here are . just a few examples of the energy savings currently enjoyed by states with refund value legislation... ** Vermont saves. 708 billion BTU's of energy each year due to refund values on beverage containers. ~ This is the energy equivalent of over 5,000,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil, or enough to provide the home heating needs of 15,000 Vermonters. ("Vermont--5 cent Deposit," Report by Rep. James Jeffords and " .Donald Webster, 1977, p. 30.) ** Oregon saves 1.4 trillion BTU's per year due to refund value legislation. This is enough to provide the home heating needs of 50,000 Oregonians. (1979 Oregon Report, p. 4.) ** In Oregon, over 90 percent of the cans and bottles are returned. Returnable soft drink bottles are reused 24 times and beer bottles are reused 20 times. At this rate, the returnable bottle system uses 1/3 the energy consumed in the throwaway system.. {1979 Oregon Report, p. 4.) ' Refund value legislation works! It saves energy. Colorado could conserve our energy resources by passing the beverage container refund value .initiative in 1982. OTHER BENEFITS Energy savings to the beverage industry mean lower manufacturing costs.. This is one reason why beverages now sold in returnable/deposit containers cost less--up to 46% less than those sold in throwaway containers! Check your local grocery or liquor store to see for yourself. Recycling beverage containers also reduces litter and conserves our natural resources, saves tax dollars in litter pick-up, and creates jobs. . WHAT. YOU CAN DO 1) Join Coloradoans for Recycling.. Donors of $15.00 or more will receive our monthly newsletter to keep them informed. 2) Write a letter to the editor of your local newspapers supporting passage of 'the Beverage Container Refund Value initiative. 3) Buy beverages in returnable/deposit containers. They cost less! 4) Recycle this fact sheet to a friend. (: This is recycled paper i MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council and Planning and environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1982 SUB~7ECT: Definition of l/amiiy BAC~CG~tdUND: The Community Development Department over the past few months has been research- ing the definition of "family" in other resort communities throughout the United States. Other resort communities must have..,similar problems regarding the renting of Names in lower density neighborhoods;. After discussing this issue with other resort communities.,-the staff found that they have not dealt. with the problem. The problem of renting out a large house to several people surfaced last year when a complaint was received by a neighbor that a house had 20 to..30 people steeping overnight, The neighbor complained because of the noise and general disturbance. This situation tools pi ace in a duptex zone district where the neighbor considered they were not living in a low density. neighborhood. In studying Vail's problem,-the staff has come across several other homes and condominiums that on a short term basis are rented to a maximum of six to 14 people. There would not be a problem if the people were all related asp-noted in the definition below. In the lower density zone districts, renting a house to six and as many as 14 people can cause several impacts on the neighborhood, First., the noise and general disruption can be a problem, Second, parking can be a problem where there could be several automobiles, vans or even a bus at the home, These impacts can change the character of a single family or duplex neighborhood. The central issue to resolve is whether to leave the definition of family as it is today, or came up with a new definition. 18.04.110 Family "Family" means an individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, excluding domestic servants, living together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit.,..°or a group of not more than four unrelated persons living together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit. (Ord, 8~ -~i 973) • Family r2- Enforcement of the current definition would probably be next to impossible, Therefore;.-the staff is recommending that we look at amending the definition of family, AETERN~TIVE: To start d1SCUS5ian on the definition of family, the staff is presenting an alternative. There are problems with this definition just as there is with the current definition. We consider that your comments and concerns are needed to come up with a definition that will work for Vail. 1* From our research on short term units that are rented, there seems to be an average of two people per bedroom, One alternative would be to have the definition state two people per bedroom. In addition, there probably should be a maximum number of people allowed in any unit. This should be based on bedrooms and placing a maximum in a unit of 10 people. For example,-'a three bedroom unit would be permitted six people. A six or seven bedroom unit would only be permitted 10 people. 2, The definition should also deal with not allowing rooms rented out by the night in the lower density zone districts. 3, Parking potentially in all zone districts can be a problem. With single family and duplex zones being over 54% built out, there would be no oppor~ tunity to require additional parking for existing units, Many of these are constructed units that are rented out are in areas near the Village. Some were built with minimum parking. During the winter, short term renters have parked on the street because of driveways not being plowed, or there were several automobiles at the home. Multi family housing counting approved units will be about 95% built out. In this zone district, additional people permitted potentially generate additional autos. This seems to be a potentially negative impact where there is no good solution. The purpose of this memorandum is to start discussion of the definition of a family! We need to review the options and problems to come up with a viable definition for Vail. t ~' MEMORANDUM March 26, 1982 T0: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Joint meeting of Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission Orr April 13th at 12:30 p.m, at the Town Council Chambers there wi17 be a joint meeting. 12:30 p,m. Lunch and film "Social Life of Smali Urban Spaces" 1:30 p.m, Discussion of views for Uai7 Village 2:30 p.m. Discussion of definition of family 3:15 p.m. Discussion of Arterial Business zone district 4:15 p.m. Discussion of Five Year Community Action Plan and other issues -~~ 5:00 p.m. End of meeting ~^ i sr MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council FROM: Community Development Qepartment DATE: March 31;.1982 SUB~IECT: Update on Conditional Use Permit request to construct an office building in the Heavy Service zone district at the existing Texaco site on the South Frontage Road west of Vail Lionshead. Applicant: M & W Venture One aspect of the Heavy Service zone district that the Town Council has control over in approving or denying a conditional use request is the development standards. Under Section 18,30,040 Development Standards,-the code states: "The development standards set out in Section 18.30,050 through 18.30.170 shall be considered minimum, and more restrictive standards may be prescribed as a conditon of a conditional use permit for any use," These development standards deal with lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, height,~coverage;:landscaping and site development, parking and loading, location of business activity, and noise. In review of the plans for the proposed office use, the Town Gouncil can determine that there is too much building an the site,~or the plan is within what they want to see on the site, At the PEC meeting, the applicant kept stating what was allowable on the site. As you can see, what is allowable is what Town Gouncil approves for each site. MFMORA~DUM T0: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 28, 1982 R~: Changes made in the definition of family ordinance Since the first reading several changes have been made to Ordinance 23. These are listed below: 1. The definitions and prohibitions regarding hostels and rooming houses have been removed from the ordinance. This change cleans up some muddy language. The language prohibiting the renting out of rooms to separate groups remains. 2. The language placing a maximum number of unrelated persons per dwelling unit has been removed. 3. The definition of short term has been altered from thirty to thirty-one days. i• MEMORANDUM I• T0: Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: August 11 , 1982 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision concerning an air-supported bubble to cover half of the swimming pool at the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Summary of Proceedings: At the July 26, 1982 meeting of the planning Commission, the Lodge submitted a proposal far a bubble to cover the entire swimming pool at the Lodge. This proposal was different from the proposal originally submitted to the staff which called for a bubble covering half of the pool. Sensing opposition to such a sudden change in plans and opposition to the bubble itself, the applicant tabled the item. At the ,August 9th meeting the Lodge returned with the original proposal, with the bubble covering half of the pool. The Planning Commission, • citing opposition to air-supported structures anywhere in the Village, and its visibility from the Plaza, denied the conditional use permit for this seasonal structure by a vote of 3-2. The applicant appealed. Enclosed is the staff memo and the Planning Commission minutes concerning the bubble. Memorandum TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1982 r SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission`s decision regarding the store front expansion at the Lion's Pride building in Lianshead. Applicant: Steve Sheridan SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS: On July 26, 1982 the Planning Commission denied an application to expand the ground floor stare fronts into Lion's Pride court. Planning Commission members objected to the expansion because it brought the Lion's Pride building closer to the Lifthouse, lacked recessed facade entrances, and because the upper f1aors of the Don's Pride building was not addressed_in the plans, the commission rejected the application 5-1. The applicant appealed. Planning Commission minutes and staff memo are enclosed.. • I r. MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1982 SUBJECT: Ordinance 25 Attached is a copy of Ordinance #25 and the memo to the Planning Commission explaining the proposed change. Basically, the change makes the application process far adding an outdoor patio in the Village or Lionshead a conditional use review rather than a review under the Urban Design Guide Plan {only twice a year). .J ~^ .~ i• i• T0: Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 2, 1982 RE: Parking fee ordinance Enclosed is the new ordinance concerning parking fees and the current section of the code concerning the fees. The first sentence of para-graph B has been changed to clarify which zones in town are "exempt" from on-site parking requirements. Subparagraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been added in order to clarify the administration of the code. • OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING for a system For distribution and pickup of goods; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and pro- jected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted. 13. Within any area exempted from on-site parking and/or loading requirements, property owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to the town parking fund, hereby established, for the purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for vehicle parking. At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel of property within an exempt area which would require parking and/or loading areas, the owner or applicant shall pay to the town the parking fee hereinafter required prior to the issuance of a building rmit for said development or redevelopment. The parking fund established in this section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of con- ducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness fox parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. 2, The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant shall be determined by the town council provided in no event shall it be less than one thousand dollars per space, and in addition, that owners or applicants similarly situated shall be treated equally. if any payor's funds are not used by the town for one of the purposes specil-led in subdivision 1 above within five years from the date of payment, the unused pgrtion of the funds shall be returned to the payor upon his application. 3. In accounting for the funds expended from the parking fund, the finance department shall use a first inJfirst out rule. 4. If any parking funds have been paid in accordance with this section and if subsequent thereto a special or general improvement district is formed and assessments levied far the purpose of paying for parking improve- ments, the payor shall be credited against the assess- ment with the amount previously paid. ( . 47{ t 979) § 1; Ord. 8(1973) § 14.800.} 443 (va~i z-ai) f~ ~r P z s a i ~ ~~ o fa cr m~ r ~~ __ ~~~_~• ~ ~ ~~~v;L ~r ~~ - r s _ ~~ } -e: ,:r "~. ,~ J ~' f ~: • ~y7D4 ~. "'. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Depart~i~ent DATE: September 16, 1982 SUBJECT: Changing the registration of non-conforming uses, structures or sites section of the zoning ordinance. The Community Development Department staff is recommending that the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission review the non conforming registra- tion section of the zoning ordinance. After review of the ordinance change,. we realized that many properties within Vail are non-conforming;~either because of annexation where County regulations are different from the Town of Vail, or because of changes in Town zoning regu- lations, or because the buildings were constructed before Town zoning. To go through and register a1T non-conforming buildings would be a monumental task. Therefore, the staff considers that we should either remove this section of the code or make it easier to administer. To delete the registration section would mean that if the structure were destroyed by fire, for example, the property owner would foe required to show what he or she had before damage to the building. In some cases this might be difficult, as the Town does not have a71 the. building permits, plans, condo maps or improvement surveys, etc. to show proof of what was there regarding number of units, size of units, etc. One question the staff has is should we spend a great deal of time in this area, when over the next 5 to 15 years we may have no units destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of god or by the public enemy. The Community Development Department recommends removal of this section of the zoning ordinance. Hopefully, there will never be a problem, and for the amount of work, time,-and money needed to accomplish the registration, it does not seem worth the effort. • MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 15, 1982 RE: Change in the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area specifically 1} eliminating the allowance of an unlimited floor area in dwelling units labeled as storage area with 6'6" ceiling height or less and 2} allowing a credit of 200 square feet for storage areas in each dwelling unit,, The proposed amendments to the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area are aimed at eliminating a gross abuse of the current definition and method of calculating GRFA. The definition now allows an unlimited amount of area within a dwelling to be exempt from calculation as GRFA provided that the ceiling height of the area is less than 6'b" and is designated as storage. The abuse of the definition occurs when large areas are designed within a dwelling and a suspended ceiling is hung at a 6'6" height, The suspended ceiling is removed after a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Building Department, and the area is converted to living area. The major problems with the conversion are that living and sleeping areas are being occupied without having proper building code requirements (exits, ventila~ tion, etc.), and the extra space within the structures adds additiional bulk to the buildings. In one case, as much as 3400 square feet was added to a duplex in this manner. The proposal is to give a credit of 200 square feet per unit for storage areas. This figure was derived at by reviewing plans for existing houses occupied by residents of Vail and by consulting local architects. I think it's important to note that most dwelling units designed for local residents and by local architects have not abused the fi'6" ceiling height and have in many instances not even utilized it. Instead, most residences have been designed with storage areas of full ceiling height and thus counted within the total GRFA, Under the new definition, an area up to 200 square feet designated as storage will not be counted as GRFA. This new credit would be in addition to the credits now given for garages (600 sq. ft.}, mechanical areas (50 sq. ft), and airlocks (25 sq, ft.). The staff feels that the proposed revision to the definition will curtail the abuses that we are currently experiencing. The proposed wording is as follows: 18.04.130 Floor Area, Gross Residential {GRFA} Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA} is defined as the total floor area with the enclosing walls~:of a structure including a17 habitable areas, greenhouses and indoor recreational facilities, excluding crawl spaces, attic areas with a ceiling height of five {5} feet or less, solar heating storage areas, mechanical areas and areas designed far parking and loading. Overlapping stairways shall only be counted at the lowest level. i, The following areas shall not be included in the calculation of Gross Residential Floor Area for each dwelling unit: 1, Enclosed garages of three hundred (300) square feet per each vehicle space with a maximum of 2 spaces per dwelling unit; 2. Nlechanical area not exceeding a total of fifty (50) square feet, 3, One airlock of twenty five (25) square feet or less; 4. Storage area not exceeding a total of two hundred (200) square feet. Any square footage in excess of the maximum credit allowed in 1 through 4 above will be included in the calculation of Gross Residential Floor Area. For the purpose of determining ceiling height within an attic area, the ceiling height shall be calculated as the distance between the top side of the structural members of a ceiling and the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. (An attic area which is created by construction of a roof by truss~~ type members will be exempted from calculation provided that the trusses be spaced no further than thirty inches (30"} apart.} A crawl space shall ue defined as an area where the distance between the surface of the earth and/or floor system, and the underside of the structural member{s) of the floor directly above does not exceed four {4) feet and is accessible by an opening not to exceed nine (9) square feet in area. For buildings containing more than two {2) dwelling units, an additional GRFA of up to twenty percent (20%) of the allowable GRFA on the lot shall be allowed for common hallways, common closets, lobby areas, and common enclosed recreational facilities. Any square footage in excess of the 20% credit will be included in the calculations of GRFA. A definition of storage area should also be added to the list of definitions within the zoning Cade: 18,04.368 Storage Area A storage area is an area within a dwelling unit which is designed and used specifically for the prupose of storage and is not .required by the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code to provide either light, ventilation, or any code rquirement in its function or existence. • MEMORANDUM i• Ir September 21 , 1982 T0: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department 5U8JECT: Joint meeting on September 21, 1982 There will be a joint meeting on September 21 at the East Vail Fire Station conference room. The tentative schedule is as follows: 12:00 lunch and slide show on "Development Choices in the 80's° 12:45 Update on Community Action Plan 1:00 Construction requirements far CCI and CCII 1:30 Discussion of view corridors far Vail Village 2:30 Storage 3:00 Changes in non-conforming use registration 3:20 Other items 4:00 End of meeting .~ ~~ 1~ lows of nail 35 south frontage road vaii, coiorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 office of town attorney September 16, 1982 A,4EMQRANDUM s T0: Vail Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney RE; Need for Certainty and Definiteness in Municipal Ordinances An ordinance must be definite and certain in its terms. Tt must be clear, definite and certain so that an average man can, with due care, after reading it, understand and ascertain whether or not he will incurs a penalty for a particular act or course of conduct. Tf an individual. cannot reach such a determin- ation from an exatninatian of the ordinance it is void for un- certainity. It is a well settled principal of law that na legistative body can constitutionally and validly delegate to administrative officers or bodies, an exercise of discretionary power which is arbitrary. Any municipal ordinance which vests arbitrary discretion in municipal officials or bodies with reference to the rights, property or business of individuals without prescribing a uniform rule of action, making the enjoyment of such rights depend upon the arbitrary choice of the officers or bodies and without furnishing any definite standard for the control of the officers or bodies is unconstitutional and void. With specific reference to property, the courts have often stated that if an ordinance restricts the rights of an owner of property which he might otherwise exercise without question, not according to a uniform standard, but makes the enjoyment of his property depend on the arbitrary wilt of municipal authorities, it is invalid. MEMORAPJDUM T0: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September l7, 1982 Sl1BJECT: View Corridors Pursuant to Eskwith's memorandum regarding the need for certainty and definiteness in municipal ordinances, the staff believes that it is important that any view corridor ordinance considered by the Town set forth a clear and definite description of the views which the Town considers necessary to protect and, if some encroachment is to be permitted into those views, standards be set forth in the Ordinance relating to such encroachment. The staff has done intensive research into the way other municipalities regulate views and found these ordinances to be extremely consistent. View corridor ordinances adopted by other municipalities all provide surveyed view corridors and prohibit intrusion into those defined view corridors. The staff feel that an ordinance which would satisfy the needs of the Town, which could be administered fairly and which would be legally and constitutionally valid should contain the following: , 1. A designation that those views which a majority feel are unalterable as "type A" views, These cannot be encroached upon and would therefore become permanent view corridors. 2. A designation that those views which could be altered as "type 8" views. These views could be encroached upon so long as the significant features} of the view are not adversely affected by the proposal. In order to provide the "predictability" which Larry alludes to, we feel it's necessary to provide a visual description {photograph with black lines outlining the view} and a verbal description of each view which would call out the significant feature or reason why we've selected it as a view plane, Tn this manner, we're telling the applicant exactly where the view is from and to (we also include a 'master view map") and a1 so why we feel the view is significant, The applicant then realizes generally the extent to which encroachment would be allowed. 3. A dynamic view plane regulation system which would not only be periodically reviewed, but which would also allow an altered type B view plane to become a type A after the acceptable amount of encroachment was completed. We will prepare examples and demonstrate with overlays this proposal for you on Tuesday for discussion purposes. -'~ ~ r ~~ y MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROP1: Department of Community Development HATE: 9/30/82 SUBJECT: Proposed New Subdivision Regulations and Design Standards Our existing Subdivision Regulations and Design Standards were adopted in 1970, three years after the Town was incorporated. They are quite minimal, general regulations which were adequate to control the subdivision of land at that time. Vai1's rapid growth since that time has mandated that we revise our subdivision regulations to address newer types of development (condominiums, townhouses, timesharing} as well as the processes and procedures for all subdivision proposals. Indeed;.•the existing regulations have caused confusion with regard to the processes and approvals required for such things as condominiumizing a development. The attempt with the proposal in front of you is to simplify today's various and complex types of subdivisions. Of course, the objective is to reflect the community's values with regard to each of these provisions. • The proposed regulations were arrived at after considerable study on the part of various staff, Planning Commission and Council members. Many different subdivision regulations were reviewed by staff,and a small review committee was formed after the first draft was completed. Since the review of the first draft, there have been four more meetings and subsequent revisions. The final proposal represents the fourth draft of the regulations. Very little of the existing regulations were retained, as it was felt by all that there should be a totally new set of provisions for our current values and needs. The following represents a brief description of each chapter of the new regulations: A. CHAPTER 17.04 GENERAL, PROVISIONS This chapter sets forth some general statements regarding the purpose of the regulations as well as statements of compliance. Also included are the town's remedies for violations and the jurisdiction the town possesses to enforce the regulations. B. CHAPTER 17.08 DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION This chapter sets forth how various words, usually open to interpretation, will be defined with regard to these regulations. This is one of the mare important sections in the regulations, as it needs to be complete and specific enough so that interpretation is kept to a minimum. • Sub Regs -2- 9/30/82 C. CHAPTER 17.16 MAJOR SUBDIVISION This chapter outlines the procedures and requirements fora subdivision involving more than 4 lots, etc. (see 17.08210 D}. This is one of the mast important chapters of any subdivision regulation, as it can shape the design of a major portion of a community. This chapter usually contains the bulk of the subµ division provisions fora community. One may argue that these are unimportant for Vail in 1982 as we are "subdivided out" with regard to this size of parcel. This is not the case, as the staff is aware of at least two ,proposals which wiT1 fall under the jurisdiction of this chapter most likely within the next yea r The approval process fora major subdivision is: 1. Consultation with staff. 2. PEC public hearing on preliminary plan 3. Concil right to appeal decision on preliminary plan. 4. PEC public hearing on final plat 5. Council right to appeal and accept/reject dedications One issue which should be discussed in this section is the property dedication requirement {17.16.112}. Proposed is requiring 8% of the property to be dedicated to the Town with the stipulations that the land must be buildable area and that the developer cannot count this 8% toward his total buildable area on the site. • D. CHAPTER 17.20 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS This is the procedure to follow fora subdivision involving 4 or less lots or parcels. Basically,~this exempts the applicant from the preliminary plan procedures required in a major subdivsion. This means that a final plat is submitted and reviewed by PEC with the Council's right to appeal. E. CHAPTER 17.22 CONDOMINIUM AND TOWNHOUSE PLATS This is a "new" section to the regulations which outlines procedures for obtaining approval of subdividing a multi family project after its foundations are in place. This is done far ownership purposes and generally delineates common and limited elements (ownership) of a project versus individually owned property, Since this type of subdivision contains no actual subjective type of criteria, it is done at staff level and does not come aefore the PEC, unless staff's decision is appealed. F. CHAPTER 17.24 DUPLEX SUBDIVISIONS With the number of these types lots in Vail, this is the mast popular form of subdivision. This subdivision defines ownership of land and property between two individual ownerships on a duplex lot. As with condominium and townhouse plats, this is done on a staff level unless appealed. • Sub Regs -3- 9/30/82 G. CHAPTER 17.26 CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOP4INIUM CONVERSIONS This is a 1978 amendment to the subdivision regulations. This chapter is included as existing, but wi11 be reviewed and revised in 1983 as we revise the zoning code in its entirety. H. CHAPTER 17.2$ DESIGN STANDARDS This chapter defines the work done in construction of new subdivisions. It specifies all design criteria needed to construct such things as roads, curbs and gutters, storm sewers, and utility placement. i. CHAPTER 17.30 VARIANCES AND AMENDMENTS This chapter states that these processes will follow the existing ones for such requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed subdivision regulations and design standards. There has been a lot of study and review on this proposal, and we feel that it will accomplish our objectives as stated an page 1 of this memo. MEMORANDUM C: TD: Tawn Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE : October 21 , l 982 SUBJECT: Revisions to proposed subdivision regulations Please find below a list of the revisions we discussed at work session on October 19. The one PEC revision is attached as an enclosure, and the document comes to you in ordinance form as per the PEC recommendation. Yau should make sure you remove Sections 17.26 and 17.28 from your consideration as part of the motion, as we will be revising these.in the coming month or so. The list of revisions can be referenced in your motion. Council Work Session Revisions as per meeting an 10/19/82: 1. p. 2, 17.04.010(c) 2,3,5,6 as noted 2. p.17, 17.16.110 delete "effects an the aesthetics of the town" 3, p.18, 17.16.112 Council wishes to delete section 4. p.18, 17.16.115(c) changed 10 days to 17 days 5. p. 20, #11 shout d read ..ar corporate title insurer, that the owner(s) of record dedicating to the public the public rights-of-way, areas or facilities as shown thereon are the owners thereof in fee simple, free and clear..... 6. p. 21, 17.16.130{c) --make new #14: 74. Certificate of ownership --make existing #14 new #15 --leave the rest the same 7. p.22, 17.16.150(5) change to read only: landscaping 8. p. 23, 17.16.250 4th 1 ine --aid "and approved by the Town Manager" after Town Engineer 9. p.23, new section: 17.16.205 Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and will record the remaining mylar copy. SUB REGS -2- 10/21 /82 i~ 10. p.25, new section: 17.2d.d50 Filing and Recording same as #9 above 1T. p.29, new section: 17.24.110 Filing and Recording same as #9 & #10 above 12. p. 26, 17.22.030 6th line insert new sentence: ---as the approved plans. Also required to be submitted is a copy of the condominium documents far staff review to assure that there are maintenance provisions included for all commonly-owned areas. A11 property pins must..... 13. p. 28, 17.24.030 make the existing paragraph here a na 1 with paragraph no. 2 as follows: 2. A copy of the declarations and/or covenants attached to the subdivision to assure the maintenance of any common areas which are being created. 14. p. 24, #4 revise to read: 4. A systematic identification of all existing and proposed buildings, lots • and blocks and names for all streets. 15. P. 26, 17.22.034 2nd 1 ine : add #4 to numbers after 17.16.130 (c } * Important: Make sure all new sections are included in the table of contents. The PEC change attached is in 17.08.170 Street, private r ' V 17, 08,170 Street.;:•pri vate Any street not dedicated to the public for purposes of vehicular travel; or~ any street exceeding 75 feet in length or providing access for more than two.` _ dwelling units. 17.08.180 Same Owhership "same ownership" shall mean ownership by the same person, corporation, firm, entity, partnership,-or unincorporated associated or ownership by different corporations, firms, partnerships, entities,. or unincorporated associations, in which a stockholder, partner, associate;,~or a member of his family owns an Interest in each corporation, firm, partnership, entity or unincorporated association, 17.08.190 Street,.-public "Public street" means a) the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel,; b) the entire width of every way declared to be a public highway by any law of this state; and further classified and defined as follows: A, Arterial streets are those which permit the relatively rapid and unimpeded movement of large volumes of traffic from one part of the community to another. B, Collector streets are those which collect traffic from manor streets and carry it to arterial streets or to ]ocal traffic generators. Collector streets include the principal entrance streets to a residential develop- ment, those linking such adjacent deve1opments,,~and those streets providing circulation within such developments. C. Minor streets are those used primarily for direct access to properties abutting the right-,of-way. Minor streets carry traffic having an origin or destination within the development and do not carry through traffic. MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 27, 1982 SUBJECT: Council appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision regarding a height variance request for lot 12, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Bernard Gottlieb BACKGROUND Attached is a copy of the memo prepared by the staff which recommended denial of the request for an 8.5 foot height variance. Information submitted by the applicant showed that the roof ridge of the proposed structure would be 10.3 feet taller than the house located to the east and 8.6 feet taller than the house to the west. The applicant's reasons for requesting the variance were that he wished to use a 12/12 roof pitch and that, since the site was lower in topography than the adjacent sites, he wished to construct the house upon 2-4 feet of structural fill. After a lengthy discussion of the relation of the requested height to the adjacent structures, a motion was made to approve a height variance of a lesser degree than originally requested. Specifically, the motion (which was approved 3-2} designated that the ridge height of the structure should not exceed an elevation of 37 feet above existing rade. Because the requested building (which is to be a prefabri~ Gated structureq} measures 39 feet between the slab and the roof ridge. The motion made by the PEC now necessitates a cut of 2 feet rather than the fill of 2-4 feet requested by the applicant originally to overcome the depression in topography. In other wards, the end result is not a variance for an increased height because of the need to fill the site, but rather what resulted was a variance to allow this specific prefabricated house with a 12/12 roof pitch to be imposed upon the site in a manner requiring a two foot cut. The ridge of the house would still project 5.8 feet above the house to the east and 4.6 feet above the house to the west. The PEC motion resulted in allowing a variance of 4 feet over the allowable height of 33 feet for no apparent reason, Certainly the applicant's desire to place this house upon this site in violation of the height requirements does not meet the criteria or factors applicable in granting a variance. The Community Development Department staff recommends that the PCC decision be overturned. MEMORANdUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community development department BATE: October 27, 7982 SUBJECT: Appeal of a decision made by the PEC regarding a setback variance request on lot 1~, block 1, Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing. Applicants: Jan and Gail Strauch Attached is a copy of the staff memo recommending denial of the requested setback variance. The planning Commission heard the request at their meeting on October 25, 1982 and voted 4-l to deny the application. The applicants have appealed this decision. ~. .~ MEMORANDUM ~~ ~' - TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission -~ EROM; Department of Community Development BRIE: December 9, 1982 5US,lECT: Study of Condominium Conversion Ordinance Revisions Tn conjunction with the re-writing of the subdivision regulations and design standards, the Council has requested the condominium.conversion regulations be addressed now rather than in 1983 when the whole code is reviewed. They requested it be done now subsequent to the planning staff's comment that the regulations were confusing as they exist and, therefore, require some revisions. They felt that this should be accomplished at the same time the remainder of Title 17 was re-written. In researching the various existing regulations of different municipalities, we have discovered a wide range-of stringency levels in these regulations. Condominium conver- sion x~eg~u~Elations-are designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the future occupants and general public; to protect the consumer purchasing a unit; and probably mast importantly to protect an existing stock of low to moderate income (or employee) rental housing. Gonversion~of apartments to condominiums can cause negative impacts in a community by displacing existing tenants who can only afford to rent with a higher income purchaser. This can result in riot only a decrease in the number of employee housing units, but can cause extreme hardship to the farmer tenant who now must find housing elsewhere. Far Vail, the issues of condominium conversions and employee housing are intricately tied together. There area great number of rental units, which servo to meet our empoyee housing needs. The conversion of these to condominiums with high sales prices may negatively affect our ability to adequately house both seasonal and permanent • residents. Thus, we as a governmental agency with the ability to control the rate and conditions put upon conversions must look closely at where our policy should fall in regard to the extremes between leaving it totally up to the private sector and rent, sales and lease term restrictions as 'conditions of approval. The staff 4vishes to initiate discussion on condominium conversion restrictions. Enclosed please find the existing ordinance which we use far condominiums and condo- minium conversions. It is also found in Section 17.40 of the Municipal Code. Mote that we have recently revised the lodge conversion section and that is not part of our present effort to revise Section i7.40. The staff also proposes that regulations for condominium conversions be a part of the Community Action Plan efifort in conjunction with the development of policies on employee housing. 1~e wi11 have a full discussion of this item at our joint meeting with the Council the first part of 1983. ia~ i• MEMORAitiQ UM TO: Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 28, 1982 SUB,]ECT: Proposed new subdivision regulations Please find enclosed a copy of the ordinance adopting new subdivision regulations for the Town. The ordinance is written as per the Planning and Environmental Commission's recommendation to you. The revisions include the new design standards which dictate how new subdivision improvements with regard to streets, etc. are constructed. _._._. Our existing Subdivision Regulations and.U~sign Standards were adopted in 1870, three ye<~rs after the Town was incorporated. They are quite mir~~-inral , general regulations which gore adequate to control the subdivision of land at that time. Vail 's rapid growth since that time has mandated that we revise our subdivision regulations to address newer types of development ~condom~iniurris, townhouses, timesharing} as we11 as the processe> and procedr~resf'or all subdivision proposals. Indeed}-.-the existing regulations have caused confusion t~rith regard to the processes . and approvals required for such things as condominiumizing adevelopment. 1'he attempf, witi~ the proposal in front of you is to simpl ify i:oday's various and complex types of subdivisions. Of cou,~se, ti~ca objective is to reflect the community's values with regard to each of these provisions, The proposed regulations were arrived at after considerable study on the part of var'iaus staff, P1a~~ning Cornn~ission and Council members. Many di-iferent subdivision regulat-ions were reviewed by staff and a small review committee was formed after the first draft was car~~pleted. Since the review of th` first draft, there have been four more metings and subsequent revisions. The final proposal represents 'the faurt.h draft of the regulations, Very 1 ittle of the existing regulations were retained, as ii: was felt i:,y a71 that there should be a tata'lly new set'of provisions i"or our current values and needs. The following represents a brief description of each chapter of ti~~.~ now regulations: A. Cl•lAi'TE12 17.0 GEifERAL PROVISIONS This chapter sets forth some general s%atements regarding the p~~rpose of the regi.~lations as wet 1 as statements of cam~}1 lance. Also ii~cl uded are the town's remedies for violaf,ions and the jurisdiction the totit~n possc5sses to enforce the regulations. [3. CilAi'TEiZ 17.0~~? DEFINITIONS AfdD Rll[.ES Di= LANCl1RGE CONSTRl1CTION This c~rapter sets forth h€~w various words, usually open tt~ int;erpretatian, will be •dcfirred t~~-ith regard to these reg~riations. This is one of the more important sections in the regulations, as it Heads to be cor~~pleto and spec~~ific enough so that interpretation is kept to a minimum. .y . ~ C. CHAPTER 17,16 MAJOR SUBDIVISION Sub Regs -2- 12/28/82 This chapter outlines the procedures and requirements fora subdivision involviBg more than 4 lots, etc. (see 17.0$210 D). This is one of the most important chapters of any subdivision regulation, as it can shape the design of a major portion of a community. This chapter usually contains the bulk of the sub- division provisions far a community. One may argue that these are unimportant far Vail in 1982 as we are "subdivided out" with regard to this size of parcel. This is not the case,-as the staff is aware of at least two ,proposals which will fall under the jurisdiction of this :.hapter most likely within the next year, The approval process fora major subdivision is•: 1. Consultation with staff. • 2, PEC public hearing on preliminary plan 3, Conci1 right to appeal decision on preliminary plan, 4. PEC public hearing on final plat 5. Council right to appeal and accept/reject dedications One issue which should be discussed in this section is the property dedication requirement (17.16.112). Proposed is requiring 8°6 of the property to be dedicated • to the Town with the stipulations that the .l and must be buildable area and that the developer cannot count this $~ toward his total buildable area on the site. . D. CHAPTER 17,20 MINOR SUBDIVISIONS • This is the procedure to follow for a subdivision involving 4 or less lots or parcels. Basically, this exempts the applicant from the preliminary plan procedures required in a major subdivsion. This means that a final plat is submitted and reviewed by PEC with the Council's right to appeal. E. CHAPTER 17.22 CONDOMINIUM AND TO~INHOUSE PLATS This is a "new" section to the regulations which outlines procedures for obtaining approval of subdividing a multi-family project after its foundations are in place. This is done for ownership purposes and generally delineates common and limited elements (ownership) of a project versus individually owned property. Since this type of subdivision contains no actual subjective type of criteria, it is done at staff level and does not come before the PEC, unless staff's decision is appealed. F. CHAPTER 17.24 DUPLEX SUBDIVISIONS With the number of these types lots in Vail, this is the mast popular farm of subdivision. This subdivision defines ownership of land and property between two individual ownerships on a duplex lot. .As with condominium'and townhouse plats, this is done on a staff level unless appealed. Sue Kegs -3 t ~/~ts/z~~.. ., G. C1iAPTER 17.26 CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOP4INIUM CONVirRSI0N5 • This is a 1978 amendment to the subdivision regulations. This chapter is included as existing, but will be reviewed and revised in 1983 as we revise the zoning code in its entirety. H. CHAPTER 17.28 DESIGN STANDARDS This chapter defines the work done in construction of new subdivisions. It specifies all design criteria needed to construct such things as roads, curbs and gutters, storm sewers, and utility placement. I. CHAPTER 17.30 VARIANCES AND AMENDMENTS This chapter states that these processes will follow the existing ones for such requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed subdivision regulations and design standards, There has been a lot of study and review on~this proposal, and we feel-that it will accomplish our objectives .as stated on page 1 of this memo. The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval of the subdivision regulations on October TT, 1982 and the design standards on November 22. As you'll - recall , we discussed the process for adoption of the various sections of Title 17 - at your work session an October-T9., At that time it was decided to hold everything at Council level until the condominium conversion chapter could be re-written. Upon the staff's initial research on condominium conversions, we find the issues involved, quite complicated and extremely important to VaiT's housing situation. With this in mind, we wish to delay the re-writing of this chapter until later in 1983, after it can be more completely studied (see memo from Department of Community Development to Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission dated December 9, 19$2). At the October 19th work session, we discussed the subdivision regulations, page by page (not including design standards). The following revisions were suggested by Council at that time. You may refer to this list of revisions in your motion on January 4 by referencing this memorandum, thus, including them in the written version of the ordinance at second reading. Council 4~ark Session Revisions as per meet~inc~ on TO/19/f32: 1. p.2, 'i7.0~.010(r,) 2,3,5,E as noted 2. p.17, 17.16.110 delete "effects on the aesti~et-ics of the tot~n" 3. p.10, 17.16.T12 Council wishes to delete section ~~ 4. p.TII, T7.T6.115{c) changed lO days to l'1 days Sub Rags -4- 12/28/82 ~. p. ?_0, ~i11 should read : .. ~~_ .... or co:~parate ti t1 e insurer, that the owner (s) of record dedicating to thn pu61 is the publ ~ic rights-of-t~!ay, areas or faci7 it~fes as sf~rnvr~i i;hereon are thcr owners thereof in f cue s'implc, fray and clear..... 6 . p . 2~i , 17.16 ..f 30 (c) --make na4v x#14: 14. Certificate of ownership --~ma€:e existing #f i ~ new i~15 -~--1 cave the rest the wine 7. p.22, 17.1G.150(5) change to read only: landscaping 8, p. 23, 17.16, 250 4th line ---add "and approved by tFre Town hlanagel~" after fawn Engineer 9, p. 23, new suction : 1 7.1 G.7.05 Filing arld I~ecording The' Depa ri:mcrrt: oi' Ca:#?rn~rn i ty f]evel apmcnt, wi 11 record the plat with the fwagle Counf:y c1c~r~k and r~ecorder. 1-he Gc~rr~~runi-ty i7evelopnrent Oepar~trr~er~t wi 11 retain anr~ my1 ~r r copy of the p1 a L' fGr their records and v~Fi 11 record the rc~mainirtg rnylar copy. 10. p. 25, new section: 17.20.050 Filing and Recar~ding same as 41° above 11 . p.2y, new _section_: 17.24.110 i=iliny and IZecord~ing same as #9 & #10 above 12. p. ?_6, 17.22.030 Gi:h 1 ine insert new sentence --as the approved p1 ans . ~11'f so rcqu~i red to be subm'i tteci 'i s a copy of the condominium docurnerii;s for staff review to assure that there are maintenance provisions included for all commonly--o~~aried areas. A1~€ property pins must..... 13. p. 28, 17.24.030 makE~ tf~e existing parar~r°apf7 }rere a no T with paragraph no. 2 as follows: 2. A copy o+ the declarations and/or covenants attached to the subdivision to assure the maintenance of any common arcras which are being cre~ai:F~d. 14, p.20, ~}4 revise to read: 4. A systematic icientif'ication of ~~11 existing and proposed buildings, lots and blocf<s and names far all streets, 15. P.2G, 1`1.22.030 2nd line: add #4 to numf~ers after 17.1G.130(c} Sub Regs -5- 12/28/82 Please come ~n to our o~f~ce and talk to Peter Patten ~f you have any comments or questions. i•