HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-07 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session c}
F
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
'REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1987
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Approval of June 2, 16 and 30, 1987 Evening Meeting Minutes
2. Final Presentation of the Market/Financial Feasibility Study for the Uail
Aquatic Facility
3. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance amending Special
Development District 5, as established by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1976, by
amending the site plan.
4. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter
10.12 Parking on Private Property of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of
Section 10.12.055 Court Cost Upon Dismissal, and setting forth details in
regard thereto.
5. Ord=nance No. 19, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance approving a
Special Development District (known as SDD No. 16, Elk Meadows) and the
development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
6. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1987, second reading, an ordinance making
supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail Capital Projects Fund, and
the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund of the 1987 budget and financial plan for the
Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations
as set forth herein.
7. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance amending Section
17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail concerning condominium
conversions.
8. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance amending Section
18.54.050 C.13, Section 18.12.090, and Section 18.13.180 of the Vail Municipal
Code.
9. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1987, first reading, an ordinance adding Chapter
18.09 to the Vail Municipal Code, such chapter to be entitled Hillside
Residential District, and setting forth development standards for such zone
district.
10. Doubletree Sign Variance Request
11. Rimel Density Variance Appeal
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
12. Town Manager's Report
13. Adjournment
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1987
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 1. Approval of June 2, 16 and 30, 1987 Evening Meeting Minutes
7:35 2. Final Presentation of the Market/Financial Feasibility Study
Kristan Pritz for the Vail Aquatic Facility
Action Requested of Council: Discuss the report and future
steps for the project. (The Swimming Pool Task Force,
Browne, Bortz & Coddington, and Barker Rinker Seacat
Consultants will be making the presentation.)
Background Rationale: The consultants were hired to
. complete a market/financial feasibility study for the
proposed Vail Aquatic Facility.
8:20 3. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, second reading, amending
Rick Pylman SDD #5, Vail Run Resort
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 16,
Series of 1987, on second reading.
Background Rationale: Vail Run Resort has documented a
severe parking shortage. They are requesting to convert an
existing tennis court to parking. This action would create
a net of 21 new parking spaces.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of
1987, on second reading.
8:40 4. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1987, second reading, amending
Larry Eskwith the Parking on Private Property Chapter of the Municipal
Code
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 18,
, Series of 1987, on second reading.
Background Rationale: Adoption of this section will make
individuals who report private parking violations more
serious about appearing to prosecute violators once Police
write ticket.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of
1987, on second reading.
8:55 5. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, second reading,
Kristan Pritz establishing a Special Development District for The Ualley
Phase III (Elk Meadows)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 19,
Series of 1987, on second reading.
Background Rationale: At the June 8 Planning Commission
meeting, Lamar Capital Corporation requested a major
subdivision and rezoning of The Valley, Phase III from
Residential Cluster to Special Development District with
underlying zoning of Residential Cluster. The PEC approved
both the major subdivision and the Special Davelopment
District zone with a 3-1 vote.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of
1987, on second reading.
9:15 6. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1987, second reading, making a
Steve Barwick Supplemental Appropriation to the Town of Vail Budget
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 20,
Series of 1987, on second reading.
Background Rationale: A suaplemental appropriation is
needed to provide formal approval for expenditures related
to items which could not have been reasonably foreseen or
anticipated by the Town Counc;l at the time it adopted the
1987 budget.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of
1987, on second reading.
9:30 7. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1987, first reading, amending Kristan Pritz the i0V Subdivision Regulations concerning Condominium
Conversions in Section 17.26.075
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 21,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: The applicants are requesting to
amend the condominium conversion section of the Subdivision
Regulations concerning an owner's personal use of a
converted condominium. This request was reviewed by the PEC
on June 22, 1987. The PEC recommended approval.
(Applicants: Mr. Tim Garton, Mr. Dave Garton)
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of
1987, on first reading.
9:50 8. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1987, first reading, Primary/
Rick Pylman Secondary Connection Amendment to Section 18.54.050 C13 of
the Vail Municipal Code
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 22,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Backgr~ind Rationale: The staff is proposing an amendment
to this section of the code following discussions with the
DRB and Town Council. Also, the PEC recommended approval.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of
1987, on first reading.
10:10 9. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1987, first reading, Hillside
Rick Pylman Residential Zone District
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 23,
Series of 1987, on first reading.
Background Rationale: An element of the Land Use Plan was
the creation of a new zone district entitled Hillside
Residential. Community Development staff has designed a
district that we feel meets the intent of the Land Use
Plan. The PEC also recommended approval.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 23, Series of
1987, on first reading.
10:25 10. Doubletree Sign Variance Request
Rick Pylman Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the variance
request.
Background Rationale: This request is for a variance to
heignt, number and square footage allowances for a single
business as categorized by the Sign Code. The request
entails a 20 sq. ft. sign mounted approximately 60 ft. high
on the north elevation of the building. The DRB recommended
approval.
-2-
;
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the request.
10:45 11. Rimel-Density Variance Appeal
Rick Pylman,
Action Requested of Council: Uphold or overturn the PEC
decision.
Backgraund Rationale: The PEC approved a density variance
deck enclosure of approximately 79 sq. ft. The Council has
called up the decision for further review.
Staff Recommendation: Overturn the PEC decision and deny
the request.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
12. Town Manager's Report
13. Adjournment
~
-3-
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 2, 1987
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 2, 1987, at 7:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Johnston, Mayor
Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem .
Eric Affeldt
Gordon Pierce
MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
John Slevin
Hermann Staufer
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
- The first order of business was approval of the May 5 and 19, 1987 meetings minutes.
After a short discussion, there was a correction noted to be made on the May 5
minutes. The corrected sentence should read "2. Joe Staufer reimburse the Town of
Vail for improvements/move of the Ski Museum, up to $75,000 with the completion of
Phase V." Kent Rose made a motion to approve the minutes with the noted correction,
which was seconded by Gordon Pierce. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 4-0. - -
The second item was an appointment of a Local Liquor Licensing Authority Board Member.
Jack Curtin's term ended, and he reapplied for the position. There were no other
applicants for his seat. There was no discussion by the public or Council. A motion
to reappoint Jack to the Board was made by Kent Rose and seconded by Gordon Pierce. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0.
The third item for discussion was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1987, first reading,
annexing East Intermountain to the Town of Vail. Mayor Johnston read the title in
full. Ron Phillips gave brief background information on the annexing area. There was
no discussion by Council or the public. A motion to approve the ordinance was made by
Gordon Pierce and seconded by Kent Rose. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 4-0.
Next on the agenda was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, first reading, amending
Special Development District 5(Vail Run Resort) by amending the site plan. The full
title was read by Mayor Johnston. Rick Pylman explained what the ordinance would do
and the history of the area involved. He also stated the impacts of the new parking
site and answered questions by Council. Chris Neuswanger stated his concerns. Jay
Peterson raised a question regarding if Gordon Pierce had a conflict under the Charter
since he was the architect of the parking lot plans. Larry Eskwith stated he felt
there was a conflict. Jay then requested the item be tabled for two weeks. Peter
Patten stated there would not be any final approval, but that Vail Run could begin the
Design Review Board process after the first reading on June 16. At this time, a few
citizens explained their problems and concerns over the project. Afterwards, a motion
to table the ordinance for two weeks was made by Eric Affeldt and seconded by Kent
Rose. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0.
Under Citizen Participation, Robin Baker of Eagle River Whitewater rafting asked the
Council to let them operate on a trial basis before turning them down altogether.
Gordon Pierce and Kent Rose agreed, and Eric Affeldt disagreed. Mayor Johnston said
he had reservations, but would be willing to give it a try. The rafting company is to
call the golf course and tell them when the rafts will be going down, so they can see
what the effects are. It was also decided the agreement would be for the month of
June only. Gordon Pierce felt they should look into the Ford Park entry idea.
Gunther Hofler was for the rafting idea very much.
Ron Phillips stated he had only one item for the Town Manager's report. He reported
on bus ridership for May 1987 compared to May 1986. The shuttle for Golden Peak to
Lionshead was up 66%, East Vail was down by 16%, and the West Vail and Sandstone
routes were up from last year, for a total of a 45% increase over last year.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
~
-c-
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 16, 1987
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 16, 1987, at
7:30 p.m. in the Cowncil Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEh16ERS PRESENT: Paul Johnston, Mayor
Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
Gordon Pierce
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Slevin
Hermann Staufer
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first order of business was a ten year employment anniversary award for Charlie
Turnbull, a Town of Vail Heavy Equipment Operator II. Ron Phillips introduced
Charlie and gave him a silver Town of Vail belt buckle. Pete Burnett and Stan
Berryman stated they were pleased and honored to have Charlie work for them and
commended him on his good attitude and sense of humor. Mayor Johnston said the
Council appreciated Charlie's commitment and his loyalty to the Town.
The second item was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1987, second reading, adopting the
1987 Edition of the Uniform Electric Code by reference. The entire title of the
ordinance was read by Mayor Johnston. Peter Patten explained they had received a
letter from the State raising the fees very slightly that day. After a brief
discussion, it was noted the increase in fees would be included in the ordinance on
second reading, and it would just be published in full. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
made a motion to approve the ordinance, and Kent Rose seconded. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The third item for discussion was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1987, second reading,
annexing East Intermountain to the Town of Vail. Mayor Johnston read the title in
full. Larry Eskwith gave a brief explanation of what the ordinance would do and
thanked Bobbi Salzman and everyone who worked hard to make this annexation happen.
There was no discussion by Council or the public. A motion to approve the ordinance
was made by Gordon Pierce and seconded by Kent Rose. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, first reading, amending Special
Development District 5(Vail Run Resort) by amending the site plan. The full title
was read by Mayor Johnston. Rick Pylman explained what the amendment would do and
gave background information on the area. He noted the impacts to Simba Run and
explained why the PEC approved the amendment unanimously. Gordon Pierce stated he
would have to abstain from voting since he did the architectural work on the plans.
Larry Eskwith then requested the Council to include two findings in the motion - 1)
that the SDD zoning is in conformance with Town of Vail zoning, and 2) was for the
general welfare of the citizens of Vail. Jay Peterson, representing Vail Run, asked
that the item be tabled temporarily. Vail Run and Simba Run representatives were in
another room working out an agreement which should be concluded shortly. Kent Rose
~ then made a motion to temporarily table the ordinance, and Eric Affeldt seconded. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The fifth item was Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1987, first reading, amending the
parking on private property chapter of the Municipal Code. Mayor Johnston read the
title in full. Larry Eskwith briefly explained what the ordinance would do. Mike
Cacioppo asked questions to which Larry responded. Kent Rose made a motion to
approve this ordinance, and Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item discussed was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1987, first reading, making
a supplemental appropriation to the Town of Uail budget. The full title was read by
Mayor Johnston. Steve Barwick explained what the supplemental appropriation was for
r _
and discussed a few changes made since last week's Work Session. Mike Cacioppo
asked questions, to which Steve and Council responded, and stated his concerns. Ken
Wilson asked questions regarding how the Council made their choice for the Town
Manager's residence and explained the problems he saw. Cynthia Steitz, Chris
Neuswanger, Mike Cacioppo and Diana Donovan commented on their concerns regarding
the house. Ray Story, who helped Town staff plan a schematic design, explained what
was planned. Cynthia Steitz again stated her concerns over the costs planned for
the Town Manager's house and over West Vail street assessments; she felt the money
should be spent there. Gordon Pierce explained that street assessments were made
because the streets were inherited from the County, and East Vail residents did not
want to help pay to improve them. Charlie Wick gave a history of the Town Managers'
housing problems and why he felt it was an appropriate long term investment for the
Town. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal made a motion to approve the ordinance, with the
deletion of the Town Manager's residence improvements until an appraisal was
completed, and this motion was seconded by Eric Affeldt. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item was the return ofi Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1987, first reading,
amending Special Development District 5(Vail Run Resort) by amending the site plan.
The full title was read by Mayor Johnston. Kent Rose made a motion to take the
ordinance off the table, and Gordon Pierce seconded. A vote was made and the motion
passed unanimously 5-0. Jay Peterson, representing Vail Run, stated that they had
worked out their differences with Simba Run. He explained they had agreed to
certain items which should be included in the ordinance, which he would give to
Larry Eskwith. He read their list of items agreed upon:
1. Parking will be primarily for employees and long-term residents; no
commercial vans are to be par,ked there.
2. No snow is to be moved on to Simba Run property.
3. A buffer is to be agreed upon~by both parties, with the approval of the
Design Review Board.
4. The landscape plan will feature a minimum amount of ten foot spruce trees,
adequate to locate one tree for every eight feet around the parking lot.
5. A five foot berm will be.placed around the parking lot.
~ 6. There is to be no lighting around the parking lot unless required by the
- Town of Vail.
7. The lighting on the ramp is to be no higher than four feet.
Chris Neuswanger stated his problems with the proposed ordinance. Nicholas
Giancamilli, representing Simba Run, stated that what Jay presented was pretty much
what they wanted to accomplish. Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the ordinance
. with the additional language read by Jay Peterson, and Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
seconded. Peter Patten then stated his concerns that the DRB may have problems with
the eight foot spacing between the trees around the area and also no lighting around
the parking lot. Jay explained he only used the number of trees as the minimum to
be purchased, and that there would be no lighting around the parking lot "unless
required by the Town". Larry Eskwith requested that Eric include the findings that
the SDD zoning is in conformance with Town of Vail zoning and is in the general
welfare of the citizens of Vail. Eric Affeldt included these findings in his
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0, with Gordon Pierce abstaining.
The eighth item was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, first reading, establishing a
Special Development District for The Valley Phase III (Elk Meadows). Mayor Johnston
read the title in full. Kristan Pritz showed the Council current drawings and gave ,
detailed background information on the area. She also detailed items included in
the ordinance. She noted staff recommended approval with five conditions:
1. The development of each building envelope will comply with the
environmental impact report, especially the design recommendations cited
by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in a letter concerning design mitigations for rock
fall hazards. Each individual owner will be responsible for completing
the rockfall mitigation measure per the Pettigrove letter. Studies will
meet the standards outlined in Section 18.69.052 of the Town of Vail
zoning code. An owner may choose to have another qualified
engineer/geologist design appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as
long as the mitigation solution does not have negative visual impacts and
-2-
is approved by the Town of,_Vail Community Development Department and Town
Engineer. -
2. The proposed preliminary landscape plan and design review guidelines will
be reviewed by the Design Review Board for their approval before final
plat submittal.
3. The applicant agrees to revegetate the access road if the general
subdivision improvements are not completed by September 1, 1989. General
subdivision improvements are defined in Section 17.16.150 of the Town of
Vail Subdivision Regulations.
4. The declaration of protective covenants for the Elk Meadow Subdivision
states that design guidelines "may be adopted". The staff would require
that the wording be changed to state that design guidelines "shall be
adopted". The full paragraph would read: "Guidelines for the development
of the building envelopes and tracts shall be adopted by the Committee,
which shall, among other things, interpret and/or implement the provisions
of these protective covenants. Guidelines may be amended from time to
time with the majority vote of approval from the Committee and approval of
the Town of Uail Design Review Board. The guidelines will be available
from the chair of the Design Committee and Town of Vail Community
Development Department."
5. The following engineering information will be submitted to staff by June
15, 1987:
a. The revised master drainage plan.
b. The preliminary plan will be revised to show the new turn-around
dimension on the west end of the property.
c. The road plan will have an engineer's stamp. The preliminary plan
will be adjusted for square footage totals due to the removal of the
four guest parking spaces on the west end of the project.
d. A letter from Nick Lampiris will be submitted to address the rockfall
design requirements. A graphic is suggested.
e. Gas line and fire hydrants will be indicated on the utility plan in
the appropriate areas.
Kent Rose stated he wanted it made clear to the public that mitigation was
recommended for the structure only. Peter Patten commented that rockfall
mitigation would be decided upon by the engineer and explained why the burden would
be put on theowners to do the mitigation. Peter Jamar explained how the rockfall
mitigation was developed and how it was similar to other areas. Kristan stated the
PEC did approve both requests, with J.J. Collins being the only one to vote against.
After some discussion by Council, Kent Rose made a motion to approve this ordinance
with the inclusion of a requirement that a letter from Nick Lampiris outlining his
opinion of whether or not mitigation is necessary for the open space area of the
subdivision be submitted before a second reading of the ordinance, and Gail
Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-
0. At this time, a typographical error was noted on Section 4, Item 12. There
should be a dollar mark before the .30. Kristan then explained the Council
needed to make a motion to approve/disapprove the request for a major subdivision in
compliance with major subdivision requirements. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal made the
motion to approve the subdivision, which Gordon Pierce seconded. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The ninth item for discussion was the Town of Vail Auditors' 1986 financial report.
Charlie Wick introduced Jerry McMahan and Steve Thompson, head auditor, of McMahan,
Armstrong and Kenney. Jerry explained the Town was in compliance with requirements
and in very good condition at the end of 1986. He gave highlights of the audit
document and an overview of the Town's financial position. Charlie Wick made
comments on investments made during last year, then Jerry McMahan answered questions
of Council.
The next item was Resolution No. 20, Series of 1987, extending the SDD 14 approval
(Doubletree Hotel). Tom Braun explained what the resolution was for and gave
background information on the SDD. He then explained why the staff recommended
-3-
deniai. Tom stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the
extension for one year only with the following recommendations to Council:
1. The Town Council look at the parking requirements; it seems they may be
overly restrictive.
2. The Applicant initiate talks with the Vail Valley Medical Center like last
year regarding shared parking.
Peter Jamar, representing Vail Holdings, urged the Council to hire a third party to
study lodges, hotels, etc. parking needs; he did not feel it would be near as much
as what was required. He commented the Applicant would agree to a twelve month
period, and the landscape plan is underway and should be done by September 1, 1987.
After some discussion by Council, Mayor Johnston made a motion to approve the
ordinance, conditional on the landscape plan being completed. Kent Rose seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item of business was an appeal of a PEC decision on a request for a density
variance to enclose ten decks at Treetops Building No. 2. Eric Affeldt called up
this item because he noticed they were breaking new ground by enclosing the decks.
Kristan Pritz reviewed the reasons the PEC approved the enclosures:
1. There was a minimal amount of increased GRFA.
2. Substantial landscaping will be done in excess of that required with the
fact that this was a major emphasis of the proposal and did not include
maintenance and upgrading which would normally be required.
3. Balconies remain for each unit and are usable.
Peter Patten gave additional background information on the item. Staff recommended
approval of the exterior alteration, but denial of the density variance. Diana
Donovan commented on why and how the PEC made its decision. Tom Briner commented on
why he felt the variance should be granted. Gordon Pierce made a motion to uphold
the PEC decision to approve the request, and Kent,Rose seconded. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing.
Under Citizen Participation, Diana Donovan remarked she was upset that the four-way
was cold and uninviting now with the new street lights. Stan Berryman explained the
design approvals by the State, and that we actually were able to get ten foot
shorter posts and non-standard lights approved.
Ron Phillips stated there would be no Town Manager's report.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-4-
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 30, 1987
7:30 P.M.
A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 30, 1987, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Johnston, Mayor
Eric Affeldt
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
Gordon Pierce
John Slevin
Hermann Staufer
MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
_ Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first order of business was the Phase I report of the Congress Hall feasibility
analysis. Ron Phillips gave a brief introduction of the item. Tom Braun then
explained this Phase I was the market analysis and after the presentation, Council
would be asked to decide if staff should progress on to Phase II which will deal
with location and economics of a Congress Hall. He then introduced Dick McElyea,
Executive Vice President of Economic Research Associates, who explained what ERA has
done to this point and introduced his staff who were involved in the project. Julie
Burford of ERA stated the four principal tasks of completing this Phase:
1. Overview of the meetings market and analysis of market availability.
2. Evaluation of Vail as a conference/convention destination.
3. The competitive environment.
4. Market support for a Vail Congress Hall.
She then gave in-depth information on each item. She reported the next steps in
Phase II would be:
1. Site/location/urban design analysis.
2. Program refinement.
3. Estimate of development costs.
4. Operations analysis.
5. Economic impact and cost/benefit analysis.
6. Strategy plan for financing and implementation.
She then answered questions from Council and the public. Pepi Gramshammer commented
on why he felt the town should have a Congress Hall and presented to the Council a
petition signed by 1,200 people in favor of a Congress Hall. Dale McCall stated he
was for the Congress Hall and the Town should proceed on to Phase II. There was
then some discussion by Council. Pepi Gramshammer urged the Council to make a
decision now to start plans for a Congress Hall so it would be ready in time for the
World Alpine Ski Championships in 1989, and not to wait for a report on Phase II.
Julie Burford responded by saying she agreed with Pepi, but that planning was a very
important part of the process, and the Town should be very careful if it proceeded
quickly. After a few remarks from David Kanally, who agreed with Julie, and David
Ross, who concurred with Pepi, Gordon Pierce made a motion to move on to Phase II,
and Hermann Staufer seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously
6-0.
At this time, Mayor Johnston noted he had been approached by members of the public
who felt the Congress Hall would happen faster if done by the private sector. He
wanted it known that Council would be open to any proposals presented to them.
The second item on the agenda was Resolution No. 21, Series of 1987, adopting a
safety and loss control policy for the Town of Vail. Steve Barwick explained the
resolution's primary purpose and that the Town could expect major reductions in its
insurance policies once this resolution was in effect. Eric Affeldt then made a
motion to approve the resolution, which was seconded by John Slevin. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Steve Barwick next brought before Council an item not on the agenda, liability
insurance. He discussed information on the insurance, the differences between
"occurrence" and "claims made" policies and the pros and cons of each. After some
discussion by Council, a motion to accept an "occurrence" policy at $162,400 was
made by Eric Affeldt, and seconded by Gordon Pierce. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-2-
TO: Town Council
FROM: Swimming Pool Task Force: Tim Garton, Chair, George Knox,
Lizette Lamb, Duane Piper, and John Slevin.
Staff: Steve Barwick, Pat Dodson, Kristan Pritz
DATE: July 7, 1987
SUBJECT: Swimming Pool Task Force Final Report
In February of 1986, the Town Council appointed an 8 member task force
to begin research on the Aquatic Facility. A first phase report was
completed in August of 1986. The firms of Browne, Bortz & Coddington
and Barker-Rinker-Seacat were hired to do a market and financial
feasibility study in the spring of 1987. A summary of their report is
attached to this memo as well as a copy of the entire report.
PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE POOL PROJECT
The Swimming Pool Task Force feels that the project is supported by
the community due to the favorable comments highlighted below:
1. The Ford Park Master Planning process indicated that the pool was
the highest priority for a recreational facility. Three public
meetings and one general survey all listed the pool as a top
priority.
2. A 1,600 signature petition was.submitted by community members to
the Council. Several petitions had also been presented earlier.
3. At the 1987 public hearings sponsored by the Town Council, the
pool was one of the top priority capital improvement projects.
Other top priority items were the development of the Town parks
and providing money for marketing of Vail through VRA. These
meetings were attended by approximately 75 - 100 members of the
community.
4. The Eagle County Recreation Survey which was just completed also
indicates that the pool is the top priority for locals. Below
are the results from a survey question designed to gather
opinions on recreation priorities:
More respondents, to date, indicate a new indoor pool than
any other category, and the average dollar amount allocated
to the "indoor/outdoor swimming complex" is the highest,
$18.00+. Bike trails are the second highest priority by
this measure ($11.04), followed by an indoor recreation
center with a gym ($10.17). What we are seeing is a
consistent pattern of support for the swimming complex and
the idea of new bike trails by residents of all parts of the
County, although the strength of support for a pool facility
is most evident Up-Valley (east of Edwards). (Survey
Summary p. 5, Rosall Remmen & Cares, Inc.)
5. At the request of the Swimming Pool Task Force, Vail Associates
surveyed skiers during the 1986-87 ski season to gauge the level
of interest in the proposed aquatic facility. Visitor interest
was quite high. Approximately 75% of residents, 28% of day
skiers, and 34% of destination skiers indicated a positive
interest in a swimming complex. (BBC and BRS report, pg. 22)
VAIL AQUATIC CENTER CONCEPT
The proposed facility is a comprehensive multipurpose aquatic center
that offers the greatest number of activities for the greatest number
of people possible. It is the intention of the Task Force to create a
unique, high quality, tourist oriented facility that offers enhanced
recreation alternatives for Vail area guests and provides local
residents with an opportunity for recreation, instruction and training
uses. The pool is designed so that it has the ability to cover its
operating costs and make a profit which can be used to pay off debt
service.
The facility's size and amenities were chosen after extensive
interviews with other facility operators and recreation complex
managers across the country. The center will provide for water safety
instruction, fitness swimming, competitive swimming, diving, water
polo, synchronized swimming, water therapy, recreational play and many
other uses. With an amusement pool as the focal point of the center,
the aquatic facility becomes a major visitor attraction that spans all
seasons. As presently conceived, the aquatic center contains four key
elements:
o Amusement pool which includes several pools on multiple
levels with a variety of slides, waterfalls, fountains,
sprays, bubblers and other entertainments.
o Support space which would include dressing/shower rooms,
lounges, offices, storage, pro shops, food service,
mechanical equipment and other support functions.
o Indoor muli-use ool, a 25 meter by 25 yard pool designed
for multi-purpose uses including diving, instruction, lap
swimming, kayak instruction, scuba instruction, physical
therapy, water polo, synchronized swimming and water games.
0 Outdoor recreation pool, an outdoor 50 meter by 25 yard pool
suitable for general recreation, instruction, fitness,
training, and competition uses during mild weather.
2
Cost components include:
Cateqor_y Price
Amusement Pool _ $ 652,000
_ (Enclosure) 2,400,000
Support Space 900,000
Indoor Multipurpose Pool 261,000
(Enclosure) 1,210,000
Outdoor Recreation Pool 590,000
Architectural Engineering Fees 400,000
Furnishings 50,000
Total $6,463,450
Additional costs not listed above include landscaping and site
development.
Analytical Approach
In conducting this analysis, the consultant team developed a
computerized forecasting model that integrates Vail economic
demographic trends, market acceptance expectations and cost/revenue
assumptions to produce forecasts of net revenues associated with the
Vail Aquatic Facility operations. In this process, project revenue
forecasts, and thus estimates of project feasibility, are derived
under a variety of alternative assumptions.regarding prospective
community development, possible entrance fees and charges, and
alternative utilization rates.
Operating Costs
Operating costs have been calculated based on project design and the
experience of other facilities. The following costs are anticipated:
Cateqory Cost
Management/operations $ 425,000
Promotion/advertising - 45,000
Utilities (water, electricity, HVAC) 280,000
Supplies 45,000
Insurance 50,000
Miscellaneous 20,000
Total $ 865,000
The Browne, Bortz and Coddington report states that the cost of the
facility approaches $ 6.5 million. Total revenues are estimated to be
$1.083 million annually, while operating costs are expected to reach
$865,000. Net revenues, after a reasonable start up period and
marketing effort, are projected to exceed $210,000 per year. If
3
operated under present market conditions, and with competitive
entrance fees, annual aquatic center attendance levels are expected to
exceed 170,000 visitor days plus use by school children (please see
BBC's "Summary and Conclusion Memo" and the full report for more
detailed information).
COMMUNITY EDUCATION ON THE PROJECT
During the month of June, the Swimming Pool Task Force met
individually with community groups to explain the project. Meetings
were held with Vail Associates, the Vail Resort Association, the Board
of Realtors, the Rotary Club, and a general public meeting was held on
June 17th. We felt that it was very important to explain the details
of this project to the community due to the fact that at first glance
the project appears to be grandiose and expensive. We feel that our
meetings were a success in that the community had the chance to really
understand the full intent of the project. Several important
questions were brought up during these meetings which the task force
would like to address:
1. IS FORD PARK REALLY THE BEST LOCATION FOR THE AQUATIC FACILITY?
WILL THE FACILITY HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE AMPHITHEATRE AND
SOFTBALL FIELDS DUE TO ITS SIZE.
The Ford Park location was originally chosen during the master
planning process for Ford and Donovan Parks. At that time, THK
was asked to locate the pool on one of these two parcels. It was
determined that the east end of Ford Park was most suited for a
pool facility. As stated in the plan:
"Both the survey data and the public meeting input showed
the swimming pool to be the highest priority for a
recreational facility. Once again, the consultant
recommends that the best location for the swimming pool
. would be the center of the Village where access, parking,
and support facilities would be available. Since there is
no known available site in the Village, Ford Park was chosen
for the location of a pool facility.... The consultants also
feel that whatever the pool complex becomes, it should offer
more in the way of aquatic recreation than just the lap pool
and diving boards. This is not to suggest a wave action
pool, but something more imaginative. This would be one
sure way of helping the facility pay for itself." (Ford
Park Master Plan Document pg 19)
The Swimming Pool Task Force also did a site analysis that looked
at the following locations as far as their potential to handle an
aquatic facility: Town of Vail Municipal Building site, east end
of Lionshead Parking Structure, east end of the Village Parking _
Structure in the area of the basketball court, east end of Ford
Park, west end of Ford Park and Donovan Park. It was determined
that the east end of Ford Park was the best location. The site
study looked at a site's characteristics in respect to parking,
views, visibility, adequate land, water table, proximity to other
facilites, sun exposure, etc.
4
The Task Force decided to continue using the Ford Park location,
as it has some very positive characteristics which will make it a
workable site for the pool facility:
1. The site has a beautiful view of the creek and ski
mountain. The site is very well suited for a pool that
may have both an indoor and outdoor exposure.
2. The site has good sun exposure.
3. The site is very visible from the ski mountain and from
I-70.
4. The site is in close proximity to guests and locals.
5. This location supports existing recreational
activities. Presently in the park an amphitheatre and
three sofball fields exist. The other activities and
facilities that have been planned through the Ford Park
Master Plan should be complemented by a pool in this
location.
6. Access is readily available.
7. The site is on an existing bus line.
8. The utilities are available.
9. Adequate space is available for parking on site.
10. The size of the site is adequate to handle a high
quality pool facility.
11. Potential expansion for further structured recreation
is feasible.
The Task Force believes that the pool facility can be buffered
from the amphitheatre so that conflicts are minimized. The
facility can also be contained on the eastern portion of the park
so that it does not impact the softball fields. We have
scheduled a site visit to Ford Park for the work session so that
the Council can review the proposed site.
If people have suggestions on alternative sites, the Task Force
would be very willing to discuss these options.
2. WHAT DOES THE POOL DO TO INCREASE OUR ATTRACTIVENESS AS A
RESORT?
The Task Force contacted Steamboat Springs, Winter Park,
5
Breckenridge and Whistler Springs to try to get numbers on the
increase of visitors due to their pool facilities or alpine
• slides. These resorts did not document their tourism numbers in
such a way that the increased tourism due to the specific
facilities could be broken out of their overall tourism
statistics. However, managers and resort agencies all stated
that the facilities increased guest visits and helped very much
to diversify visitor activities. In addition, the amenities
encourage guests to extend their visits by providing one more
guest experience. Recently, the VRA has developed a pocket sized
guide for Summer Vail that lists guest activities on a day by day
basis for seven days. Our opinion is that the aquatic facility,
once completed, would be an attractive "day 8" to add to this
brochure. Secondly, recent recreation survey data has indicated
that activities for teens are lacking in our community. The pool
facility would be a very high quality family oriented experience
which would be an attraction, particularly for children and
teens. The Task Force believes strongly that these are important
factors our community should consider.
3. IS IT REALLY FEASIBLE THAT THE VAIL ECONOMY AND POPULATION CAN
SUPPORT A POOL OF THIS MAGNITUDE? WHY NOT BUILD A SMALL POOL AND
ADD ON IF THE DEMAND WARRANTS?
The three-pool concept has been designed with the local and guest
needs in mind. It was felt that to create a very basic municipal
pool would only create a project that continued to absorb public
funds throughout its existence. The three-pool concept has been
designed in such a way that all three pools have a purpose and
meet certain community needs and taken together, provide a type
of synergy to make the whole project work. Without the amusement
pool, it is very unlikely that the pool has any chance of being
able to cover its operating expenses. The Task Force looked at
the possibility of phasing for the pool and determined that in
order to make the project work financially, phasing was not a
viable approach. Also, in interviewing other pool managers, a
recurring comment was that they had built their pool too
small. They wished that they had thought about what the pool
facility could have become by using a more comprehensive and
imaginative project development approach. The Task Force has
taken this information to heart and has tried to design a pool
that is attractive to guests and locals and also financially
responsible to the community. We also intend to further study
each pool element, particularly the amusement pool to refine
programming needs and design of the facility.
4. HOW SHOULD THE POOL COSTS BE PAID?
Possible public funding sources are listed below and further
discussions with the community and Council are warranted.
6
3 . .
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE:
$615,000/year for 20 years (at current interest rates)
FUNDING SOURCES:
Property Taxes: Yield: $130,000 per mill
$615,000/$130,000 = 4.7 mills needed
Example of cost to Vail Home Owner:
Residential property with 1985 market value of $100,000
is valued at 21% of market value x .21
to produce an assessed valuation of $ 21,000
A mill levy of 4.7 x .0047
produces an annual tax of $ gg,
Sales Tax Yield: 10 =$1.9 million annually
$615,000/$1,900,000 = 0.32% sales tax needed
Current Revenue Sources:
The latest Town of Vail multi-year budget projection prepared by
staff indicates that sufficient funding for one project of this
cost will become available in 1990 or 1991.
Vail Metropolitan Recreation District:
The VMRD should have approximately $400,000 per year available
beginning in 1990. It is quite possible that the VMRD board may
commit to using these funds to help pay a portion of the debt
service on an aquatic facility.
Operating Revenue:
It should also be noted that our figures indicate that
approximately $200,000 plus would be available to offset bond
indebtedness.
Some type of private support for the project may be feasible.
Private support could possibly be combined with public sources of
funding for the project. If it can be shown that the facility
will produce an annual operating surplus, it is likely that a
private operator would also commit to funding a portion of the
capital costs. Once again, it must be emphasized that the
amusement pool is an important part of making this project
attractive to private participants.
7
5. HOW NNCH WILL IT COST FOR A LOCAL TO USE THE POOL?
The Browne, Bortz and Coddington study assumes that the fee for
local residents will be $4.00 per visit. Persons may join the
facility through a family membership at "an annual cost of $175."
An average revenue per guest will be $7.50 per visit. School
children would swim through scholarships or $1 rate per time.
6. IS IT REALISTIC THAT THE WINTER GUEST WILL WANT TO USE THE
SWIMMING POOL?
As stated in the BBC report, certain skier demographic trends
indicate that the pool would be an attractive facility for the
winter guest:
. An aging skier population which is more leisurely oriented
. An increasing tendency not to ski every day during a ski
vacation
. A stated desire (VA survey results) to see more and
different tourist activities available within the Vail
Valley
. Growth of the family visitor market with children who would
be attracted to an aquatic facility.
Nationwide, amusement pools and aquatic entertainment centers
have been extremely successful. Numerous towns, private
investors and special districts have responded to this trend away
from traditional swimming facilities. Similarly, the sport of
swimming is gaining in popularity as a source of low risk aerobic
exercise.
Leisure facilities are principally attractive to children and
young adults. According to Vail Associates survey data, over 25%
of summer visitors'are accompanied by children and 400 of all
winter guests are under 30 years old. Given these trends, the
Task Force feels strongly that the pool has a great potential to
be an attraction for the winter as well as summer guest.
7. IS THE POOL FACILITY IN COMPETITION WITH THE CONGRESS HALL?
This question has been raised several times and seems to indicate
that people feel that either they will have the Congress Hall or
the Swimming Facility. The Task Force feels that both projects
have their specific merits and that the question should not be
looked at as an either/or issue. We would recommend that both
projects be encouraged to research private funding options to
minimize public funding as much as possible. The Task Force has
already taken on this responsibility by doing some preliminary
research in respect to private sector participation in the
project.
8
8. SHOULD THE SWIMMING POOL COMPLEX BE COMBINED WITH AN OVERALL
RECREATION CENTER?
The Task Force discussed this issue and decided that a full blown
recreation complex may become too competitive with existing
athletic clubs in the valley. There is the potential that the
swimming pool complex could have some general recreation
facilities associated with it such as an aerobic and weight room
area, and indoor basketball court and a multi-purpose room.
However, at this time, the Task Force has tried to focus on the
issue of a pool and not dilute the focus of the study.
The Town Council has also requested that the Community
Development Department staff review the Eagle County Recreation
Survey results to determine if there are some critical needs for
recreation center type uses which could be incorporated into the
recreation facility.
CONCLUSION
The next steps for the project would be to:
1. Hear from the Council as to their position on the project
and level of support for the proposal.
2. Hear from the VMRD as to their position on the project and
level of support for the proposal.
3. Address any further questions concerning the location of the
pool facility.
4. Refine the design and programming for the facility.
5. Determine appropriate funding methods.
6. Secure funding.
7. Organize an architectural competition for the pool
building.
The Task Force is very interested and enthusiastic about continuing
with the project and has recommended the steps above to bring us
closer to the completion of the project.
The Task Force would like to thank the Vail Town Council and Vail Town
Manager for funding and supporting this research. Thanks are also
given to the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District for funding a
portion of the travel costs which gave the Task Force and consultant
the opportunity to visit several pool facilities around the country.
In addition, thanks are owed to Vail Associates for incorporating
swimming pool issues in their ongoing guest surveying efforts and for
providing information throughout this study.
9
~
~
FEASIBILITY STUDY:
~ THE YAIL AQUATIC CENTER
~
~s
~
~
~
~
~
- - Prepared for -
~
~ Town of Vail and
The Vail Swimming Pool Task Force
~
~
t_.
L - Prepared by -
~ Ford C. Frick, Stephen A. Strauss and
Elizabeth A. Fischer
- Browne, Bortz & Coddington, Inc.
155 South Madison Street, Suite 230
; Denver, Colorado 80209
And
¢
~ Barker • Rinker • Seacat & Partners, Architects, P.C.
- 2546 15th Street
Denver, Colorado 80211
F
i
April 1987
~
~
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
y-33
B
~t
3
Paqe
-r Introduction iv
;
~
' Summary and Conclusions
vi
SECTION I. VAIL AQUATIC CENTER 1
Facility Design 1
z Site Considerations 3
~
~
z SECTION II. ANALYTICAL APPROACH 7
~ Economic/Demographic Element 7
~ Market Identification and Size Assumptions 10
_ Market Capture Assumptions 12
~ Revenue Assumptions 13
~
_ Operating Costs 14
SECTION III. MARKET CAPTURE CONSIDERATIONS 17
~
- Whistler Springs Experience 17
Steamboat Springs lg
~ City of Westminster 19
Existing Vail Aquatic Opportunities 19
Other Facilities and Areas Z1
I Survey Data 22
Market Trends 23
Other Feasibility Studies 24
I SECTION IV. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 26
Economic/Demographic Assumptions 26
I Market Capture Assumptions 26
User Fees 29
Useage Forecasts 30
~ Annual Revenues 30
Operating Costs . 30
Project Feasibility 30
~ Limitations 31
3
~
t
~
f
1
. 'I 1
~
~
INTRODUCTION
'
~ This study presents the results of Browne, Bort2 & Coddington's
~ (BBC) investigations into the market prospects and financial feasibility of a
multipurpose aquatic center in Vail, Colorado. BBC was assisted in this
effort by Barker • Rinker • Seacat & Partners (BRS). The project was
~ conducted for the Town of Vail Swimming Pool Task Force under direction of the
Town of Vail Community Development Department.
~ Background
3
In February 1986, the Vail Town Council appointed a Town Swimming
; Pool Task Force to study the issue of building a municipal swimming pool in
~ Vail. A first phase report was forthcoming in August of 1986. The Task Force
concluded that a swimming pool was a valuable and desired community asset. In
particular, the Task Force recommended a multipool concept that would provide
~ indoor and outdoor aquatic experience for training, competition, leisure and
' recreation uses. Emphasis was placed on designing a facility that could serve
local residents and visitors. A second phase was commissioned, during which
~ this report was prepared, to investigate the financial feasibility of the
~ aquatic center, the level of community support for such a concept and the
experience of other communities in developing recreational pools.
~
~ Report Objectives
I In December of 1986, the project team of BBC and BRS was selected to
complete a feasibility study of the proposed Vail Aquatic Center. The
purposes of this study were threefold:
( • Provide further guidance in the pool development
concept.
I • Analyze and document prospective market acceptance of a
recreational pool in Vail, Colorado.
~ • Further refine capital and operating cost estimates.
This report summarizes the consultants efforts. In addition, the Task Force
has completed a number of site visits to facilities elsewhere in the United
~ States and conducted a variety of separate evaluations of their own.
~ Report Organization
~ The following report is divided into four sections. Section I pro-
- vides an overview of the proposed facility including a schematic drawing at
3 the Gerald R. Ford Park site. Section II documents the analytical approach
, used in conducting this analysis including a discussion of the BBC financial
- feasibility model. Section III provides a discussion of the various consider-
ations underlying estimates of potential market capture. This section sum-
; marizes the experience of similar operations and the knowledge gained through
_ interviews with facility operators and owners. Finally, Section IV presents
the financial pro forma and determinations of financial feasibility.
iv
_ Acknowledqments
This project was under the direction of Ford C. Frick from Browne,
Bortz & Coddington. Facility design and cost estimates were provided by Mr.
Ron Rinker from Barker . Rinker • Seacat, Architects. The consultant team's
work on this effort was overseen by the Town of Vail staff, particularly Mr.
Pat Dodson, Director, Town of Vail Recreation Department, and Ms. Kristan
- Pritz, Town of Vail Community Development Department.
The Swimming Pool Task Force included Mr. Steve Barwick, Mr. George
_ Knox, Ms. Lizette Lamb, Mr. Dwayne Piper, Mr. Gordon Pierce and Councilman
John Slevin. Task Force direction was provided by Mr. Timothy R. Garton. All
of their efforts, which were provided above and beyond their own personal and
business responsibilities, are very much appreciated.
Additionally, thanks are owed to Vail Associates for incorporating
swimming pool issues in their ongoing guest surveying efforts and for provid-
ing information throughout this study. Acknowledgement is also due Mr. Ron
: Phillips, the Vail Town Manager, and Vail Town Council for funding and sup-
porting this research.
- Thanks are also given to the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District for
~ funding a portion of the travel costs which gave the Task Force and consultant
the opportunity to visit several pool facilities around the country.
~
t
~
~
~
~
i
~
1
~
F
f
t
S
t
V
~ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
~ This section summarizes the resu1 ts of Browne, Bortz & Coddington's
investigations into the feasibility of a recreation/leisure aquatic center in
~ Vail, Colorado.
Background
~ In the spring of 1987, Browne, Bortz & Coddington in association
with Barker • Rinker • Seacat, Architects, conducted a feasibility study of a
~ proposed aquatic center to be located at Gerald R. Ford Park in Vail,
Colorado. This project was directed by of the Town of Vail Community Develop-
ment Department and completed in conjunction with the Town of Vail Swimming
?ool Task Force.
~ Vail Aquatic Center Concept
The proposed facility is a comprehensive multipurpose aquatic center
_ that offers the greatest number of activities for the greatest number of
people possible. It is the intention of the Task Force to create a unique,
~ high quality, tourist oriented facility that offers enhanced recreation alter-
4 natives for Vail area guests and provides local residents with an opportunity
~ for recreation, instruction and training uses.
~ The facility's size and amenities were chosen after extensive inter-
J' views with other facility operators and recreation complex managers across the
country. The center will provide for water safety instruction, fitness swim-
~ ming, competitive swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming, water
~ therapy, recreational play and many other uses. With an amusement pool as the
focal point of the center, the aquatic facility becomes a major visitor
~ attraction that spans all seasons. As presently conceived, the aquatic center
contains four key elements:
• Amusement pool which includes several pools on multiple
~ levels with a variety of slides, waterfalls, fountains,
_ sprays, bubblers and other entertainments.
~ • Su ort s ace which would include dressing/shower
rooms, ounges, offices, storage, pro shops, food ser-
` vice, mechanical equipment and other support functions.
~ • Indoor multiuse pool, a 25 meter by 25 yard pool
- designed for multipurpose uses including diving,
instruction, lap swimming, kayak instruction, scuba
~ instruction, physical therapy and water games.
~ • Outdoor recreation ool, an outdoor 50 meter by 25 yard
; poo suitab e for training, competition and instruction
: as well as fitness and recreation uses during mild
° weather.
;
- vi
~
~
~
~
Total construction costs, adjacent site development notwithstanding,
~ approach $6.5 million. Cost components include:
~ Category Price
~ Amusement Pool $ 652,000
~ (Enclosure)
Support Space 2~400,000
900,000
- Indoor Multipurpose Pool 261,000
~
~ (Enclosure) 1,210,000
Outdoor Recreation Pool 590,000
Architectural Engineering Fees 400,000
~ Furnishings 50,000
~
Total $6,463,450
~ Additional costs not included in the above include landscaping
and slte development.
~ Malytica] Approach
In conducting this analysis, the consultant team developed a compu-
~ terized forecasting model that integrates Vail economic demographic trends,
market acceptance expectations and cost/revenue assumptions to produce fore-
casts of net revenues associated with the Vail Aquatic Facility operations.
~ In this process, project revenue forecasts, and thus estimates of project
~ feasibility, are derived under a vari.ety of alternative assumptions regarding
- prospective community development, possible entrance fees and charges, and
alternative utilization rates.
~
~ Dperatinq Costs
Operating costs have been calculated based on project design and the
experience of other facilities. The following costs are anticipated:
~ _Category Cost
Management/operations $ 425,000
Promotion/advertising 45,000
Utilities (water, electricity, HVAC) 280,000
~ Supplies 45,000
Insurance 50,000
~ Miscellaneous 20,000
Total $ 865,000
~ The relatively high operating costs reflect the problems inherent in operating
I a warm, humid facility in a dry, cold climate, and the extensive staffing
requirements for a full year's operation from 7 a.m, to 10 p.m, each day.
~ Discussions with recreation facility operators elsewhere around the country
; indicate that the above operating costs are in line with the experience of
- other facilities.
~
#
t
~ vii
~
~ Market Capture Considerations
~
Estimates of market acceptance of the proposed aquatic facility are
; derived principally from the experience of similar operations, a review of
y~ other aquatic feasibility studies, interviews with facility operators and
owners and the best judgement of the consultant team and knowledgeable local
a business persons. The most reliable indicators of possible market reaction
i are derived from the experience of Whistler Springs, an aquatic center at
A Whistler Mountain in British Columbia, the Steamboat Springs Recreation
Center, and survey results from Vail Associates' annual visitor surveying
~ efforts.
~
Duplication of the visitor capture ratios achieved at Whistler
Springs, in proportion to the Vail market, would result in over 120,000 annual
visitor days at the Aquatic Center by overnight guests. During summer and
winter, 25 to 30 percent of overnight guests are expected to use the facility
at least once during their stay. These expectations are below equivalent
= response rates given on Vail Associates' surveys.
Approximately 700 upper Eagle Valley residents are expected to
~ become center members at $175 per year; a membership rate below that achieved
~ in Steamboat Springs. The facility will also provide the opportunity for all
school children in Eagle County to learn to swim. Although not a signficant
7
i source of revenue, the School District has indicated a willingness to ensure
$ that such an opportunity is made available to all students.
~
Operational Financial FeasibilitY
~ If operated under present market conditions, and with competitive
entrance fees, annual aquatic center attendance levels are expected to exceed
170,000 visitor-days plus use by school children. Total revenues would exceed
~ $1.05 million annually while operating costs are expected to reach $865,000.
Net revenues, after a reasonable start-up period and marketing effort, are
projected to exceed $210,000 per year.
~ Sensitivity analysis indicates that the reatest risk lie i
g s n the
rnarket response of overnight guests particularly winter guests. Operating
~ expenses could still be met if winter guest use was as much as 30 percent
below expected levels. 8ecause the summer season is short, summer utilization
is not as critical to revenue generation. Similarly, under the fee structures
proposed, local residents in their entirety, represent less than 10 percent of
~ annual revenues.
As a facility such as this, in a mountain resort environment, is
~ virtually unprecedented some uncertainty as to market acceptance is acknowl-
L edged.
~
,
~
~
;
viii
IARKER-RINKER-SEACAT*
& PARTN E RS -ARC H 1T ECTS • P.C
~ .
SECTION 3- VAIL AQUATIC CENTER
j The aquatic facility herein described is a
compxehensive, multi-purpose aquatic center that offers the
~ greatest number of activities foz the greatest number of people
possible. It will pzovide foz swimming and water safety
instruction, fitness swimming, competitive swimming, diving,
water polo, synchronized swimming, water therapy, recreational
~ olay and many other uses. With the amusement pool as the focal
ooint of the Center, it also becomes a major visitor attraction
-that spans all seasons. Designed as a quality facility, that is
~ responsive to its mountain setting and sloping site, it could be
a major visual as well as functional asset to the community. The
attached plan (Figure A) provides a diagramatic representation of
the facility. The following describes the possible components of
~ the plan.
FACILITY DESIGN
~ Amusement Pool
~ This indoor amusement area would include several pools
~ on multiple levels with a variety.of slides, watexfalls, fountain
- sprays, bubblers and other entertainments. The topmost level
would have a deep pool built into an aztificial rock cliff, with
~platform diving and a 7 foot 3zop slide. The next level would
~ have a 25 meter activity pool fox lap swimming, volleyball,
basketball, and instruction. A 5 foot waterfall from the deep
~ pool into the activity pool creates a cave and view windows into
~ :.he upper pool. The lower level would contain a wave pool going
into a sand beach and a junior pool with bubblers, mushroom
~ spray, tot's slide and instructional axea. Taking off from the
upper rock cliff would be an enclosed serpentine water slide that
winds down the hillside into a splash pool at the lowest level.
A speed slide would also eject into this splash pool. Outdooz
~ hot soaking pools would ovezlook the creek below. A food service
area on the mid-level would pxovide a view to all the water
activity ar_eas. Steam and sauna rooms, trees and plantings,
~ bridges, rock wozk and furnishings will add to the festive
environnent of this water playground. The size of the enclosure
for the above described program would be approximately 24 -
i 25,000 square feet.
~ Support Space
! This would include dressing/shower rooms, lounges,
~ offices, storage, pro shops, toilets, food preparation,
mechanical equipment, and other_ support functions.
i
~
~
. ~
Frontage Road
~ _ ' , ~ • ~ ~ , . ~
.;}+4 •
.
~ ~3,t~~t70Y _
, . , .
SIlO
. , e_: rk 5 C
ur
~ ~ - ~
~ .;1 i~ ` `1\`
: - Al
, • ~l ~ ~VI U`` \11
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - 11 \I ~ l 1\~ ~ ~l l l ~ ~
. _ ~ ~I,4 ~ ~ 1` y~ `«I~~1<
l < <
~
~
~
~
~ I
III~
u
. t' 4
l~ [ll II~
1 l
.t.t~
.1, Klr
I
I
1 I(
: ' ~
~
~
~ <
41~
~
~
~
\ l
I 1
`
~
~
I L
I
<<: ~ l
\ 1
~
~
1
~
\
,
~
~
,
`
1 <<
~
.t l
I
. ~
I ~ 1 I l~ I 11 1 I ~
~-},j ~ ~ 1 b l ~J ~IY
\
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~
_ ~
~
~
~
~
~
. ~ ~ ~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~ I
~
~
.
~
~
~
.
.
~
~
E
< <
.
.
~
~
~
`
. ~
. . .
q-
~
i
~ ~
\ ~r
. . • .
-i t~ ~ ` qp ~ :.1?•: ..t~ ~e~.~::::
.b`"•::~`~;i~i}~. ~~i.: ;":.}`i~.??i:>:i>::?:~::'i.>:G:;>.'~ s:~:.~J:;:~:`.
\ ~ b......
~
.
. •
~ .................::.N ~
_ . ~ ~ •}::'::::~r :~:.::tir::::7'.::, . . .
~ ~ . .tl~... '
, .,1...~...:,1 1\ .
~
O • \ ' . <:t3>s>.<:;;;::>:s:<?<,::: ,
.
.
:
; <
.
. .
~
~
~
:
~
~
\
~
- ~ .
~
~
` .
\
`
`
. • ` ,:;.::;:4i:.. • . 1 \ ~
l ~ ;;•::m;~; ~ ~ ~ `
Figure A
,
atic Building & Site Plan
Nature Center
North
e
3
~
~
~ Deep Pool
This would be an indoor pool, 25 meters x 25 yards. A
~ 14 foot deep azea foz diving from one and three meter boards is
provided. More shallow areas in the pool accommodate lap
swimming, instruction, and water games. Bleacher and deck areas
~
surround the pool and it opens to an outside sun area that is
-shared with the outdoor pool.
~ Outdoor Reczeation Pool
~
This would be an outdoor pool, 50 meters long x 25
~ yards wide x 4 to 7 feet deep. It would be covered when not in
ase and be utilized only during the wazmer months. It is a
versatile pool that would be used for competitive training and
meets, as well as for instructional, fitness and zecxeational
~ uses. Bulkheads can zone the pool into multi-use activities
~ occurring at the same time. SITE CONSIDERATIONS
3
As can be seen fx'om the diagramatic site plan, it is a
tight fit to get all the program elements within the site
5 boundar_ies and restraints.
In ozder to have tYie facility respond to the hillside
~ site in a compatible and sensitive way, the components were sited
- as follows: 1. The outdoor recr.eation pool and the deep pool, being
~ large, flat ar.eas and more zigid in form, were placed
on the uphill side wher.e the site is already impacted
with othex graded, man-made featur_es, such as the zoad-
~ way, softball fields and parking lot.
2. The support space, by functional necessity, is located
~ in the center_ of the facility so that locker/shower
rooms can have direct access to the three pool
components. It is configuxed on 2 levels in response
~ to the site gzade and to separate locker/shower r_ooms
fx-om public 7_ounge azeas. The uppez level_ pezmits
- views into all three pool areas and to Gore Creek
~ and the mountains beyond.
f
~
- 3. The Amusement Pool, because it is on multi levels and
is moze organic in form, is placed on the south down-
~ hill side. It steps down the hill with large south
± glass areas opening to the mountain and Gore Czeek
views. The sexpentine s]_ides can follow the slope
of the hill and outdoor hot pools can xeceive the
~ sun and relate to the Creek and natural surroundings.
i
~ 4 . ~
VAIL AQUATIC CENTER
Construction Cost Model
~ Amusement Pool
~ 1. Activity pools at 6500 SF x$42 $273,000
2. Hot pools $ 70,000
3. Drop slide $ 12,000
4. Tot's slide
$ 12,000
~ 5. Speed slide $ 20,000
6. Serpentine slide $ 95,000
7. Slide watex supply pumps $ 20,000
8. Wave genexator $ 35,000
~ 9. Water features (spxays, etc)
$ 20,000
10. Rock work $ 80,000
11. Bridges $ 15,000
~ 652,000
14. Enclosure - 24,000 SF x$100 $2,400,000
~ $3,052,000
3
Support Space (Locker Rooms etc.)
~
I
~ 450 persons x 20SF = 9,000 SF x$100 $900,000
~ Deep Pool
~
25 meter x 25 yards with 14' deep area foz diving
~ (one 1-meter and one 3-meter boards) $261,450
Enclosure - 12,100 SF x$100 $ 1,210,000
$ 1,471,450
I Outdoor Recreation Pool
I l. 50 meter x 75 ft. wide x 4-7 feet deep $520,000
2. Cover for outdoors pool
10,000 SF x $2 $ 20,000
~ 3. Eazthwork and site development $ 50,000
~ $590,000
` Total Construction Cost $ 6,013,450
~
i Architecture/Engineexing/Special
~ Consultant Fees $400,000
, Fur.nisYiings and prograra equipment $50,000
Total $ 6,463,450
~ The above numners aze very general, based on conceptual plans and
experience comparables, and are for budget purposes only.
Adjacent site development costs are not included.
~ 5
VAIL AQUATIC CENTER
Operating Costs
~ The following ballpar.k pool water and space gas and electric
utility costs are for guidelines and compaxison purposes only.
~ Use $25/100,000 gals of water for each 24 nour
~ period for indoor pools.
- Use $75/100,000 gals of water for_ each 24 houx
~ period foz outdoor pools.
3 Use $125/100,000 gals of watez for each 24 hour_
period fox outdoor hot pools.
~
~ The approximate water capacity for the different types of pools
ar_e as follows:
~
~ Amusement Pools 290,000 Gals
- Outdoor Recreation Pool 607,500 Gals
; Deep Pool 270,000 Gals
- Hot Pools 24,000 Gals
Active solar panels for heating the pool water could reduce
; heating costs as much as one half. With solaz tax credits now
i gone, fewer solar companies exist and costs will rise, making the
solar payback period much longer.
~
= Space HVAC utility costs would average $2 per square foot of
= building per year.
~ Electxical utility costs would average 12 cents per squaze foot
_ of building pex month or $144 per year.
~ 1. Water Heating Costs
Amusement Pool
~ 290,000 gals/100,000 = 2.9 x~25 x 365 days =
` $26,465/year
~ Outdoor Recreation Pool
~ 607,500 gals/100,000 = 6.075 x$75 x 120 days =
~ $54,675/year
Deep Pool
270,000 gals/100,000 = 2.7 x$25 x 365 days =
a
~
i
- $24,640/year
`
~ 5
f~
Hot Pool
_ 36,000 gals/100,000 =.36 x$125 x 365 days.=
~
~
$16,425
r Total $ 122,205/year
~
2. Space Heating/Ventilating/Air Conditioning
~ 45,100 SF x 2.00 SF =
~ / $ 90,200/year
3. Electrical
~
~ 45,100 SF x.12/SF x 12 = $ 64,945/yeax
~
,
~
~
~
} TOTAL $277,350/year
~ These costs do not reflect insurance, repairs,
Y
maintenance or supplies.
~
3
L
~
I
~
~
~
t
3
r
i
:
~
f
r
}
~
7
~ SECTION II. ANALYTICAL APPROACH
~
3
~ In conducting this analysis, the consultants employed a computerized
forecasting model that integrates Vail economic/demographic trends, market
~ acceptance expectations and cost/revenue,assumptions to produce forecasts of
~ net revenues associated with Vail Aquatic Facility operations. Through this
process, project revenue forecasts, and thus estimates of project feasibility,
~ are derived under a variety of alternative assumptions regarding prospective
~ community development, possible facility fees and alternative utilization
- rates.
This section provides a description of the model and the various
~ assumptions underlying revenue forecasts. A diagramatic summary of the Vail
Aquatic model is presented as Figure 1. Further detail on each model compo-
; nent is provided below.
~
~
Economic/Demographic Element
_4 The economic/demographic component quantifies the economic relation-
- ships that define Vail Valley visitation levels in both winter and summer
months. The key assumptions in this process are documented in Table II-1 and
3 described below. These ratios and related quantifications have been reviewed
= with the Town Planning Department Staff, the Swimming Pool Task Force, the
Town Sudget Officer, representatives of Vail Associates and other knowledge-
~ able members of the Vail community.
Skier visits. Annual skier visits are assumed to be 1.35 million
; visits on Vail Mountain. Skier visits at Vail Mountain drive the economic and
~ visitor growth elements within the model. Beaver Creek skiers are not con-
sidered part of the primary market.
1 Skier distributions. Based on surveys conducted by Vail Associates
(VA) and discussions with VA representatives, skier distributions by type are
assigned as follows:
~ o Destination skiers--68 percent.
• Day skiers (nonlocal)--17 percent. ~ • Local skiers--15 percent.
These distributions are in keeping with past and present performance at Vail
Mountain.
3
~
~ Nonskier guests factor. Skier visits drive the economic element of
this model. Surveys conducted for VA indicate that on an average day during
~ ski season, 25-30 percent of visitors are not skiing. The nonskier guest
A factor applies this ratio to generate data on total guests with skiers and
nonskiers.
< <
; Surtmer/winter ratio. Based on discussions with hotel operators,
- retailers and knowledgeable local residents, as well as occupancy data pro-
vided by the Uail Resort Association, a.35 summer to winter overnight visitor
<
E
z
3
~ FIGURE 10 VAIL AQUATIC FEASIBILITY MODEL
~
~
~
FCONOtiI/C WINTER SUMMER RESIDENTS
~ BASF.• VISITATION VISITATION
~
~
~ • OVERNIGHT/DAY VISITOR SPLIT
,UARKFT * NON SKIER GIJEST FACTOR
`:Hi1RACTER • RESIDENCE LOCATIONS
ASSUWPT/ONS: • LENGTH OF SEASON
~ • LENGTH OF STAY
3 * GROWTH RATES
~
3
WINTER SUMMER RESIDENTS
s SUBLlARKFTS: • OVERNIGHT • OVERNIGHT + SWIMMERS
~
VISITORS VISITORS * RECREATIONIST
* DAY SKIERS * DAY VISITORS s STUDENTS
~
~ UTlL1ZAT/ON CAPTURE RATES
SSULlPTlOAIS:
~
~
ANNUAL VISITORS
~
t_ r
PROJFCT : SOURCES OF I NCOME
~ RFVENUE * FEES AND CHARGES
- ASSUMPT/ONS: • LENGTH OF SEASON
?
• ANNUAL REVENUES
~
! FINANCIAL t - PRO FORM.4: OPERATING COSTS
?
' NET REVENUES
, .
~ .
g
;
TABLE II-1. VAIL VALLEY ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS
~
~ Category Value
1986-87 annual skier visits (Vail Mountain) 1,350,000
~ Nonskier guests (dest.) factor 1.25
Distribution of skier visits
~ percent destination 0.68
percent day (nonlocal) 0.17
percent local 0.15
~ Summer/winter overnight visitor ratio 0.35
Day/night summer visitor ratio 0.36
Average length of stay (winter) (days) 5.5
~ Average length of stay (summer) (days) 3.5
Local market population (Edwards through East Vail) 11,500
:y
j Growth rate (annual percentage) 2.5%
3
Season length (days)
; Summer gp
~ Winter 140
, Source: BBC
~
~
a
~
~
~
~
~
5
3
~
L
i
f
;
~
y 10
~ ratio is applied. This ratio reflects an assumption that on an average day
~ during the summer season, overnight visitation is approximately 35 percent of
overnight visitation during an average day during ski season.
; Length of stay. Length of stay data are from Vail Associates winter
and summer surveying efforts. Based on these data and discussions with VA
officials, the average length of stay for winter overnight guests is estimated
~ to be 5.5 days. The average length of stay for overnight guests during the
summer is 3.5 days.
Day/night/surtmer ratio. Interviews with summer visitors indicate
~ that 36 percent of all visitors in Vail during the summer are day only visi-
tors with overnight accommodations outside of the Vail Valley. Stated another
way, approximately one-third of guests in the summertime will not be spending
~ the night locally in association with their visit.
Local population. Recent population estimates provided by the Town
of Vail Planning Department for Eagle County and Town of Vail indicate that
= the county contains 17,000 persons, approximately 11,500 of whom reside in the
Vail Valley, an area stretching from Edwards through East Vail.
,
~
: 6rowth rates. A growth rate factor is applied that determines the
percent change in both annual skier visits and summer activity over the fore-
~ cast period. In most scenarios, a growth assumption of 2.5 percent a year is
~ applied, which is in keeping with assumptions used by Vail Associates in their
internal forecasting and facilities planning.
~ The above economic/demographi.c relationships are used to quantify
- present levels of activity and likely growth in the eight identified submar-
kets of winter and summer guests and local residents.
Length of season. The Vail ski season is expected to run from
Thanksgiving to mid April or approximately 140 days. The peak summer period
~ is assumed to run from mid-June to mid-September or approximately 90 days.
Virtually all guest utilization of the aquatic facility will occur during
these limited winter or summer visitation periods. The proposed aquatic
center is assumed to maintain full operations 336 days a year, while reducing
i operations temporarily during shoulder seasons for repair and maintenance.
L
Market Identification and Size Assumptions
~ The second element of the Vail aquatic feasibility model derives
estimates of market size in each of eight submarkets within the winter/summer
~ guest and local resident categories provide a basis for determining annual
~ visitation at the proposed facility. Values for the various submarkets are
- summarized in Table II-2.
{ Winter destination visitors-days. Winter destination visitor-days
_ are the number of overnight visitor-days (skiers and nonskiers) occurring in
the Eagle Ualley over the course of ski season. Quantification is achieved
; through a relationship between skier visits, percentage destination skiers,
nonskier guest ratios, and length of ski season. Total visitor-days divided
' by the length of season provides the number of overnight visitors in the area
- on an average day during ski season. During the 1986-87 season, approximately
~ 11
~
,
~
TABLE II-2. VAIL AQUATIC CENTER MARKET
3
~ CAPTURE ASSUMPTIONS
~ Category Value
~
" Winter destination visitor-days*
• Season 1,147,440
~ o Average day 8,196
Winter guests**
~ • Season 208,625
• Average day 1,490
Day skiers (average day) 1,639
~ Summer destination visitor-days*
~ • Season 260,640
• Average day 2,896
~ Summer guests**
~ • Season 73,800
o Average day 820
~ Local resident market (persons) 11,500
~
` Students 2,200
*Destination visitor-days equates to the number of overnight
visitor-days occurring during the summer and winter seasons.
s **Guests refers to the number of individuals staying overnight in the
Vail area during the summer and winter seasons. The average length of stay
defines the relationship between visitor days and guests.
aL Source: BBC.
~
~
L
~ l
~
,
1
,
~
~
i
s
~
~ 12 1 .
~
9,600 temporary visitors lodged in the Vail Valley on an average day during
~ ski season. . .
Winter guests. Winter guests refers to the number of individuals
staying in the Vail area. The average length of stay determines the relation-
~ ship between visitor-days and guests. At present, the Vail area supports
~ approximately 1.15 million visitor-days over the course of a ski season. The
average overnight winter visitor spends 5.5 days in Vail; thus, 208,625 over-
; night guests (1,147,440 j 5.5) are drawn to the area during ski season. The
j distinction between total visitor-days and guests is made in order to apply
accurate market capture data from a variety of independent sources.
~ Day skiers. Day skiers are nonresident skiers spending a day in
Vail in association with skiing but not residing overnight. Most day skiers
are from the Denver area or Summit County. These figures do not include Eagle
~ County residents.
~ Sumner destination visitor-days. Summer destination visitor-days
- are the summer equivalent of winter visitor-days. The summer season lasts 90
~ days and average day overnight visitation is roughly one-third the level of an
- average day during ski season.
~ Summer guests. This term is the summer equivalent of winter guests.
It represents the number of individuals visiting Vail and thus equates to
destination visitor days divided by average length of stay (3.5 days in summer
~ time).
~
Local market. The local market includes residential populations
~ between Avon and Vail or approximately 11,500 persons. The local market is
defined by three submarkets:
o Local swimners. This term refers to frequent facility
I users who are likely to purchase a season pass.
• Local recreation. This category includes local resi-
dents who would be occasional users of the facility.
Typical local recreation use would be summertime relax-
ation.
~ • Students. The student population includes all students
- in the Eagle County school district.
~ Out of market factor. This factor accounts for participation by
~ persons not otherwise accounted for in the above categories. This would
likely include residents from Lake, Summit and Western Eagle Counties, pass
; through traffic on I-70 and Beaver Creek destination visitors. Also guest use
: in the shoulder seasons would be included in the factor. An "out-of-market"
- fact (10 percent of other identified guest usage) is applied to account for
use stemming from the above group of smaller markets.
1
;
- Market Capture Assumptions
: The capture rate for each of the above guest and resident
_ categories, or the percentage of the above markets likely to use the facility,
-4, ,
~ 13
~
~ represents the principal issue in determining project feasibility. As such,
~ the following Section III is devoted to a discussion of capture rates, market
issues and the experience of other facilities.
~ Revenue Assumptions
Once annual visitation is projected, project revenues are determined
~ by applying expected fees and charges as well as ancillary revenues such as
restaurant and shop lease returns, locker rentals, etc. Revenue assumptions
are as follows.
-
~ User fees. Based on the experience of similar facilities in Steam-
boat Springs, Glenwood Springs and Whistler Mountain, average revenues per
~ nonresident visitor are assumed to be $7.50/day/guest (entrance fee). This
rate incorporates an assumption that children under six will be discounted
heavily; children and teenagers will pay roughly $7.00 per visit; and adults
~ will pay $9.00 per visit. These fees are below those charged by Whistler
~ Springs for a facility with fewer services than expected in Vail.
Based on Swimming Pool Task Force direction, it is assumed that
~ Eagle County residents may purchase a seasons pass for use of facility year
- round. Pass costs are $175 per year per passholder, which is below that
applied in Steamboat Springs. Further, it is assumed that local residents
~ would pay a discounted charge on recreational use of the facility (for nonpass
; holders) assumed to $4.00 per day. Based on discussions with the school dis-
trict, student use is assumed to generate $1.00 per day per student.
~ Ancillary services. In addition to user fees, the facility owner or
~ operator may receive revenues from at least four other categories. These are:
~ • Restaurant lease. Two restaurants are assumed return-
~ ing a total of 25,000 in lease fees and 7.OQ per visi-
tor in return on gross. This is in keeping with the
~ experience of the Vail Golf Course.
~
~ • Rental/clothing. A clothing retail and rental shop
~ lease is expected to return $5,000 flat fee plus lOd
per visitor in gross revenue charges.
~
• Locker rental. No locker rental fees are forecasted in
~these projections. Lockers are assumed to be paid for
~ in entrance fee.
~ • Lessons. The majority of charges for lessons will go
, to the instructor with the facility collecting only
~ modest receipts of approximately 5¢ per visitor.
; Other concessions are a possibility within the aquatic facility and
- represent potential revenue sources. For instance, its proximity to the ball
fields, bike paths and amphitheatre could allow an entire sports rental outlet
s with mountain bikes, sporting gear, fishing gear, etc. In this manner, the
_ facility would become a summer recreation hub for the entire Uail Valley. It
is also a possibility that the differential fees would be charged for
restricted use of the facilit.
y
i
~
14 1 .
Operating Costs
~
Operating costs have been estimated based on the project design and
~ the experience of other facilities. These are set forth in Table II-3. Man-
~ power estimates are provided in Table II-4. The greatest costs are for utili-
ties, which includes heat for the 30,000 square foot indoor facility, and
labor.
~ Operating costs have been estimated by Barker, Rinker, Seacat Archi-
tects, Browne, Bortz & Coddington and the Town of Vail Recreation Department
~ based on a review of likely staffing needs, local labor costs and expected
energy and water consumption.
~ A 336 day season (full operation) is expected with operating hours
from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Partial closure for maintenance is expected
twice a year. Peak period demand, typically 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. during the
winter and 10:00 to 5:00 during the summer, and the 100 plus hour week will
~ require complex schedule and management. Labor costs estimates (Table II-4)
reflect these considerations as well as wage levels appropriate for the Vail
Area. Final determinations as to programs, services and hours of operations
~ will affect operating cost levels. Insurance costs estimates are also uncer-
~ tain until actual bids are received.
Discussions with recreation facility operators in Denver, Steamboat
3 Springs, Whistler Mountain and elsewhere across the country lead us to believe
that the $865,000 per year operating figure allows for a high level of ser-
vice, a lengthy period of operation and the necessary staff support for safety
; and supervision requirements. Most operating costs are fixed costs, rela-
tively unaffected by level of utilization. As a result, net operating reve-
nues increase significantly as participation increases.
3
~
~
~
3
i
~
~
3
3
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ 15
~ TABLE II-3. VAIL AQUATIC OPERATING COSTS
~ Category Annual Costs
Management/Operations $425,000
~
;
~ Promotion/Advertising 45,000
Utilities (Water, Electricity, HVAC) 280,000
3
~
~ Supplies 45,000
~ Insurance 50,000
:j
Miscellaneous 20,000
' Total $865,000
~
Source: 86C, 1-087 with BRS Architects and the Town of Vail.
;
~
~
~
.
?
~
~
I
i
I
i
~ 16 TABLE II-4. VAIL AQUATIC STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
s
~
Full Time
3 Annual Equivalent Total
Position Salary Positions Costs
g Administration
;
a Manager $32,000 1.0
~ Assistant Manager 27,000 1.0
Subtotal $ 59,000
~ Maintenance
~ Operations Supervisor $25,000 1.0
Janitorial 15,000 1.0
~ Grounds 15,000 .5
~ Night Contract Labor 40,000
Subtotal $ 87,500
~
~
a Safety
~ Guard Supervisor $20,000 1.0
~ Lifeguards 18,000 8.0
~ Instructors*
Subtotal $164,000
Operations
~ Front Desk/Towels $14,000 2.5
Cashier 14,000 2.5
Locker Room Attendants 14,000 2.0
Security 16,000 1.0
f Subtotal $114,000
Grand Total $424,500
*Instructors are assumed to cover their over costs through fees for
services.
~ Source: BBC, 1987; salary levels from Town of Vail Recreation Department.
~
~
~
,
~
;
~
f
r
17
~
~ SECTION III. MARKET CAPTURE CONSIDERATIONS
~
~ Estimates of market acceptance of the proposed aquatic facility are
~ derived principally from the experience of similar operations, a review of
other aquatic feasibility studies, interviews with facility operators and
- owners, and the best judgement of the consultant team and knowledgeable local
T_ business persons. Certain of these conclusions are discussed below.
~ Whistler Springs Experience
Whistler Springs is a recreation spa located at the base of Whistler
Mountain. The Whistler Mountain/Blackcomb resort complex supports about
750,000 skier visits annually. Whistler/Blackcomb is approximately 80 miles
outside of Vancouver and exhibits a day/des;tination skier mix much like Vail's
~ mix. The Springs is a recreation complex consisting of two 470 foot slides,
three outdoor heated pools, tanning room, grill and locker rooms. There are
no traditional swimming facilities. The following are relevant Springs
~ characteristics determined through interviews with the owner and manager of
~ the Springs complex:
# • Whistler Springs attracts approximately 70,000 annual
visitors in a market roughly half the size of Vail's.
; • The facility averages over 250 visitors a day (over a
~ 275 day season) at $10 per adult; a peak day will have
' 500 to 600 visitors.
~ • The facility is particularly active when skiing condi-
_ tions are poor (rain is common at Whistler Mountain).
• Summer business is strong; perhaps 30 percent of their
~ annual market (pools are outside). F
~ • Several hotels and condominiums have pools in town. It
is the gathering place, entertainment and slide aspect
that creates business.
] • Only 10-15 percent of their business is from local
~ residents. Entry costs are quite high.
~ Interviews were conducted with the owner and manager of the Whistler
Springs complex. Given a description of Vail's concept and existing desti-
- nation market, the owner offered the following observations:
~ • Recreation/amusement services were the key to attract-
ing guests; outdoor pools or tubs were essential.
j o Operations are targeted to visitors--"we are not all
_ things to all people." Pool hours are limited; always
five people on duty.
s
18 .
• Parking (or access), marketing and local acceptance
- were important attributes of success.
~ • A private operator would not include the traditional
~ recreational elements proposed in Vail, which are per-
ceived as capital intensive and expensive to operate.
; The Whistler Springs owner indicated the proposed Vail facility may
s be overally complex, emphasizing his view that operating hours and costs must
be tightly controlled.
i
Steamboat Springs
~ The Steamboat Springs Recreation Center is operated by the Steamboat
: Health and Recreation Association, a not-for-profit organization. The
facility includes tennis courts, an indoor lap swimming pool (25 yards),
, lockers and a 350 foot long water slide into a large outdoor pool. The water
slide and heated pool are outdoors. The facility is in downtown Steamboat
= Springs approximately four miles from the mountain. Although improved in
recent years, the facility is of older construction and in a secondary
- location. It does not present the image anticipated for the Vail project.
The Steambvat facility has 1,100 individual members with a rather
; complex pricing system averaging around $200 per membership. Routt County has
a population of 14,500 persons and Steamboat Springs has a population of 5,500
persons.
s Although detailed visitor counts are not available, the manager of
~ the facility believes they service well over 50,000 visitors a year. The
facility's manager had the following observations about aquatic entertainment
~ facilities in the mountains:
• The slides are the key to success--"the only way to get
~ visitors out of their condominiums."
• Steamboat facility more than covers operating costs
($500,000/year) and will reach capacity on many days
! during the winter and summer.
• Peak days will draw over 500 tourists.
~ • Manager suggests that amusement facilities should be
operated only for a brief period during the day as
~ operating costs are high and visitors will change their
# schedule to accommodate the facility's schedule.
• Steamboat's limitation is in large part with the
~ appearance and capacity of its facility. "Tourists
_ would respond better to a more natural environment."
; 9 There has been tremendous growth in the number of seri-
ous local swimmers; 30 or more a day will use the
- facility for lap swimming; triathalon training if very
popular.
~
j~ 19
• Staffing needs vary but during peak period at least
~ five persons are operating the facility.
Y- The Steamboat facility operator reinforced the general attractive-
; ness of this type of facility in a winter ski resort. With better location
- and a better facility she felt considerable increase in attendance could be
achieved even within the limited size of Steamboat's market.
;
3
y~ City of Westminster
The City of Westminster recently opened a major recreation center
~ with a connected three pool aquatic facility. The aquatic center includes one
small slide (approximately 60 feet), a rope swing, a children's pool, water
falls and a variety of sprays and water games. The larger facility includes a
~i full recreation center, arts and crafts, restaurant and locker rooms. The
3 project cost approximately $7.5 million and began operations in November 1986.
The pool draws from a broad northwest Denver Metropolitan Area residential
~ base and therefore comparability to Vail is limited. Related observations
~ from the pool manager are as follows:
~ • The pool's popularity is far beyond initial expecta-
~ tions.
• The recreation element of the facility is the principal
draw. The center's quality, unusual in a municipal
facility, is also a factor in its success.
~ • In the first month of operation the entire recreation
~ facility accommodated over 45,000 visitors; second
month resulted in over 60,000 visitors.
~ • Operating costs of the aquatic facility are approxi-
mately $550,000; the city expects to recover operating
costs through utilization fees during the first year of
~ operation.
Existing Vail Aquatic Opportunities
L In order to better gauge the interest in swimmin and rel
9 ated
aquatic usage within the Vail community, interviews were conducted with
~ private facility operators, lodge owners, resort association personnel and
others knowledgeable about the Vail market.
Public pools. Presently there are two public pools in Eagle County:
~ the Eagle-Vail Swim Club and the Eagle County Pool. The former is operated in
~ the summer by the Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District. The pool is open to the
public for a daily fee of $1 to $2 for residents and $1.50 to $3.00 for non-
~ residents. In 1985, attendance was approximately 8,000 persons over a 90 day
; period. The pool's operating revenues do not cover related operating
, expenses.
a
t The West Eagle County Metropolitan District maintains a 25 meter
- recreational pool adjoining the Eagle Middle School in the Town of Eagle. The
facility has been open for two seasons between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
;
S
~ 20 . .
~ Attendance in 1986 reached nearly 7,000 visitors. Most utilization is by
~ western Eagle County residents. Operating revenues do not cover operating
costs.
~ Private pools. In addition to public pools there are a wide variety
of home owner clubs and private clubs providing swimming opportunities within
the Vail area. The most notable of these are the Vail Racquet Club, the Vail
~ Athletic Club and the Cascade Club. These facilities also provide exercise
equipment and related programs.
~ The most extensive indoor swimming facility in Vail is owned and
managed by the Vail Racquet Club and incorporates a 25 meter four lane indoor
lap pool, open year round, and a 25 meter five lane outdoor lap pool, open
~ from late May to early October. With a recent expansion, which included the
indoor lap pool, the Racquet Club has emphasized swimming. A staff swimming
pro conducts over a dozen lessons a week including the Masters Program that
has approximately 40 active participants.
~ The Vail Racquet Club's membership is approximately 60 ercent local
residents. Initiation fees are a minimum of $1,200 and monthly membership
~ dues are approximately $50. Since the opening of the new addition, the club
4 has added many new members and utilization of the indoor swimming continues to
' grow. Figures on usage are not available.
~ The Vail Athletic Club has a two lane 20 meter pool that receives
- limited usage. Approximately 70 percent of the club's members are local resi-
dents. Initiation fees range from $400 to $600 for residents with a$65 to
~ $100 a month dues.
a
L The newest of Vail's recreation facilities, the multipurpose Cascade
~ Club, opened in January 1987. The club presently does not provide lap swim-
~ ming facilities although such an addition is possible in the future.
~ Approximately 75 percent of Vail's lodging facilities have outdoor-
indoor pools on premises. Numerous condominium complexes also feature swim-
ming pools. Jacuzzis are even more common among Vail's accommodation offer-
ings.
~ In most instances, hotel or condominium pools are relatively small
and leisure oriented. Several hotels operate their outdoor pools year round
~ and experience modest afternoon/evening usage in the winter. Certain facili-
~ ties open their facilities to the public for a fee.
Discussions with lodge owners indicate that lodging pools for the
; most part receive only modest usage. In the summer, many guests use the pool-
3 side for suntanning, but rarely for serious swimming.
The 300 room Marriott's Mark resort is one of the few local hotels
with an indoor and outdoor pool. According to the manager, the indoor pool is
~ not heavily utilized in either winter or summer. The 20 yard outdoor pool is
~ popular for suntanning and recreation in the summer months. The jacuzzi,
; sauna and exercise rooms receive the most use.
i
21
~
~ The Lodge at Vail, with roughly 200 units, has another of the larger
outdoor pools in Vail. The 20 meter four lane pool is reserved for guests
use, which runs an estimated 20 to 30 people per day during the winter and
- twice that number during the summer. Guests tend to use the pool recreation-
~ ally rather than for swimming workouts.
In relating the current Vail aquatic experience to the proposed
facility, the following are noteworthy considerations:
~
• A portion of Vail's permanent residents have access to
` pool facilities. The area's three private clubs have
3 roughly 1,000 local resident memberships. In addition,
limited swimming opportunities are available through
association with certain lodge or condominium com-
~ plexes. Finally, the Eagle-Vail Swim Club and the
' Eagle County Pool are open to all residents during the
summer.
~
~ • Athletic club operators note that interest in swimming
is presently surpassed by other fitness programs.
= Aerobics and weight training attract greater numbers of
_ participants than the club's swimming facilities.
Pools augment rather than form the focus of the stan-
3 dard athletic club. This in part may be explained by
the limited availability of a first rate swim facility.
• Programs for children are somewhat limited during the
j nonsummer months. Several. operators offer lessons in
_ the summer. There is little opportunity for the Eagle
County School District to add swimming to its physical
~ education program with present facilities.
• The Vail visitor market is well served with limited
~ swimming facilities. In most instances, these pools
receive only modest use. In the summer, poolsides are
popular for sunbathing.
• Nationally, swimming is gaining followers as a result
_ of increased emphasis on wellness. Swimmning is prov-
ing a healthful low impact form of recreation and
~ offers advantages over the health risks associated with
aerobics and running.
• The experience of Steamboat would indicate that a
~ large, unserved market exists among local residents for
year-round, low cost swimming as exercise facilities.
Steamboat's pool has over 1,000 resident members from a
' town of 5,500 and a county of 15,000 residents.
~
~ Other Facilities and Areas
; During the course of these investigations, site visits and inter-
~ views were completed at a wide range of facilities in the United States and
Canada. The results of these investigations have been set forth in the Phase
~ 22 , .
~ 1 report and in various periodic reports by the Swimming Pool Task Force. Key
' conclusions related to market considerations are:
~ • Publicly operated traditional, indoor swimming pools,
as a rule, do not generate sufficient revenues to cover
" operating costs. There are few exceptions.
• Vail's altitude and seasonal visitation trends probably
- prohibit high level swimming competition. National
level training usage is very likely.
s
• Nationwide, amusement oriented recreation facilities
have enjoyed notable popularity and success.
Survey Data
~
At the request of the Town of Vail, Vail Associates surveyed skiers
~ during the 1986-87 ski season to gauge the level of interest in the proposed
aquatic facility. As indicated below, visitor interest was quite high.
~ Q1. Would you use a year-round swimming complex
j facility if it were available?
~ Local Day Destination
; Response Residents Skiers Skiers
~
Yes 75% 28% 34%
No 17 64 56
~ Uncertain 8 8 10
z
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
~
~ Sample = 384 respondents through February 1987
~ Approximately 75 percent of residents, 28 percent of day skiers and 34 percent
of destination skiers indicated a positive interest in a swimming complex.
When queried as to potential use of such a complex, most respondents
~ (of those persons indicating an interest in the facility) noted an interested
in recreational swimming and spa or jacuzzi use:
~ Q2. If yes, which activities would you expect
to use the complex for?
Day Destination
Activity Resident Skiers Skiers
Lap pool 67% 21% 43%
~ Recreational swim 50 74 55
~ Water slide 20 21 24
- Jacuzzi 60 47 60
All others* 50 57 33
!
_ Note: Answers should be read as "percentage answering yes
to use of these activities."
*Lessons, diving, children's pool, spectator.
' Sample = 162 respondents
,
•
~ 23
~
? Residents have the highest interest in lap swimming. Visitors are more
interested in recreational and spa use.
' In addition, skiers were asked how important such a facility would
be to their decision to stay in Vail. Approximately 15 percent of destination
skiers indicated that an aquatic facility would be important or very important
_ in their decision to stay in Vail. Approximately 30 percent felt that such a
- facility would be of minor importance and slightly over 50 percent saw such an
amenity as having no importance.
_ A.mong local residents, 44 percent believe such a facility would be
an important local amenity.
_ It is acknowledged that such survey data are of limited value in
attempting to estimate capture rates; nevertheless, a reasonable level of
interest by both destination skiers and residents in using an aquatic center
_ is evidenced. Clearly, significant marketing efforts would be required to
- translate such interest into attendance and to educate consumers as to the
uniqueness of the proposed facility.
Markei i r2nds
_ A variety of general market trends within the Colorado resort
: industry, and the Vail Resort in particular, will influence the aquatic center
concepi. For instance, certain skier demographic trends are relevant con-
siderations:
- o An aging skier population which is more leisurely
oriented.
;
; o An increasing tendency not to ski every day during a
ski vacation.
~ o A stated desire (VA survey results) to see more and
different tourist activities available within the Vail
Valley.
~ o Growth of the family visitor market with children who
would be attracted to an aquatic facility.
~ Nationwide, amusement
pools and aquatic entertainment centers have
been extremely successful. Numerous towns, private investors and special dis-
tricts nave responded to this trend away from traditional swimming facilities.
Similarly, the sport of swimming is gaining in popularity as a source of low
- risk aerobic exercise.
. Leisure facilities are principally attractive to children and young
_ adults. According to Vail Associates' survey data over 25 percent of summer
visitors are accompanied by children and 40 percent of all winter guests are
under 30 years old.
"The proposed facility meets the needs of various submarkets within
the Vail area. Most notably, serious swimming or swimming-as-training use;
.3 , •
•3
24
~ winter and summer recreation utilization; spa and relaxation markets, and
~ children and young adult entertainment market.
~ When queried as to their motivations for coming to Vail, most
guests, particularly in the summer time indicate that it is the entire amenity
package which attracts them to the Vail area. In the summer there is no
~ single service, amenity or attraction that is the focus of Vail activity;
~ rather, it is the overall ambience and mix of activities that draws Vail
~ guests. In this manner, the Vail Aquatic Center would further reinforce and
expand the principal Vail market.
It is acknowledged that certain Vail visitor characteristics are not
entirely in accord with the proposed center:
~ • A large number of Vail winter visitors are beyond the
age of 30 and are not accompanied by children. The
recreation element of the Vail Aquatic Center is very
~ much oriented toward young adult participation.
9 •
• Although survey results indicate that a large portion
~ of destination skiers have an interest in the aquatic
? facility (34 percent), there remains two-thirds of
visitors who have no interest in the facility.
4 • The winter Vail guest market has "upscale" socio-
~ economic characteristics and perhaps a reluctance to
. utilize "municipal" recreation facilities.
9 '
~
• Guests are well served for general spa purposes (75
percent of lodges have pools) presenting some competi-
~ tion to the proposed facility.
~
~
Finally, it is recognized that the Eagle-Vail pool serves approxi-
~ mately 9,000 visitors per year. It is also acknowledged that this pool's
loCation, marketing and traditional use orientation limits the validity of
- this comparison.
Other Feasibility Studies
Recently, both the Town of Avon and the City of Aspen have investi-
~ gated the feasibility of aquatic centers. The Avon analysis, completed in May
_ of 1986, focused on a proposed indoor water park. The park would have a com-
bination of pools and water slides. The first year attendance was projected
~ at 54,000 persons with park revenues exceeding $500,000 in the first year of
; operations. Development costs were estimated at $3.5 million excluding land,
` with 20 year debt financing at eight percent.
; The report concluded that the project would incur a net loss (after
debt service) of nearly $500,000 in 1987 and not achieve profitability until
1994. In this instance, operating costs would be recovered within three years
~ of operations with positive operating revenues beyond operating costs by 1990.
~ The proposed Aspen project was a recreation complex and outdoor
skating rink facility. This project, because of the broad recreational usage
3 25
~
~ and emphasis on outdoor skating rink, is of limited applicability to the Vail
~ proposal. The pool complex would have a traditional design and use as a rec-
reation rather than amusement facility. A variety of operating scenarios were
included in the analyses along with a variety of debt assumptions. The report
made no single determination as to feasibility.
#
Although feasibility studies for recreational complexes in metro-
' politan areas have been reviewed, their applicability to the Vail situation is
~ very limited.
~
~
~
~
F _
i
i
4
l
i
E
:i
`s
~
i
~
~
t
~
i5
1
{
3{
i
~ 26
SECTION IV. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
~
~ Prior sections have rovided detail on the
p proposed Aquatic Center
design, analytical approach and market capture considerations. This section
~ represents the distillation of that information into a financial pro forma
3 representing the project's financial feasibility.
~ Economic/Demographic Assumptions
As described in Section II, skier visits and resultant overnight
guests visitation drive the economy in the Vail Valley. Critical assumptions
~ determining market size are:
• skier visits of 1.35 million with 68 percent of visits
~ by destination skiers.
• local population base (Edwards to East Vail) of 11,500
= persons.
~
• summer overnight visitation of approximately one-third
~ of that experienced during the winter months.
~
= Demographic projections are set forth in Table IV-1. Annual visitor
growth is held to 2.5 percent per year.
~ Market Capture Assumptions
~ The principal tennent underlying these projections is that a quality
center, with the location and facilities as proposed here, will be able to
- duplicate the experience of Steamboat Springs and Whistler Mountain relative
I to the size and demographic composition of the Vail Valley. Market capture
rates implicit in this assumption are set forth in Table IV-2. Key issues are
summarized below:
( • The Vail Aquatic Center will receive approximately
~ 120,000 visits by overnight guests, a capture rate that
is in proportion to the levels achieved by a lesser
facility at Whistler Springs.
• On an aver d d
age ay uring the winter, six percent of
~ destination visitors will utilize the facility. This
is keeping with the Whistler Springs experience.
~
• At forecasted utilization rates, one-quarter of winter
~ overnight guests will have some exposure to the pro-
~ posed aquatic facility and one in five users will
return at least once. This use is below the Vail sur-
; vey results and the experience of Whistler Springs.
i
~ • Approximately four percent of day skiers will use the
facility. Actual attendance will depend upon marketing
,
i
.
~ ~
~ i I ~w+..uwua ~rW;iW.ua ji.ytcWlx~W iwmniiwe, Gwwaw'j y:wu~ryryti, iM;uMU;ik:, wdaN~l6~r+ ttUai+Aww.~ ML'n~elrY*~
TABLE IV-1 ECON(IMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIUN5
SCENARIO: CUMPARABLf. PERFURMANCE
DENUGRAPHICS: 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96
bnnual skier visits 1,350,000 1,383,150 1,418,344 1,453,802 1,490,147 1,527,401 1,565,586 1,604,726 1,644,844 1,685,965
' Skier visitors (average per day) 9,643 4,48-4 10,131 10,384 10,644 10,910 11,183 11,462 11,149 12,043
Dayskiers (average per day) 1,639 1,680 1,722 1,765 1,809 1,855 1,901 1,949 1,997 2,047
Destination visitors (average per day) 8,196 3,401 3,611 3,827 9,041 9,274 9,505 9,143 9,981 10,236
Wint.er guests (per year) 203,636 213,852 219,199 224,679 230,296 236,053 241,954 243,003 254,203 260,558
Destination suseer visitors (average per day) 2,969 2,940 3,014 3,089 3,167 3,246 3,327 3,410 3,495 3,583
Sumner guests (per year) 73,768 15,612 17,502 79,440 81,426 83,4E2 85,548 87,681 89,879 92,126
Suener day visitors (average per day) 1,033 1,059 1,035 1,112 1,140 1,160 1,199 1,223 1,259 1,290
Local earket population 11,500 11,788 12,082 12,384 12,694 13,011 13,336 13,670 14,012 14,362
Students 2,200 2,255 2,311 2,369 2,423 2,489 2,551 2,615 2,680 2,741
Broune, Bortt 6 Coddin9ton, Inc.
N
V
~
~ .
~ 23
~ TABLE IV-2 MARKET CAPiURE AND USER FEE ASSUMPTIUNS
SCENARIU: CONPARABLE PERFURMANCE
~
~ PENETRATION
CAiE60RY RATES PERIOD
~ RATES_
~ PURiIUN X iIMES
~ WINTER:
Destination visitor-days 6.01 1.00 WINTER
pR E7.50 ,'day/guest
Winter guests (per visit) 26.4X 1.25 WINTER $7.50 /day/guest
~ Day skiers (per day) 4.01 1.00 bIIN1ER
$1.50 /day/guest
SUMNER:
~ Destination visitor-days 11.01 1.00 SUMMER
~ UR $7.50 /day/guest
Sunimer Guests (per visit) 30.31 1.25 SUMMER Summer day visitors (per day) 4.01 t1•50 /day;guest
~ 1.00 SUMMER $1.50 /day/guest
~ LUCAL MARKET:
~ Local saimners 6.01 50.0 ALL YEAR
Locat recreation (501 susier use) i115 /qear
~ 15.01 854.00 /day
Students ALL YEAR
100.01 15.0 NUN SUMMER $1.00 /day
; uut-of-market factor lOt . ALL YEAR
~ $7.50 ; day/guesG
~
= OTHER REYENUE ASSUtiPTIUNS
FLAT FEE + PER VISITOR
~ RESTAURANT LEASE E25,000 $0.01
RENTAL%CLUiHING $5,000 $0.01
LUCKERS $0.00
~ LESSONS $0.05
~
~ Browne, Bortt S Coddington, Inc.
:
:
t
;
~
F
S
~ 29 . ,
~
~ efforts, parking location, congestion in the Eisenhower
Tunnel etc. Four percent appears to be an achievable
figure well below the level indicated by on-mountain
~ surveys.
~
~
~
• Approximately 30 percent of summer overnight guests are
expected to use the facility at least once during their
stay, which implies that on any given day during the
~ summer, 11
' , percent of guests staying in town will use
the facility. This is in keeping with demographic pro-
; file of summer guests (child oriented), absence of
y other similar recreation opportunties, and survey
results indicating a desire to see more alternative
~ activities during the summer time.
~
~
~
~ o A small number (four percent-) of persons visiting Vail
for a day during the summer will also frequent the
~ aquatic center.
~
• Approximately six percent of the local market popula-
= tion is expected to subscribe to the facility ($175 per
= year). This percentage is far below that achieved in
Steamboat Springs with a much lesser facility.
~
~ • Approximately 15 percent of the local resident market
~ will use the facility occasionally throughout the year
without paying a subscription fee. This is in keeping
~ with the experience of Steamboat Springs.
• Based on conversations with the Eagle Valley School
q District, virtually all students will receive swim
9 training and water proofing at this facility. As reve-
nues are very limited, student usage does not affect
~ financial feasibility.
• An out-of-market factor of 10 percent is applied which
assumes that 10 percent of attendance has not been
~ explained in the above factors. This would likely be
persons drawn to Vail specifically for use of the
facility, residents of Summit and surrounding counties,
f persons staying at Beaver Creek and residents living in
! the western half of Eagle County are likely market
groups.
}
; User Fees
A full description of user fee assumptions are supplied in Section
II. Based on the experience of Whistler Mountain, average revenues per guest
will be $7.50 per visit while local residents will pay $4 per visit. Persons
may subscribe to the facility on an annual basis for $175 (see Table IV-2).
Certain revenues will also be forthcoming from lease and percentage of gross
, returns on restaurants, rental and clothing stores.
~ 30
~ Usage Forecasts
Visitation forecasts on Table IV-3 present annual visitation fore-
~ casts by submarket for a 10 year period. Based on the current Vail visitor
levels, and the residential market base, a guest visitation market of approxi-
mately 120,000 visitors per year can be realized. The local market will pro-
duce approximately 13,000 recreational visits, 600 persons with season passes,
~ and the opportunity for the area's 2,000 students to utilize the facility.
Total annual visitor days based on 1986-87 demographic conditions
~ are slightly over 200,000 per year.
' Mnual Revenues
3
~ Under the set of assumptions defined here, the aquatic facility will
= generate nearly $1.1 million in user fees of which 90 percent will stem from
guest participation. Revenues by category are shown in Table IV-4.
~
Other revenues of approximately $70,000 will be generated by resta-
urants and leasing of specialized retail. In sum, if operated today under
present economic conditions, total revenues would be $1.1 million.
Operating Costs
; Operating costs have been estimated based on project design and the
~ experience of other facilities. Staffing levels and related costs are docu-
mented in Section II. In total, operating costs are expected to exceed
1 $865,000 in full use of the facility. .
~ .
Project Feasibility
~ Under present economic conditions, net operating revenues exclusive
of debt service would be $218,000 on revenues of $1.1 million. These funds
1 ,vould be available for retirement of debt, capital replacement or expansion of
marketing efforts.
Sensitivity analyses indicate that the areas of significant risk
~ involve assumptions on winter guest utilization and average receipts per
guest. The project could continue to cover operating costs even with a 30
percent reduction in winter guest attendance, which would mean a decline in
utilization from 26 percent to 18 percent of all winter guests. A similar
~ impact would be achieved by gate receipts declining from $7.50 to $5.25 per
~ guests.
~ Because the summer season is short, summer revenues represent rela-
tively small contributions to annual receipts. Similarly local resident
receipts comprise less than 10 percent of annual revenues and therefore resi-
? dent utilization has little effect on revenues.
i
~
~
I f.,.., .....,...wa 1 x~c,r. ~ 4~u.~ ~
.urWrw:nir.+uA::IP.,n ,.,.ir:uw+r, ;;..i;:a,wa iou~qwn.f YG~Y6AIeJJ,
I ~ I ~ ww1M4:iCN ~iwIW4V1b'IeMYG18Jvy ;•,•'py:`".l4.'
I
TABLE IV-3 PROJECTIUNS OF fACII[TY VISI1ATIuN BY SUBMARKEi (ANNUAL VISIiUR DAYS)
SCENARIU: COMPARABLE PERFORMANCE
1986-81 1981-88 1938-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1494-95 1995-96
WINTER:
Winter guests 68850 10511 72336 14144 75998 17897 19345 81841 83387 85984
Day skiers 9130 9410 9645 9886 10133 10386 10646 10912 11185 11465
SUMNER: Sunaer guests 28401 29111 29838 30584 31349 32133 32936 33159 34603 35469
Susoer day visitors 3119 3811 3906 4004 4104 4206 4312 4419 4530 4643
LOCAL MARKET:
local swimmers 34500 35363 36247, 37153 38032 39034 40009 41010 42035 43086
Local recreation 13300 14145 14499 14861 15233 15613 16004 16404 16314 11234
Students 33000 33525 34671 35537 36426 37336 38210 39227 40201 41212
Uut-of-earket factor 11015 11290 11512 11362 12153 12462 12774 13093 13421 13756
iOiAl ANNUAL VISITUR DAYS 202463 207525 212713 218031 223482 229069 234795 240665 246682 252849
Arowne, Bort.z b Coddington, Inc.
, W
~
~ ' ^w^.•, ~ ~ ...un.,a www41 IurWUAWi +hWiDaWM ~iaW~W ~'vJWi4.lwii feYY4W,i..J f,YOi+ii.id s11x1.IWN'~ M1I?w'Y~YU 12ilYlYili(!:YiiYWYi:d1 ~iWmJYI{~ ~y'^~y'yyW ~'--~-.i
?
TABLE IV-4 VAIL AUUATIC CENTER, REVENUE FURECASTS
SCENARIO: COhPARABLE PERFURMANCE
1956-87 1987-88 1938-89 1959-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96
WINTER:
' Winter guests $516,375 $529,284 $542,516 $556,019 $569,981 $584,231 $598,837 $613,808 =629,153 $644,882
Day skiers $63,850 $70,571 $72,336 $74,144 $75,993 $77,897 $79,845 $31,841 $83,887 =95,984
S.T. $585,225 S599,856 $614,852 $630,223 $645,979 :662,128 5673,682 =695,649 $713,040 =730,866
SUMMER:
Suoeer guests $213,005 $218,330 t223,788 t229,303 $235,117 $240,995 $247,020 $253,196 $259,526 $266,014
SumOer day visitors t27,884 $28,531 $29,296 $30,028 $30,779 t31,543 :32,337 =33,146 =33,914 $34,824
S.T. $240,889 $246,911 $253,084 $259,411 t265,896 $272,544 $279,357 t266,341 $293,500 t300,837
LUCAL MARKEI:
Loc:al saimAers t17,969 $18,418 $18,878 $19,350 $19,834 t20,330 $20,838 t21,359 t21,893 =22,441
Local recreation $55,200 $56,580 s51,994 =59,444 =e0,930 tb2,454 $64,015 $65,615 $67,256 $68,937
Students $33,000 $33,825 $34,671 $35,537 $36,426 $37,336 $38,270 $39,227 $40,207 $41,212
S.T. $106,169 =103,323 =111,544 $114,332 $117,190 =120,120 =123,123 $126,201 $129,356 =132,590
Out-of-market fac:tor f82,611 t84,617 t86,194 S83,963 t91,188 =93,467 =95,804 $98,199 $100,654 $103,170
USER FEES TOTAL $1,014,894 =1,040,266 t1,066,213 t1,092,930 t1,120,253 :1,143,259 :1,116,966 :1,206,390 s1,236,550 :1,261,464
OTHER REVENUES:
Special events $0 $O $0 $0 :0 t0 f0 $0 $0 t0 '
Competition $O $O t0 t0 $0 $0 $0 =D $0 t0
Restaurant lease $39,172 $39,527 t39,840 540,262 $40,644 $41,035 $41,436 $41,847 =42,268 i42,699
Rental/Clothing $19,172 $0,527 t19,890 $20,262 $20,644 $21,035 $21,436 $21,847 t22,268 t22,699
Lockers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 t0 $O t0 $0
Lessons =10,123 t10,376 $10,636 $10,902 $11,174 $11,453 $11,740 $12,033 $12,334 S12,642
bTHER REVENUES iUTAL $68,468 $69,430 $70,415 $71,426 $72,462 t13,523 $74,611 $75,726 $76,870 =78,041
TUiAL =1,093,362 =1,109,696 t1,136,639 =1,164,356 S1,192,715 $1,221,153 =1,251,577 $1,282,111 $1,313,419 $1,345,505
Browne, Bortt 6 Coddingkon, Inc.
w
N
33
~ Limitations
~
The projections developed here represents the consultant team's best
estimate of likely project performance. Certain limitations are noteworthy.
~
• A project of the size and nature proposed here, in a
~ winter resort community, is virtually unprecendented,
~ therefore projections of market response have a corres-
- ponding degree of uncertainty.
~ • Project capital costs represent an estimate based on
~ other facilities and past experience. Considerable
additional work is required before site specific costs
~ can be achieved.
• The potential problems of operating a warm, humid "
structure in a cold, dry climate present a variety of
~ design challenges. Greater efforts are needed on site
= and building design issues.
ff • Operating costs will depend on final design, operating
~hours and programming. Further refinement of these
costs should be achieved as project planning continues.
3.
• These market projections do not reflect a likely start-
' up lag. In actuality, market response to such a
facility, particularly a new concept such as this,
~ would require one to two years before acheiving desired
attendance levels.
~
~
~
~ i
f
~
4
{
iq
i
ORDINANCE N0. 16
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 5,
AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE N0. 6, SERIES OF 1976, BY
AMENDING THE SITE PLAN
WHEREAS, the applicant, Vail Run Resort Community, is requesting to convert an
existing exterior tennis court to a parking area, creating a total of 21 additional
parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, Vail Run Resort Community has determined that there is a need for
this additional parking and further determined that this additional parking will be
a benefit to the existing development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has reviewed the proposed
amendment to Special Development District No. 5 and has determined it to be
reasonable and appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered it to be reasonable, appropriate and
beneficial to the Town and to its citizens and habitants and visitors to amend said
Special Development District No. 5.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO,
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 3.6 (2) of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1976, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Section 3.B(2).
The existing site consisting of the building containing 55 dwelling units,
approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial space, a swimming pool and spa area,
two tennis courts, as well as the parking and landscaped area as amended by the
approved parking/site plan drawn by Gordon Pierce dated August 28, 1986, as well as
the parking plan drawn by Gordon R. Pierce, Architects, dated April 13, 1987,
shall be known as SDD5.
Section 2.
Section 3.6 of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1976, is hereby amended by the
addition of Section 3.6(3) as follows:
Section 3.6(3).
The portion of Special Development District No. 5 described by the parking
plan drawn by Gordon R. Pierce, Architects, dated April 13, 1987 shall be subject to
the following conditions:
A. The parking area as described by the site plan incorporated by this amendment
shall be primarily for the use of employees and for parking for residential guests.
No commercial vehicles or other vehicles which cannot be parked in a normal size
parking space (9 feet by 19 feet) will be parked in such area.
B. No snow shall be placed or piled on the property known as Simba Run.
C. A landscape plan shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be subject to
Simba Run's consent, such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. At a minimum
there shall be 10 foot blue spruces provided at a minimum number equal to one every
8 feet of the perimeter of the south and west sides of the parking area. Such
trees may be placed on the property known as Simba Run on the west side, but shall
be maintained by the applicant. A five foot berm shall be maintained on the west
side and shall wrap around the southwest corner. Such berms shall be on the
property known as Simba Run. The Town of Vail Design Review Board will have final
approval of the landscape plan and any amendments thereto.
D. No lighting shall be placed around the parking area unless required by the
Town of Vail and if such lighting is required, design shall be such that light
posts shall be no more than 4 feet high and the light shall be cast downward.
Lighting on the ramp may be provided by posts no more than 4 feet high or by wall
lights directing light downward.
Section 3.
This ordinance shall take effect five days after publication following the
final passage hereof.
Section 4.
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 valildity 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.
i
Section 5.
,The repeal or the repeal and reenaction of any provisions of the Vail Municipal
Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 16th day of June 1987
, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 16th
_ day of June, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 16th day of June , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 7, 1987
SUBJECT: Vail Run Amendment
On June 16th the Town Council passed the first reading of
Ordinance #16, Series of 1987, regarding conversion of a tennis
court to parking at Vail Run Resort.
At that meeting several conditions were read into the
ordinance. Those conditions are now in place for second
reading.
ORDINANCE N0. 18
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.12 PARKING ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF
SECTION 10.12.055 COURT COST UPON DISMISSAL, AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town's parking on private property ordinance is intended to
protect private property owners from unauthorized parking; and
WHEREAS, often private property owners sign a complaint without adequately
checking on the driver of the vehicle and later requests that the complaint be
dismissed; and WHEREAS, such requests cost the Town money for Police Officer's time,
prosecution time and court time which should be borne by the complainant.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail,
Colorado, that:
1. Chapter 10.12 is hereby amended by the addition of Section 10.12.055 Court
Cost Upon Dismissal to read as follows:
10.12.055 Court Cost Upon Dismissal
At such time as the Municipal Court grants the request of a complainant who has
signed a complaint under this Chapter, to dismiss said complaint, the Court shall
assess court costs against complainant in an amount not less than five dollars ($5)
and not to exceed fifty dollars ($50) for each complaint so dismissed.
2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby
declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance
is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of ail and
the inhabitants thereof.
4. 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
hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced
under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal
of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS 16th day of June 1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 16th day of
June , 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 16th day of June 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROUED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-2-
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 7, 1987
SUBJECT: Second reading of the Elk Meadows Special Development
District Ordinance
On June 16, 1987, the Town Council made a motion to approve the
Elk Meadows Special Development District at first reading. The
following changes have been made to the ordinance and are typed
in all capitals in the document:
l. The square footage for each tract has been changed due to
the removal of the four parking spaces on the western
portion of the subdivision.
2. A dollar sign was added to Section 4, #12 Amenities Tax to
indicate that the staff is referring to a thirty cent
charge per square foot. '
3. In Section 4A, the following letters have been referenced
as part of the Environmental Impact Report:
a. Letter from Mr. Don Pettigrove, P.E., 6/12/87
b. Letter from Mr. Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., 6/15/87
c. Letter from Mr. Don Pettigrove, P.E., 6/16/87
d. Letter from Mr. Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., 6/18/87
4. In Section 4 of the ordinance, the reference to the
preliminary drainage plan from Mr. Don Pettigrove has been
added.
5. The Design Guidelines in Section 4, #11 have been changed
in the following ways per the request of the Design Review
Board:
a. Roof pitch shall be between 4' and 12' and 6' and 12'
b. Roof materials shall be metal standing seam or a
metal stamped California tile form and be either charcoal grey or dark navy blue in color.
c. f, which related to decks and balconies has been
~ omitted from the ordinance.
6. In Section 4A, the statement has been added to the last
sentence of this paragraph so that it now reads:
"The development plan is comprised of those plans
submitted by Lamar Capital Corporation and consists
of the following documents WHICH WILL BE FINALIZED
AT THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT REVIEW."
The Town Council also requested an additional letter from Mr.
Nicholas Lampiris addressing rockfall in common areas for the
subdivision. A drainage letter was also requested to verify
that the additional drainage from the subdivision would have
no significant impacts on the phase to the west of Phase III.
Please see the two attached letters.
:1
BANNER..
_ June 18, 1S27
Michael J. Lauterbach '
F' . O. Eio;; 3451
Vail, CO. 81658 . FE: E1 E:: Meadows Sut d i vi si an Roc k:f al 1
Dear- Mr. Lauterbach: - ,
In response to one of the issues raised in the Collins
letter-, I feel very comfortable aaith having no mitic~ation for
potential racE::fall into common, open space areas within the
proposed devel opmc=nt . l"ypi cal 1 y, the i ntent of open ar-eas,
as l ong as there are no permanent communi ty structures such
as or f i czs or meeti ng p1 aczs, i s to provi de space for gravi i_y
related qeoloqic phenomena to occur with no damaqe to .
stiructures, and minimal chance ot e::po5ure to persanal
injur-y. •
When I prepare a report -F or ci i ent s owr•ii ng, f or i nstnncE y a
one ar_r-e par-cei for the development o+ one single family
resi dencE , the si te i s ei ther i ocatEd away f rom a hazar-d,
including perhaps r-ocf::fail, or- mitigation tcchniqurs ar-e
emp 1 oyed to cii r-ect any poteny ia1 geol oai c occurrence araund
the homes:L te i nto the open spar_ea Thi s is the most prudent
approach, as we cannot o:-atect ever-y square foot af pr'operty
an1 still 17.ve in the mauntains.
I hope I have adequatel v addres=ed thi s par-ti cul ar concer-n.
F'lease c_oni ac-L- me if there are further auestions. Si. ncer-el y,
Br`aNhd"-_'S A:35lJC I ATES , I i,lC .
Nicholas Lanpiris, PhD.
F'r-o j nc=t Gzol og i. st
NL i i=1 E:: .
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES. IIVC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
SU(TE 6, 605 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 •(303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 •(303) 243-2242
~ .
BANNER
June 15, 1987
Michael J. Lauterbach
F. D. Do:: 3451
Vail, C0. 8155S
F;E: Elk Meadow5 Subdivision F:ocEcfall
Dear r'lr. LaLtterbach:
I have reviewed the reparts prepared the weel:: ending June 12,
1987, by Don F'e-ttygrove, our structural engineer, concerning
the rocl.-:-Fall mitigation for the ElEc hleadows Subdivision. As
previ ousl y men{:i Unnd , patenti al rocE::f al 1 i nto thi s si ie aji 1 1
be very in-Frequeni over the years, but this type of
mitigation is still prLident.
If the engineereci design criteria pr-esented by Don F'ettygrove
in l-iis above referenced rEport is followed, ttie rockfall
hazard to occupants within structures to be located within
Elk: Meadows Subdivision will be miniirized. Further, if i:he
recommenciecl enginecring is accomplished during the
construction of structUres upon the proprsed buildiny
envelopes, triere should be no increased hazard to othcr
propErty or- structures, or to public buildinys, roads,
street=,, right-of-way, easements, utilities or facilities.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitatr to
cont~-Ict uS.
Si ncerel y,
','i',,:' ~ ,
EtFaNNER AS^oOCIATES, IIVC.
Nicholas Lampiris, F'hD. " ' •
/ F'roject Geologist '
I
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES, QVC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3c ARC}itTECTS
SUrI'E 6, 605 FAST MAW 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 •(303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 •(303) 243-2242
June 16, 1987 BANNER
Mr. Peter Patton
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Elk Meadows Subdivision (The Valley),
Filing #2, Phase III BAI #8095-05
Dear Peter,
I am writing, as you requested, to clarify our opinion regarding
the anticipated impact of this development on the storm flow into
the adjacent property to the west.
The peak design f low through the meadow area for a storm of 10-
year recurrence, is only 8 cfs for a total basin area of some 178
acres. The total surfaced area of road is approximately 0.9 acre
with an area of about 0.5 acre established for the building
envelopes giving a total of approximately 1.4 acres of the total
178 in which the drainage characteristics will be altered by this
development. It is our opinion that any change in peak flow
generated by this development.is beyond the accuracy of the
methods used to calculate f lows such as this and therefore can
not be accurately evaluated.
The transmission of flows through the site will be altered by
providing a more clearly defined drainage path although slightly
more circuitous. We believe the two will offset and the travel
time through the site will remain virtually the same as current.
. The quantity and point of discharge from this property will not
change from existing conditions and as a result should have no
adverse impact on the adjacent parcel.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
call.
Sincerely,
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
~
Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E.
DGP/rlg
cc: Mike Lauterbach
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
2777'CROSSROADS BOULEVARD '
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 9 (303) 243-2242
ORDINANCE N0. 19
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE APPROUING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(KNOWN AS SDD N0. 16, ELK MEADOWS) AND THE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL
CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Uail Municipal Code authorizes Special
Development Districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, Lamar Capital Corporation has submitted an application for a Special
Development approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as The
Valley, Phase III, part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 to be
known as Special Development District No. 16; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 16 will insure unified and
and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the
area in which it is situated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental-Commission has recommended approval of
the proposed SDD; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and
beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish
such Special Development District No. 16:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1 Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planninq Commission Report.
The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have
been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of thePlanning and
Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for
SDD 16.
Section 2. Special Development District No. 16
Special Development District No. 16 (SDD No. 16) and the development plan
therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Phase III The Valley, part of
Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, within the Town of Vail consisting
of 3.6 acres.
~
Section 3. Purpose
Special Development District 16 is established to ensure comprehensive development
and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town
of Vail. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town
Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the
Municipal Code. As stated in the staff inemorandum dated June 8, 1987, there are
significant aspects of Special Development District 16 which are difficult to
satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the Residential Cluster zone
district. SDD 16 allows for greater flexibi.lity in the development of the land
than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. In order to help
preserve the natural and scenic features of this site, building envelopes wi11 be
established which designate the areas upon the site in which development will
occur. The establishment of these building envelopes will also permit the phasing
of the development to proceed-according to each individual owner's ability to
construct a residence. SDD 16 provides an appropriate development plan that
maintains the unique character of this site given the difficult site constraints
which must be addressed in the overall design of the project.
Section 4. Development Plan
A. The development plan for SDD 16 is approved and shall constitute the plan for
development within the Special Development District. The development plan is
comprised of those plans submitted by Lamar Capital Corporation and consists
of the following documents, WHICH WILL BE FINALIZED AT THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION
FINAL PLAT REVIEW:
1. Elk Meadows Subdivision Phase III: Preliminary Plan Building Envelopes
AND PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN, Phase III The Valley, February 23, 1987,
Mr. Lee Lechner, Colorado Registered Land Surveyor
2. Elk Meadows Subdivision Phase.III Access Road Design Drawing, John
MacKowen, Surveying and Engineering, Inc., June 5, 1987
3. FINAL Landscape Plan, Elk Meadows, Phase III, Mr. Dennis Anderson,
Associates, June 30, 1987
4. ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PHASE III PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN, MR. DON
PETTIGROVE, P.E., JUNE 1987
5. Environmental Impact Report submitted by Mr. Peter Jamar, Associates,
Inc., May 11, 1987 which includes Design Guidelines, Rockfall Mitigation
requirements, and a preliminary utility plan. THE FOLLOWING LETTERS ARE
ALSO PART OF THE EIR:
a. LETTER FROM MR. DON PETTIGROUE, P.E. TO MR. MIKE LAUTERBACH, JUNE
12, 1987, RE: PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN/GEOLOGIC HAZARD MITIGATION
ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION
b. LETTER FROM MR. NICHOLAS LAMPIRIS, PH.D, TO MR. MIKE LAUTERBACH,
JUNE 15, 1987 RE: ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, ROCKFALL
c. LETTER FROM MR. DON PETTIGROVE, P.E. TO MR. PETER PATTEN, JUNE 16,
1987. RE: ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PHASE III DRAINAGE
d. LETTER FROM MR. NICHOLAS LAMPIRIS, PH.D, TO MR. MICHAEL LAUTERBACH,
JUNE 18, 1987, RE: ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, ROCKFALL
6. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards
of the Special Development District.
B. The development plan shall-adhere to the following:
1. Acrea e: The total acreage of the site is 3.6 acres.
2. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are proposed to be:
a. Single family residential dwellings
b. Two-family residential dwellings
c. Open space
d. Public and private roads
3. Conditional Uses:
a. Public utility and public service uses
b. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
c. Public or private schools
d. Public park and recreation facilities
e. Ski lifts and tows
f. Private clubs
g. Dog kennel
4. Accessory Uses:
a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports,
swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-
family or two-family residential uses.
b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190;
c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional
uses, and necessary for the operation thereof;
d. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58.
5. Parcel Acreages and Uses
a. Buil.ding Envelopes
1. .07 acres, 1 single family unit
2. .07 acres, 1 single family unit
3. .06 acres, 1 single family unit
4. .05 acres, 1 single family unit
5. .10 acres, 1 duplex unit
` 6. .08 acres, 1 duplex unit
7. .05 acres, 1 single family unit
b. Tract 1: 2.467 acres open space
c. Tract 2: .6927 acres private access road and parking
6. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of structures with relations
to building envelope perimeter lines shall be as follows:
a. No structure shall be located on the utility easement as so designated
on the final plat of the subdivision.
b. No structure shall be located less than two feet from either the east or
the west perimeter line.
c. No structure shall be located less than three feet from the north
perimeter line.
d. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove to the contrary, roof
overhangs and decks may encroach into the setback areas described in b and c so
long as such roof overhangs and decks are totally within the perimeter lines of the
building envelope. .
7. Density: Approval of this development plan shall permit nine (9) dwelling
units which includes 5 single family units and 2 duplex units.
A building situated on a single unit residential building envelope shall
not contain more than 1,777 square feet of GRFA; a building situated on a two unit
residential building envelope shall not contain more that 3,554 square feet of
GRFA.
8. Building Height: Building height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof.
9. Parkin : Two parking spaces shall be provided per unit with one of the two
spaces being enclosed.
10. Landscaping: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated
on the preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to
4
the Design Review Board for their approval. The Design Review Board approved final
landscape plan shall represent the general subdivision's landscape requirements.
The entire portion of the building envelope not covered by pavement or
buildings shall be landscaped as well as any areas outside the building envelope
disturbed during construction.
11. Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines shall be submitted to the Design
Review Board fo•r their approval. The DRB final design guidelines shall represent
the approved design guidelines. Design guidelines for the site are as foliows:
a. Roof pitch shall be.BETWEEN 4 feet in 12 feet AND 6 FEET IN 12 FEET.
b. Roof material shall be METAL STANDING SEAM OR A METAL STAMPED CALIFORNIA
TILE FORM and be either charcoal grey or DARK NAVY blue in color.
c. Siding material shall be either cedar or redwood and shall be applied
horizontally as indicated on the prototypical building elevations. Only light
colored stain shall be applied to siding. d. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to exposed concrete foundation
walls. If stucco is utilized, it shall be light in color.
e. All windows shall be white metal clad windows.
f. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least 1 foot in order to protect
walls and wall openings from rain and snow and to contribute to the building's
character.
12. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is $.30 per square
foot.
13. Protective Covenants: Prior to.major subdivision final plat approval, the
developer shall file protective covenants on the 1and records of Eagle County which
will provide that each owner that builds a structure on a designated building
envelope shall comply with the design guidelines and rockfall mitigation
requirements as outlined in the EIR by Jamar Associates May 11, 1987. Copies of
the guidelines and mitigation requirements shall be available to prospective
purchasers at the Community Development Office and Developer's office.
The covenants shall also state that an owner may choose to have another
qualified engineer/geologist design appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as
long as the mitigation solution does not have negative visual impacts and is
approved by the Town of Vail Community Development Department and Town Engineer.
The covenants shall also provide in regard to the covenant dealing with
5
design guidelines and rockfall mitigation that the Town of Vail shall have the
right to enforce the covenant and that the covenant may not be amended or de?eted
without Town of Vail approval.
The protective covenants shall be approved by the Town of Vail Attorney,
prior to major subdivision final plat approval.
Section 5. Amendments
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may
be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled
public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. Amendments
which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be
approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The
Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the
substance of the development plan.
Section 6. Expiration
The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18
months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward
completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work
toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the
Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the preceding
subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special
Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the
approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the
Special Development District be revoked,.or that the Special Development District
be amended.
Section 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 thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 8.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal
6
Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 16th day of June ,
1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 16th day of
June , 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 16th day of June , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
TO: The Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: A request for the rezoning of the Valley Phase Three
from Residential Cluster to Special Development
District with underlying Residential Cluster zoning.
Applicants Lamar Capital Corporation.
DATE: June 16, 1987
The applicant's request actually involved two planning
commission actions:
1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major subdivision
request.
2. The review of the special development district zoning
request.
The Town Council is not required to review the major
subdivision request unless the Council wishes to call up the
planning commission's decision. However, due to the fact that
the major subdivision request is so closely tied to the special
development district, the staff feels that it would be helpful
to review both requests at the same time.
The Community Development Department recommended approval of
both the major subdivision and SDD with conditions. The
applicant is proposing a major subdivision and SDD on Phase 3
of the Valley. The parcel is 3.6 acres and would be divided
into seven building sites or envelopes. Five of the envelopes
would allow the construction of single family dwellings and two
envelopes would allow construction of duplex residences. A
total of nine dwelling units is proposed for this phase.
This project was originally developed under Eagle County at
which time Phase 3 was allowed 16,000 sq ft of GRFA and a total
of 10 dwelling units for the entire development. When the
project was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1980, the GRFA and
number of units were accepted by the Town. In 1981, the Town
applied Residential Cluster zoning as tne underlying zone
district guide for the parcel. The Valley was deannexed from
the Town of Vail in 1985 and subsequently reannexed in May
1986.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request on June 8, 1987,
and recommended approval of the special development district
and approved the major subdivision. A motion to approve the
major subdivision was made by Ms. Pam Hopkins and seconded by
Mr. Sid Schultz. The motion for approval included the staff
conditions and was predicated upon the approval of the Special
Development District. The vote was 3 to 1 with Mr. J.J.
Collins voting against the request. The Special Development
District was recommended for approval in a motion by Mr. Sid
Schultz which was seconded by Ms. Pam Hopkins. The vote was 3
to 1 with Mr. Collins voting against the project. Mr. J.J.
Collins felt that more specific information was needed on the
rock fall mitigation that each owner would be required to
complete. In general, his opinion was that the developer
should be responsible for the mitigation. He was also
concerned about the rock fall hazard between the building
envelopes. He felt that the rock fall could effect the private
access road and parking areas. Please see the enclosed letter
from Mr. J.J. Collins which clearly explains his position on
the project.
The Community Development staff, Town Attorney, and applicants
had a meeting after the Planning Commission review in order to
clarify some requirements on compliance with the rock fall
mitigation requirements. It was agreed that the development of
each building envelope will comply with the environmental
impact report, especially the design recommendations cited by
Mr. Dan Pettigrove, and Mr. Nick Lampiris in revised letters
concerning design mitigataion for rock fall hazards which will
be submitted to the staff on June 15, 1987. The revised letter
will be presented to the Council at the evening meeting. The
applicant has also agreed to include in the covenants for the
Elk Meadows subdivision the requirement that each owner shall
complete the design mitigation work for rock fall hazards.
The staff is also willing to waive the condition that a gas
line be provided in the subdivision. The major subdivision
regulations in section 17.16.150 state that a natural gas line
is required unless otherwise waived by either the Zoning
Administrator, Director of Public Works, Planning Commission or
Council. Due to the fact that electrical is available, staff
felt the gas line could be waived for the subdivision.
ORDINANCE N0. 20
, Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM
THE TOWN OF VAIL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, AND THE REAL
ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND OF THE 1987 BUDGET AND
FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS
AS SET FORTH HEREIN.
WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1987 which could not
have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it
enacted Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1986, adopting the 1987 Budget and Financial
Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and
WHEREAS, the Town Manager had certified to the Town Council that sufficient
funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not
otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter
of the Town of Vail; and ,
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it
should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail,
Colorado, that:
~Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the
Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1987
Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the
expenditure of said appropriations as follows:
FUND AMOUNT
Capital Projects Fund $512,900
Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 379,100
TOTAL $892,000
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS 16th day of June 1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 16th day
of June , 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 16th day of June 1987,
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-2-
ORDINANCE N0. 21
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.26.075 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL CONCERNING CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS.
WHEREAS, Ramshorn Partnership has submitted an application to amend Section
17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the amendment provides a reasonable solution to creating a balance
between owner use and guest use of a converted condminium; and
WHEREAS, the short term bed base for the community will continue to be
protected through this amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimously recommended
approval of this amendment to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, such amendment must be approved by the Town Council of the Town of
Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate,
and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend
said Section 17.26.075.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO,
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 17.26.075 A.I. is hereby amended to read as follows:
A1. AN OWNER'S PERSONAL USE OF HIS OR HER UNIT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO 28 DAYS
DURING THE SEASONAL PERIOD OF DECEMBER 24TH TO JANUARY 1ST AND FEBRUARY 1ST TO
MARCH 20TH. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high sea$on."
"Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner's occupancy of a unit or non-
paying guest of the owner or taking the unit off of the rental market during
the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than for
necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which may 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.
Section 2.
Section 17.26.075 A.4. is hereby amended by the addition of sub-paragraph A.4. to
read as follows:
A.4. THE CONUERTED LODGE UNITS SHALL NOT BE USED AS PERMANENT RESIDENCES. A
"PERMANENT RESIDENCE" IS DEFINED AS ANY USE OF THE CONDOMINIUM BY ONE PERSON
OR MORE FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF TIME GREATER THAN SIX (6) MONTHS.
Section 3.
Section 17.26.075 C is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. The converted condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist
market. IF UNSOLD 30 DAYS AFTER RECORDING OF THE CONDOMINIUM MAP, THE UNSOLD
CONUERTED CONDOMINIUMS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO
THE GENERAL TOURIST MARKET. This requirement may be met by inclusion of the
units of the cond-iminium project at compa;°able rates, in any local reservation
system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the Town.
Section 4.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 5.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal
Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
~
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROUED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
C T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to amend the Town of Vail Subdivision
Regulations concerning condominium conversions in
Section 17.26.075.
Applicants: Mr. David Garton and Mr. Tim Garton
I. THE REQUEST
The applicants are requesting to amend the condominium
conversion ordinance in the Subdivision Regulations
concerning an owner's personal use of a converted
condominium. The condominium conversion section addresses
the conversion of a lodge to a condominium project.
Attached to the memo are the existing condominium
conversion regulations.
Below is a list of the requested changes. Sections of the
code that have been changed have been highlighted in
capital letters.
Section 17.26.075 A. 1. AN OWNER'S PERSONAL USE OF
HIS OR HER UNIT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO 28 DAYS DURING
j THE SEASONAL PERIOD OF DECEMBER 24TH TO JANUARY 1ST
AND FEBRUARY 1ST TO MARCH 20TH. 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 of the rental market during the seasonal 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.
The existing wording for this section states that owner's
personal use shall be restricted to 14 days during the
seasonal period of December 15th through April 15th and 14
days during June 15th through September 15th.
Section 17.26.075 A. 4. (This is an entirely new
section to be added to the condominium conversion
regulations.)
THE CONVERTED LODGE UNITS SHALL NOT BE USED AS
PERMANENT RESIDENCES. A PERMANENT RESIDENCE IS
~ DEFINED AS ANY USE OF THE CONDOMINIUM BY ONE PERSON
OR MORE FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF TIME GREATER THAN •
SIX MONTHS.
C Section 17.26.075 C. The converted condominium units
shall remain available to the general tourist market.
UNSOLD CONVERTED CONDOMINIUMS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE
FURNISHED AND BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL
TOURIST MARKET. This condition may be met by
inclusion of the units of the condominium project, at
comparable rates, in any local reservation system for
the rental of lodge or condominium units in the
Town.
The applicants have provided the following reasons as to
why the request is warranted:
1. We are unable to sell our Ramshorn Condominiums
with the current use restriction, Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail, 17.26.075. Basically, the
use restriction does not fit the condominium
useage pattern extant in ski areas today. It
has made our condominiums unsaleable. Worst of
all for Vail, the unsold Ramshorn condominiums
are not being utilized at all by visitors to
Vail. The use restriction as it stands right
now is unnecessary and intolerable; the rental
obligation is both desirable and tolerable. We
request that the use restriction be relaxed, not
~ lifted. The rental obligation would continue in
effect as is and unsold condominiums would be
required to be furnished.
2. It appears to be accepted that condominiums in
the core areas are desirable if:
a. They are rented out when the owner is not
using them.
b. They are rented or lived in short term (not
used as a primary residence)
3. It is very unlikely that anyone would live full
time in a core area condominium because it is
economically unfeasible. The Lift House Lodge
has 45 studio condominiums. The units have sold
at prices between $20,000 and $100,000. No
owners have ever lived there. No one has ever
rented long term through the winter. 43 of the
45 owners voluntarily rent short term.
C II. BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST
In June of 1984, the owners of the Ramshorn Lodge
requested to convert the lodge into condominiums. This
request was approved by the Planning Commission. Below is
a table which explains the existing, proposed, and
allowable statistics relating to the Ramshorn property.
, EXISTING PROPOSED
# SQ FT # SQ FT
Accommodation units 28 8,146 17 6,266
Dwelling units 3 2,479 7 5,903
Total density 17 10,625 15.5 12,169
Common lobby/lounge 2 1,337 2 1,038
Total allowable 13 18,572 2.5 6,403
over under
Parking spaces 33~ 33
In March, the applicants began discussing the possibility
of modifying the use restriction with the Town Council.
They began working with the Council, as the present
~ regulations state that the Council has the responsibility
to review any requests to modify the conditions of lodge
conversions to condominiums for specific projects.
After three work sessions, the Council determined that it
would be more appropriate if the entire Condominium
Conversion ordinance was amended as opposed to approving a
specific request for the Ramshorn property. Their
decision was based on the concern that it would be
difficult to review future requests for amendments to
specific condominium conversion agreements in a fair
matter due to the fact that the existing Subdivision
Regulations do not have any clear criteria for reviewing
this type of request.
The amendment to the ordinance will make the proposed
revisions to the conversion regulations applicable to all
properties and will not single out a specific project.
The Town Attorney also recommended the amendment approach,
as it was much more defensible legally to amend the
ordinance across the board as opposed to making a decision
for a specific project.
The applicants have basically taken the Town Council's
recommendations and incorporated them into the present
request.
r
~
-3-
C III. BACKGROUND ON STAFF'S POSITION DURING THE TOWN COUNCIL
REVIEW SESSIONS
At the first Town Council work session on March 24th, the
original request was to change the use restriction for the
Ramshorn Condominiums from 2 weeks during during each of
the winter and summer high seasons to 8 weeks. The
applicants proposed that owners be obligated to put their
units on the open rental market when the units were not
being used. It was also proposed that unsold condominiums
would be furnished and put into the rental pool.
The staff's position was that a 4 week owner use
restriction be used during each of the winter and summer
high seasons along with the rental obligation and
furnishing of unsold condominiums.
The Council requested that the staff provide information
on numbers of accommodation units and amenities associated
with Vail Lodges. The Council's opinion was that perhaps
it might be feasible to remove the use restriction for
only small lodges.
At the April 21st work session, the applicants presented a
~ revised proposal which called for removing the owner use
restriction entirely with the conditions that the units
not be used as primary residences; units not being used by
the owners would be placed in a short term rental program;
and unsold units would be furnished and placed in a short
term rental pool. This amendment would have applied to
all lodge conversions.
The staff position remained the same and allowed for 4
weeks for each of the winter and summer seasons. Also, it
was recommended that the use restriction change be applied
to all properties by going through the zoning amendment
process. Staff also presented information on the number
of accommodation units and amenities associated with
lodges. 450 of the total number of lodges fell into the
category of a small lodge (10 - 37 units). 18% of the
total number of accommodation units are in small lodges
(261 accommodation units out of 1,419 total units).
In general, the Council felt that lifting the use
restriction was reasonable as long as the units would be
short termed when not used by the owner and that the owner
would not use the unit as a primary residence.
At the May 19th work session, the applicants had
essentially the same request with the additional
~
-4-
recommendation that the change to the use restriction be
considered as a sunset amendment. As an example, the
~ change in the ordinance could be reviewed in one to two
years to determine if the amendment was still appropriate.
The staff position was that the use restriction be
adjusted to 4 weeks during the period of December 18th to
March 20th.and 4 weeks during the period of June 19th to
September llth. A slight change in the high season period
was made in order to free up an additional 4 unrestricted
weeks in the winter and one additional week of
unrestricted use in the summer.
Our position was based on the following points:
1. Several policy planning documents have indicated that
preserving the short term bed base is an important
goal for our community. The adopted Land Use Plan
states that:
113.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and
used more efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the
best locations for hotels to serve the future
needs of the destination skiers.
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued
success of the Town of Vail, therefore,
~ conversions to condominiums should be
~ discouraged.". _
Although the Vail Village Master Plan has not
received final approval, the draft policy statements
indicate the same concern for preserving the short
term bed base. The draft document has received
support at public meetings and several Town Council
and Planning Commission review sessions:
Goal No. 2. To foster a strong tourist industry
and to promote year round economic health and
viability for the Village and for the community
as a whole.
Objective 3. To increase the number of
residential units throughout the Village area
available for short-term overnight •
accommodations.
Policy: The development of accommodation units
are strongly encouraged Any residential units
that are developed above existing density levels
shall be designed or managed in a manner that
makes them available for short term rental.
(
~
-5-
~ 2. The existing conversion ordinance does make it
somewhat difficult to convert lodge rooms to
condominiums. Staff agrees with the applicant that
the use patterns have changed in resort communities
today as far a how long condominium owners wish to
use their units. Some of this change is due to the
fact that resort communities no longer have such a
speculative market. Those people who buy
condominiums tend to want to use them more
frequently, as they are not buying them solely for
investment purposes. Staff agrees with the
applicants that some changes are reasonable to the
existing use restriction. However, the staff would
have preferred to adjust the use restriction by
changing it to a 4 week use restriction in each of
the summer and winter seasons.
A compromise was reached at the May 19th meeting.
The applicants agreed to the request as described in
this memo which removed owner's use restriction
during the summer and changed the winter restricted
period to include Vail's 8 busiest weeks during which
the owner could only use the unit 4 weeks out of this
8 week period.
~ Staff felt that it.was important to bring the
Planning Commission up to date with all the series of
discussions that have occurred related to the
Gartons' request. This summary of Town Council
discussions has been provided so that the PEC
understands how the proposal developed.
In the following review of the request, staff has
decided to outline the Town Council's thinking on the
request and how it compares to the criteria, rather
than rehashing the staff position on the proposal.
This is a reasonable approach to the memo, as the
applicants have spent a great deal of time working
out a solution with the Town Council which was the
required method for arriving at a solution under the
existing ordinance. At the very last meeting, it was
decided that a zoning amendment would be the best
process for handling the request. For this reason,
staff feels that it is only fair to point out the
Council's position in respect to each criteria. The
staff has also had the opportunity to present our
general position on the proposal in the background
section of this memo.
~
~
-6-
.i . . . . . . . ? r.V4 _
` IV. EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST
Criteria No. 1. Suitability of existin zonin .
Condominium Conversions, 17.26.010 Purpose: The ordinance
codified in this chapter has been adopted in accordance
with the provision of the Local Government Land Use Contol
Enabling Act of 1974, as found in C.R.S. 29-20-101, et.
seq. as more paraticularly spelled out in C.R.S. 29-20-104
to regulate condominium conversions which may result in
significant changes in the population of the Town and to
control the impact thereof on the Town and the surrounding
areas. The Town finds that the ordinance codified in this
chapter is necessary for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare to accomplish the following
purposes:
A. To ensure the performance of maintenance
responsibilities in converted condominiums, and to
promote the public health, safety and welfare;
B. To ensure that rental units being converted to
condominiums meet reasonable physical standards as
required by subdivision and building codes adopted by
~ the town;
C. To protect from unnecessary eviction the residents of
rental units being converted to condomniniums, and to
assist these residents in meeting their future
housing needs;
D. To preserve a reasonable balance in the owned versus
rental housing mix and to maintain the supply of low
to moderate income units available in the town;
E. To monitor the supply of low to moderate income units
so that the Town may take measures to avoid a
worsening housing crisis.
These purpose statements are aimed at converting
apartments and, thus, the proposed amendment will not
affect the purpose statements' validity.
Criteria No. 2. Is the amendment presentin a convenient,
workable relationship among land uses, consistent with
municipal objectives?
The Town Council felt that this proposal was a reasonable
solution to creating a balance between the existing use
restriction and to removing the use restriction entirely
( from the conversion ordinance. This proposal restricts
the owners' use during Vail's busiest time during the ski
-7-
season, Christmas and February through mid-March. The
Council felt that the bed base was protected during these
~ peak use periods which was the primary concern of the
original use restriction. Their opinion was that
occupancy levels are low enough during the remainder of
the year to the degree that no "protection" is necessary.
Criteria No. 3. Does the amendment proposal provide for
the growth of an orderly, viable community?
The Council felt that this request provides for a viable
community in that the bed base, which is very important to
the tourist economy, is protected during the busiest times
of the ski season. Their opinion was also that some
additional flexibility is warranted given the very
restrictive nature of the existing conversion ordinance
regulating owners of converted condominiums.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Although we continue with our concerns about this
ordinance change, we are recommending approval of this
request. Our position has been clearly stated during the
work sessions. We believe the current proposal represents
a reasonable compromise but should be reviewed at least
every two years.
~
The Council took a great deal of time to develop a
reasonable solution to the request. Their opinion is that
the hotel bed base is protected during the Town's peak use
periods which is really the original intent of the use
restriction. In addition, the permanent residency limit
and requirement that unsold condomimiums be furnished also
helped to ensure that the units would be available for
guests.
. , .
. -30-
~ CHAPTER 17,26 -
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS
Sections:
. 17,26,010 Purpose 17.26.020 Definitions
17.26.030 Prel iminary map
17.26.040 Final map
17.26.050 Review procedure 17.26.060 Conversion to condominiurns
17.26.070 Additional requirements--Condominium conversions
17.26.075 Condominium conversion -
17.26.080 Action on preliminary map .
17.26.090 Preiiminary public report
17.26.100 Final map
17.26.110 Final rnap approval
17.26.120 Subdivision public report
17.26.130 Improvmenient security 17.26.135 Exemptions
17.26.140 Appl icabil ity
~ 17.26.010 Purpose .
The orditiance codifiecl in this cliapter has been adopted
. in accordance wiih the- provision of the Local Government
Land Use Control Enablimg Act of 1974, as founcl in C.R.S.
29-20-101, et. seq. as more *particutarly spellecl oui in C.R.S.
29-20-104 to rcgulate conctomiiiium conversions wF',ich may result in significant chan(,es in the population of the town and
to cantrol ilie III1j1;1Ct tIIC1'COf OIl the town and the surroundina
areas. The town Cnds that the ordinance"COd1fIL`CI !II Il11S CI11pteT
is ncccssary for the protcctioii of the public liealtli, safcty
and welfare to accoiIlplisIi tlie following purposcs:
A. To eiisure the perfoni»nce of m:iintenance responsibiIities
in convcrted COI1lIO111U11UI11S, and to
promote the public health, safety a»cl welfarc;
B. Tu enstire that rental units bcin,, converted to
coiidominiu?ns meet reasonable ptiysic;il standards as
required hy siibdivisioli and builcliiig cocles acloptecl by the
• town; C. To protect from unneccssary eviction the resiclents of
~reiital uttits beiilg coitvcrtecl to condomiliiin»s, ancl to
assist tliese residcnts in meeting tlicir futurc liousing nceds;
=31- '
~ D. To preserve a reasoniible balancc in the owned versus rental housing mix and to maint:iin tile supply of low to modcrate
, income wiits available in the tovin;
E. To monitor the supply of low to inoclcrate iiicome units
so that the town may take measwcs to avoicl a worseiiitig housing crisis. (Ord. 28(1970) § 1 (part).) ,
17.26.020 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply to the interpretation
of tlus cliapter: .
A. "13ylaws," as uscd in tliis chapter, shaill refer to the bylaws of tlle unit owtiers' association or corporatiori.
' B. "Conununity apartmrnt" means a development in wtuch
there is an uncirvided interest in the lauel coupleci with the
riglit of cxclusivc occupanCy of an apartmc?it located therein. Community apartments shall bc subjcct to the same
restrictions anci conditions set forth in tlus chapter for
condominium units.
C. "Condominium conversion" means the development or use of the la?id and existing structures as a cotldoiliinitim
project rebarcJless of the present or prior use of such lands
~ and structtires, and regardless of whether substantial
~ improvements have been made tb such structures.
D. "Condon;iniizm unit" means a?i individual air space unit
together wit}1 the interest in tlie common elemeiits
appurtenant to such unit.
- E. A"dectaration" is an instrument recorded pursuant to the
. statutes of the state and which defines the charac[er, dura-
tion, ri,lits, obligations, and liniitations of conclomiiiitim
ownership. Tlie declarltion shall inc'.ude all restrictions,
limita:ions anci specificatioiis whicli may be required by the
plarining acld environmeiltal coinmissioii or town coucicil,
includin- provisions relative to time-sliaring estates, li:eiiscs
or fractiunal fees; and the proccdurc for amcndmcnts oC the
declaration whic}i requires appi-oval of'ttie towii.
F. An "individual air space u?tit" consists of iny enclose:d
rooiii or rooiiis occupying all or part of a floor or flooi-s of
a buildin;; of oiic or ntorc floors to bc uscd for resideiitial,
professional, conimcrcial or induslrial purl?oses, which has
access to a Public street.
G. "Mocieratr iilcomc" shall be as defiilc(f frotii tilite to tinic
by i}ic council. ,
(Ord. 24(1950) ti 1; Orcl. 28(1978) § 1(part).) I
~
~
I
. I
. -32-
~ 17.26.030 Preliminary map
All propos::cl condominium conversion projects shall submit the
prciiminary i>>ap, containinn the inforni.ition and requircj-iients
specified iii Ch.:pter 17.16 as may br applicabl: to the proposecl _
COT1CIOllllililllil project. ln adclilion to t}:at informatioii, the
preliminary nnap for thc conclvminium conversion project Shall include:
A. A map showing all common areas aiid usa"cs of the building
and grounds, ancl plans for the intrrior clivision of the
builcling showing tiorizontal atid vertical boundaries of all
units; .
B. A copy of the declaration applicable to the condominium
projcct;
, C. A copy of tlie bylaws. Tlie bylaws shall contain the
infonnation recluired by the Conciominium Ownership Act
of the State of Colorado. All condominium projects shall
comply witl: ±liis requircment.
(Ord. 28(1975) ~ 1 (part).) 17.26-.040 Final map.
T}ie final i1iap ior tlte cor.domitiium conversion project Shall contain
all information required by Chapter 17.16 as the same may
be applicable to the condomiiiium projzct. In additioti, if there
are any restrictive covenants, COI1Cj1C10I1S or restrictiotis ottier
thatl specified in the declaration, ttiey shall be f-iled
concurrently with the final map. (Ord. 28(1978) § 1(part).)
. 1726•.050 Review procedw-e.
The revicw procedure for condominium conversioils shall be in accordajice witti ilic
proccdures for subdivisions as speciCied in this title. (Ord.
28(1978) 5 1 (p~tri)•)
, 1725.060 Requirements-
Condominium conversions
The applic:lnt proposin,, tu ni.lk-C :1 COR(I0111iniiuni convcrsioii
shall provicle th: following cJocumcnt;:ition with tlic prcliinin:ry
map: •
A. A condoininiunl convcrsion rcport frolii thc tow?i builJili"
inspertor on tlte cottclition of thr building, listin"; ;IIl
huilctin,.: cc,d; %•iolations, fire ccxlc %,iulations an~l rrlatr~
violations whi.•It :irc drtrinicnt:il io the liraltll, s:ii~~l~ancl
welf:irc ol' the public, Illr and tlic occupaiits u1' Ilic
buildinkg. :ipplic:int sh:lll I11Ve .IJ-;iil:?blC anci sliall providc .
copics uf this rcport to a11 pro~;~~L..ctivc ptirchascrs ol'
CO11(IU1111I111U11 Ut11CS Of 111tCfCSI I11 IIIC CUtldC)(1]ifllUl)1 pIUJoct;
-33-
~
B. A report of tlic proposed convcrsion, including the folloW-
' ' ing information:
1. Length of occupancy of prescnt tcnants,
2. Tlie housclioltl compositioji of prescnt tcnants,
' • 3. Current rcnlal rates; wiiettier rcnts include or exclude
utilitics; datc and the amount of last rcntal increase,
4. A summary of the proposed owncrship of the units,
if the units will be sold ::s timc-share or interval owucr-
ships; the approxi?nate proposed sale price of units and
financing arra»gements to be provided by the applicant;
C. Plans and descriptio»s 'showing how tlie following will be
• , performed: 1. All site work shall be brought up to current town
' standards unless a variance tlierefrom is granted to t}ii~
- . • applicant by tlie town council in accordance with the .
variance procedures of tlus Tille 17. Tlie town council
• may, if it deems necessary, require additional parking
• facilities to meet reqLliremcnts of owiiers and guests of
the condoniinium units,
2. Correctioiis of violations cited in the condominiLtm
conversion report by the building inspector,
3. Condominium projects sliall meet current Uniform
Building Gode requirements for lieat and fire detectioii .
~ devices 2»d systems.
~
. ,
. . . - -
. -34-
17.26.075 Condominium Conversion
Any applicant seeking to convert any accommodation unit within the town shall
~
comp7y with the requirements of this section. The requirements contained in this
section shall not apply to structures or buildings which contain two units or less.
A. '1'hc 2•equirernents ancl i•estrictioils iici•ein conLainc(l stiall be
included in the condominium declaration_for t}io project-, and filed
of record with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. The condominium
units created shall rernain in the short term rental market to be
used as temporary accommodations,available to the general pub3ic. .
1. An owner's personal use of his unit shall be restricted to
fourteen days during the seasonal periods- of December 15th
through April 15th and fourteen days during June 15th through
September 15th. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's persoiial 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
periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary
repairs which cannot be postponed or whicb 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 oivner's use restriction by a unit owner shall
subject the owner to a dpLily assessment rate b,y the condominium
association of three times a rate corisidered to be a reasonaUle
, daily rental i•ate for,the unit at the time of the violation, •
which assessment when paid shall Ue deposited in the general
r funds of the condominium association for usc in upgrading and
f~
L repairing the common clemeiits of the condominiums. All sums
-35-
assessed against the owner Sor violation of the owner's personal
~ use restriction and unpaid shall consti
tute a lien for the bene-
. fit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which
: lien shall be evidenced b5• writteil notice placed of record in
the office of the clcrk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado,
arrd which may be collected by foreclosure, 'on an owner's condo-
minium unit Uy 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 ri6ht to enforce the restriction by the
assessment and the lien provided for liereunder. Ii' Lhe town
enfoi•ces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds
collected as a result of sucli enforccmcnt,. In the ev~ri L
~ litigation results from ttie enforcemerit of the restriction, .
as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court
shall ativard such party its court costs together with
reasonable attorney's fees incurred.
3. The Town shall have the rig}it to require from the cor.do-
minium,association an annual report of otvnei•'s personal
• use during the high seasons for all converted condominium
units. B. Any lodge located within the Town which has converted accomo-
dation units to condominiums shall coiitinue to provide customary
lodge Pcilities and *services includiiig a. customary marketi,ng
program. (
i
~
. .
. . . . r....~._._ . . . .
-36-
~
. C. The converteci condorainium units shall remain available to the
general tourist market. This condition may be met by inclusion of "
. the units of the condominium project, at comparable rates, in any
local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium
. units in the Town.
D. The common areas of any lodge with converted units shall remain
_ common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its
previous'character. Any changes, alterations or renovations made
to com.mon areas shall not diminish the size or quality of the
common areas.
E. Any accommodation units that were utilized to provide housing
for employees at any time during the three years previous to the date
~ of the application shall remain as empl"o"yee units for such duration
as may Ue required by the Planning and'Environmental Commission or
• the Town Council. F. Applicability: All conditions set forth within this section •
shall be made bindiiig on the applicant, tYie applicant's successors,
'heirs, perso.nal representatives aiid assigns ar,s s;lall govern the
property which is the subject of the applicatian for the life of the
survivor of the present Town Council plus tcveiity-one years. Coiiver-
sion of accommoda.tion units located within a lodge pursuant to this
• section, shall be modified only by the written agreernent of the Town
Council and ttie owner ox• owners of L-he units which have been coriverted
into condominiums. The documents creatinb and governing any lccommo-
~ dltion unit whicti has been converted into a condominium shall be
~ modified bY the owners of such units anl ith the
y ~v prior written
appz-oval of the Town Council. •
. ' -37-
C _
G. Procedure: The conversion of. an accommodation unit in an existi.ng
lodge shall be accomplished pursuant to the subdivision review process.
The applicant shall provide the following documc:ntation to the Town
at the time of the application to convert accornmodation units located
in a lodge to condominium units:
1. Proof of ownership; - 2. Site inventory for the property indicating in detail .
the actual location of any amenities serving the
lodge; . 3. Affidavit of services provided as is called for in sub-
paragraph 2'above, •
4. Designation and description of all employee units, .
5. Plan of improvements to be made to the property along with
estimated costs 'therefor. (Ord 28, 1982) .
17.26.080 Action on preliminary map
A._ At the hearing on the preliminary mapy 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.
~
. . -38-
B. The comrnission may require tliat a rcasonable pcrcentage
- ' of the con•;:;rtc;J units be reservccl for sale or rental to
• persons of muderate income.
C. 'Tlie• planning, coinmission may deily tlic tentative or prc-
liminary niap upon finding tliat:
1. Based o;i the information recauirccl by l%.26.070 and
~ on the v.icancy rate for rental housilig, tenaiits will hJve
subst.tntial difficulty in obtainin= comparably }?riccd
. rental housing_ A rental vacancy rate below five percent
basccl on the most recent town survey constitutes a
}lOUSill- CIl7(;CgC11Cy SItll3t10I1.
2. The ratio of multiple-family rci,tal units would be
reduce.l to less thaii tweiity-five percent of the totl-1
number of dwellin.- units in the Gore Valley, from
Dow(l Jumction east to the b:is:; of Vail Pass, witJi no
. . replacemcnt rental housing bein;; provided.
(Ord. 27(1975) § 1 (part).)
17.26,090 Yreliminary public report. .
A. No 1: ter than tive ciays after the filin_ of' ?n appIication
for conversioli, the app1:C1Ilt Sh;:l: no:if~y tlie tonants of the
' proposeci conclominii:rn eonversion an;1 rcport to the
planning coniir.issiun at its public }icarin_T, thc approximate
. ntuliber of tenants desiring to convert to condominium
ownership.
B. Existim, tenants shall be notifiecl of the proposed salc price.
~ . Eacll tenant sliall h2ve a tiincty-ciay lion?ssil-nable option •
. to purcliase their unit at. tliis prel;minary market valiie.
. . The prcliminary market value siialI be a fair market va,tie
for the unit, and if thc OI11;I?I11`, connmission CIEttC1T11I1CS
that the prc(inninary market value was too high, the appiica-
tion may be dritied.
(Ord. 27(1978) § 1 (part).) • 17.26.100 Finat 1fap. Tlic Fiiial inap to hc filcc] by t1ic: ai>plicant sliall contain the
. imformation rr(Itiii-cd by Sccti()n 17.16. J 30 relatim, to
. suhdivISIOIIS JS tlic same ma)• be applicable co the condominitu;i
I)1'O)CCi. Iil fldd111011 t0 1llEtt 1I1rOi"!111(1011, the a])(?IICaClt Sh:tll
• , obtctin the folloWin" cerlificalion to be t'ilecl witli the Cnal
' map: Receip[ of a c0nLlomiiiiuni report from the builcling
insPcctor of thc town stating that coilclominiuni structurc :ind
• units arc in conCormancc witli tlic tu\Vn builclin~, codes, lire
codcs and otllcr rcl.itcd cocics adoI,tCcl by tllr. towii or tLc Vail i
~ I=irc }iroicction cli;h-ict, or th:it ,i,,reenicnts liavc bceii elltcrcLl ~
itilo witli the tovvn or Vail lirc prc,trrtion ciislrict COIICL'fRlllf;
s.iid striicturc <iud units. (Orcl. 2S(])7S) a 1(p:irt).)
~ 17. 20.1 10 Fin;il in:ip
i\'O linal or E,:irti:il m:iE, tilmll I,o cipj>ro\•ed uiitil tlir ccrtific:i- ~
• tion rrcItiirOLI iil SrL:tiOn 1726.100 i, ob[:11*11rLl. (()rd. 27(1975)
j
~
~
-39- , ; .
~ 17.26.120 Subdivision public rcport.
A. 'i'hc suhdivision puUlic report sfiall state that salcs are
. subjcct to occupancy by the cxisting trnant for nincty
days froni the date of issuance of saicl mport. Within five
days of issuance of t3te subdivision p.?blic report, the
applicaiit sliall notify the tctia?its of tlir following:
l. Titc clatc of issuancc of tlic re>>ort;
2. Tiic riglil of occtipancy spccifirci above; ,
3. That no repair or TCII1UCIi'.Illilz: will begin until at lc_ast
thirty days after the clate of the issuance of the
subclivision public; rcport, or the ilatc of notification,
wliiclievcr is la[er. B. Copies of said notices shall be filed with the department of
community developnient at the time tile notice is given to
the tenants. ln the casc of a convcrsion projcct consisting
. of four parcels or Iess, the applicanc sFiail incet this requin-
ment within five days of the approval of the final map.
(Ord. 27(1978) ~ 1 (part).) ' 17, 25130 Improvement security. . A. The plannino commission anci the town e:ouncil may req«ire
a security to be posted by the applicant which shall consist
of one or more arrangements wliicli the coiirlcil shall accept
to secure the actual cost of construction of sucti pLiblic
improvements as are requireci by the or(iin::nces of the
~ town. Tlie improvem;,nt :c;curity may inrltide any one or a •
" combination of the t}-pes of security or collateral listecl in
tliis paragra}i}i, aild the applicant may substitute security
in order to release partions of the condominium project for •
sale. Tlle types of collateral wliicll may be used as security
are as follotivs:
1. Restrictions on the conveyaiice, ssle or transfer of atiy
unit witliin the condoininium project as set forth on
• the final map;
2. Perfonnance of proiicrty bond; .
3. Private or public escrow agre:;ment;
4. Loan commitinent;
5. Assignments of receivables;
6. Liens on pruperty;
' 7. Letters of rrrclit;
8. I)eposits ol' seciirit), funds; or otlitr similar surcty
agrecments. B. Serurity othcr t1tan pIat resL-ictions, rr(itiire(l ttitder the
improvemcnt srrurity, sh:ill cyual in V:iluc the rost of the
improNTments tc.) hc r0nIE)lcted but s11a11 not bc requircLl on
the portion of the COIIiIOl111i11U111 projCCt subjecl to plat
rrstrirtions. 'Chr council shzill nut rrkiuire security with
collateral arra,rnien[s in exrrss ot' Ilir :irtu:il rost of
ronstrurlion ot' the impruVcmCIits. 4 lir ;unuLuit 01' sccuritN'
~
, . ' -40-
,
~ .
nn.ay be incrementally reduced as subdivision or conclo-
, miniu?n improvements are completcd.
(Orcl. 28(1978) ~ 1 (piart).) .
17, 26.135 E:XCIlIptlOl1S.
The tenns ot' tliis diapter shali not apply to developmetits
. or structures of two units. (Orcl. 28(1978) § 1(part).) '
17.26,140 AppGcability. •
Tlie terms of this chapter shall be applicable to coiido-
minium proj-lcts that are commencedor converted after the
effective date of the ordinance codified ici this chapter. (Ord.
, 28(1973) § 1 (part).)
. . , . . • .
, . • _
. , ~ '
~
\ ORDINANCE N0. 22
Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.54.050 C.13, SECTION
18.12.090, AND SECTION 18.13.180 OF THE UAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT DUPLEX AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY
DWELLING UNITS BE ATTACHED; PROUIDING FOR UNIFIED SITE DEVELOPMENT
OF DUPLEX AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that requiring duplex and
primary/secondary residential units to be attached does not always result in the
best use of a given site, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that duplex and primary/secondary residential
units may be developed on a given site in a more imaginative and more attractive
fashion as separate units so long as there is unified site development with similar
and compatible architectural design and coordinated landscaping and grading, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended such
amendment to the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO,
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 18.54.050 C.13 is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as
follows:
18.54.050 C.13
Duplex and primary/secondary residential.dwelling units shall be designed in such
a manner as to create a unified site development. The intent of this section is to
avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or primary/secondary
lot. Unified site development shall require the use of similar and compatible
architectural design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof
forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments, railings and other
design elements. The unified site development shall include a coordinated
landscape and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single development
project. Common elements of linkage such as courtyards are encouraged to unify
site development. The design of units as a single structure, and the utilization ~
of a single road cut is encouraged.
Section 18.12.090 A. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as
follows:
18.12.090 A.
A. Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site
with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand
square feet, and not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residential
. floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the
first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square
feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred
square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed
thirty thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet
of gross residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area
in excess of thirty thousand square feet. No two-family residential lot
except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, or
those of less than fifteen thousand square feet shall be so restricted that it
cannot be occupied by a two-family dwelling.
Section 3.
Section 18.13.080 A. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as
follows:
18.13.080 A
Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be permitted on each site,
with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand
square feet, and not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the
first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square
feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred
square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed
thirty thouand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet
of gross residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area
in excess of thirty thousand square feet. On any site containing two dwelling
units, one of the units shall not exceed forty percent of the total allowable
gross residential floor area (GRFA). No two-family residential lot except
those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, or those of
less than fifteen thousand square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot
be occupied by a two-family primary/secondary residential dwelling.
Section 4.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 5.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal
Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has-accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of ,
1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of
, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building, Vail, Colorado.
Ordered published in full this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCEC, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 7, 1987
SUBJECT: Primary/Secondary and Duplex Connection
The proposed revisions to Section 18.54.050 C.13, Section
18.12.090 and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code is a
result of direction given to the staff during previous work
sessions with the Town Council and the Design Review Board.
The staff, following the options that were presented to them in
December by the Town Council, has drafted legislative language
to amend Section 18.54.050 C. 13. That language was, with
minor changes presented to the Town Council and the Design
Review Board in a later work session, and direction was given
to continue along that line. A revised draft was presented to
the Planning and Environmental Commssion.
The Planning and Environmental Commission suggested some minor
changes and additions to that wording. This wording is
contained in the PEC memo dated June 24th that is enclosed with
this memo. Upon consultation with our legal counsel, the PEC
revised wording has not been incorporated into the ordinance.
Counsel feels the wording recommended to PEC is better
legislative language; therefore, that is the language that has
been used in the ordinance.
. The amendment of this section of the code also requires the
amendment of two other sections. Those sections are the
specific zone district descriptions of Primary/Secondary and
- Duplex Zone Districts. Those sections at present contain the
wording that requires both units to be built as a single
structure. The amendment to those sections results in wording
requiring one structure being removed from those sections.
C TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1987
SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 18.54.050 C.13, Section 18.12.090
and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code
(Primary/Secondary Connection)
Earlier this year, the Town Council, the Design Review Board and
the Town staff inet in a work session to discuss the existing
wording of Section 18.54.050 C. 13 of the Vail Municipal Code,
which concerns the requirement for physical connection in the
design of primary/secondary and duplex units.
That existing wording concerning the primary/secondary
and duplex connection in the Design Review Guidelines currently
reads as follows:
Section 18.54.050 C. 13. Duplex and Primary/Secondary
Residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner
that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one
single structure. However, in the event that the presence
of significant site characteristics necessitate a site
design which includes a physical separation of the two
dwelling units and/or garages into separate structures, the
DRB may approve the design. Such a design may be approved
only when the separate structures are visually attached by
means of the use of similar and compatible architectural
design, colors, and materials and/or physically connected
with fences, walls, decks or other similar architectural
features.
At the first work session in December, the staff presented
several possible options for rewriting and amending this section
of the Design Review Guidelines. After much discussion of the
pros and cons of both options and discussion relating to what
specifically the guidelines were trying to accomplish, the
Council gave direction to the staff to refine and re-present the
basic concept that was presented under the Option A. That
Option A as presented at the work session read as follows:
Option A.
Rewrite Section 18.54.050 C.1 to eliminate the requirement
for a physical connection of the units, and at the same
time strengthen and clarify the design criteria which would
be required in order to create a visual connection. This
criteria could include a unified landscape plan for the
entire lot, utilization of one road cut, compatible
~ materials such as siding, roofing, trim, stonework, roof
forms, color schemes, balcony styles, window treatments,
etc.
This option would have completely eliminated requirements for a
physical connection, thus allowing maximum flexibility in siting
the units, in creating the scale of the units, and in creating
spaces between the units. The design criteria would serve to
unify the development on the site. There is concern on the part
of the staff that this option could allow for development that
would create the appearance of two separate single family
dwellings on separate pieces of property, especially on less
vegetated sites. This creates the visual appearance of density
over and above that of the low density zoning.
The staff rewrote this section of the Design Review regulations
in the spirit and concept of the above option. This wording was
reviewed with the Council at a work session in April and
basically agreed upon. This wording would read as follows:
18.54.050. C. 13 (New draft)
Duplex and primary/secondary residential dwelling units
shall be designed in such a manner to create a unified site
development. Unified site development shall require the
~ use of similar and compatible architectural design. This
includes materials (siding, roofing, trim, stone), roof
forms, architectural style, balcony and window treatments,
railings and other design elements. The unified site
development shall include a coordinated landscape and
grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single
development project. Common areas such as courtyards are
encouraged to unify site development. The intent of this
section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated
dwellings on one duplex or primary/secondary lot. The
design of units as a single structure, and the utilization
of a single road cut is encouraged.
The amendment to Section 18.54.050 C 13 of the Municipal Code
will require an amendment to two other related sections of the
code. The Density Control sections of both the Two Family
Residential and Residential Primary/Secondary Zone Districts
state that:
"Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single
structure shall be permitted on each site..."
Section 18.12.090 and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code
should be amended by deleting the phrase "in a single
structure."
~
~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The intent of the Council, Design Review Board and the staff is
to create this guideline in such a manner that it will enable
more freedom of design and siting of structures in development
of primary/secondary and duplex residences. The concern of the
parties involved is to maintain the ability to ensure that
development is occuring in the spirit of the primary/secondary
and duplex nature and is not an abuse of the zoning and
subdivision regulations by creating separate and unrelated
single family structures on duplex lots.
The staff feels that this proposed amendment satisfies our
intent while recognizing the concerns. We recommend approval of
this request as written.
The Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed wording and is
in substantial agreement. They did request the staff to
investigate the possibility of addressing the issue of adding a
unit to existing development.
Our attempts at addressing this issue have created awkward
wording. The staff feels this issue is best addressed by
applying the design criteria proposed in the amendment.
~
4M, 75 south irontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 oifice of commun(ty development
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE June 24, 1987
SUBJECT: Primary/Secondary Connection
The following paragraph is a transcript of the final legisla-
tive wording as devised during our 6/22 meeting. This wording
will replace the existing Section 18.54.050.C.13 of the
Municipal Code.
Duplex and primary/secondary structures are encouraged to
be in one structure. However, if the relationship of mass
of the building to the size of the site is within appro-
priate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is
proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of
structures. The intent of this section is to avoid the
appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or
primary/secondary lot. Unified site development shall
require the use of similar and compatible architectural
design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim,
stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and
window treatments, railings and other design elements.
The unified site development shall include a coordinated
landscape and grading plan that creates a visual
appearance of a single development project. Common
elements of linkage such as courtyards, common entries and
walkways are encouraged to unify site development. The
design of units as a single structure and the utilization
of a single road cut is encouraged.
If there are concerns regarding this language, please contact
Rick Pylman at your earliest convenience.
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 7, 1987
SUBJECT: Sign variance request for poubletree Hotel
APPLICANT: DTM Incorporated
The Doubletree Hotel is requesting a sign variance to allow an
additional building identification sign of 20 square feet to be
placed approximately 65 feet above grade on the north elevation
of the building.
The staff worked extensively with the applicant to present this
particular proposal which we felt was in line with the intent
of the sign code and the previous approvals granted to the
Marriott, the Holiday Inn, and the Raintree Inn. The Design
Review Board recommended unanimous approval of the request.
y.
P
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 17, 1987
SUBJECT: Sign variance request for the Doubletree Hotel
APPLICANT: DTM Vail, Inc.
I. REQUEST
' The Doubletree Hotel is requesting a sign variance to
allow an additional building identification sign of 20
square feet to be placed approximately 65 feet above grade
on the north elevation of the existing building. The sign
would be identical in size and design to the existing sign
located on the east elevation of the building. The
request requires a variance from the size, height, and
number of signs that the sign code permits.
The Doubletree Hotel, as a single business use, is allowed
up to two wall signs with a maximum combined square
footage of 20 square feet. The height allowable is 25
feet above existing grade. The Doubletree currently
displays two wall signs, a 20 square foot sign on the east
elevation facing the South Frontage Road and a sign of
approximately five square feet on the southwest portion of
the building. This sign is oriented toward the pedestrian
pathway that leads down to the bus stop by the ice arena.
There is also a sign marking the western entrance to the
Doubletree Hotel parking lot along the Frontage Road.
The request for additional signage requires a variance
from the combined maximum square foot of 20. The total
square footage with the proposed addition would be
approximately 45 square feet. The request also requires a
variance from the number of signs. The request is for a
total of 3 wall signs, along with the entrance/traffic
control sign. A third variance is requested for height.
The sign location is approximately 65 feet above grade,
although its distance above the level of the Frontage Road
is approximately only 25 feet.
Attached is the applicant's statement in support of the
request.
II. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES
Before the board acts on a variance application, the
applicant must prove physical hardship and the board must
find that:
.
a
A. There are special circumstances or conditions
applying-to the land, buildin s, to o ra hy,
vegetation, sign structures or other matters on
adjacent lots or within the ad'acent ri ht-of-way
which would substantially restrict the effectiveness
of the sign in question; provided, however, that such
special circumstances or conditions are unique to the
particular business or enter rise to which the
applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply
generally to all businesses or enterprises.
Staff Response:
The Doubletree Hotel does have a legitimate identifi-
cation problem due to the size and various exposures
of the building and the fact that for the entire
project they are allowed only two signs with a
combined total allowable area of 20 square feet. The
Raintree Inn, Holiday Inn, and Marriott Mark are
hotels that have also recently received sign
variances due to the size of their projects. Staff
feels that the Doubletree Hotel has similar special
circumstances that warrant this increase in the
combined square footage for signage. We also
recognize that due to the design of the Doubletree,
it is difficult to.utilize one wall sign that has
effective exposure to both east and west-bound
travelers on the South Frontage Road. We feel that
it is a legitimate request to have two signs relating
to this exposure, and that it is also in the interest
of the community to have signage oriented to the
pedestrian area that relates to the Town of Vail bus
route.
With regard to the variance for height, while the
sign itself is approximately 65 feet above grade, the
Frontage Road is substantially higher than the
finished grade of the Doubletree parking lot, and
that circumstance mitigates the impact of the height
request.
B. That special circumstances were not created by the
applicant or anyone in privy to the ap licant
Staff Response:
Special circumstances were not created by the
applicant.
, , . . , . .
, ..a
~
C. That the grantin of the variance will be in eneral
harmony with the pur ose of this title and will not
be materially detrimental to the persons residin or
working in the vicinity, to ad'acent ro erty, to the
neighborhood, or to the ublic welfare in eneral.
Staff Response:
Generally, the staff feels that the sign is in
harmony with the purposes of this title. Staff
believes that the size, location and height are
harmonious with the surrounding setting and will be
compatible with the scale of the existing building.
The size of the sign is in scale with the rest of the
building and will not draw undue attention to
itself.
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.
Staff Response•
The applicant is requesting an additional 20 square
feet of signage beyound that which is existing and
approximately 25 feet beyond what is allowed by the
sign code. Given the size of this building and the
difficulty orienting signage to the exposures of this
building, staff feels that the applicant is not
requesting a departure from the provisions of the
_ sign code any more than is truly required to identify
the applicant's business.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the variance request for size, number of
signs and height. Staff believes that the proposal is
harmonious with the sign code's requirement that signage
not call undue attention to itself. We feel that the
request for the additional square footage does not depart
drastically from signage allowed within the code and that
the height request does not depart radically from the
intent of that section of the code. We do feel that the
height could be further mitigated by placing the sign as
low as possible on the building face. Staff recommends
approval of the request, recognizing that the applicant
has a difficult site and has made a reasonable attempt to
work with the sign code.
' ,
PROPOSED DOUBLETRE;E SIGNAGE: DTM Vail, Inc. desires to erect an additional building
identification sign at the Doubletree Hotel. This sign would be
located on the north face of the building and would serve to
identify the building to those approaching the building from the
north and the west. Currently the only identification of the
building visible from the Frontage Road occurs on the east side
and is visibly only to those approaching the building from the
east.
The existing signage is proposed to remain. The existing
signage consists of one sign on the east wall of the building,
one sign near the pool on the southwest portion of the building
and one small freestanding sign located near one of the entry
drives to the hotel.
The new sign would be consistent with the design of the
existing signs and would be located on a wall which is currently
blank. (see attached sketch). The size of the proposed sign
would be twenty (20) square feet which would be appropriate to
the scale of the building and the wall face to which it would be
attached. The height of the sign would be approximately
sixty-five (65) feet above existing grade.
The installation of the new sign would result in non-
compliance with provisi.ons of the Town of Vail Sign Code. The
si.griage would not comply with the regulations regardinq the '
maxi_mum heigtit of signs nor the maximum size of signs. Ther_efore
a variance of those provisions is being requested. SpecificaZly,
a va.riance to Section 16.20.210 Ilall Signs - Single Business Use
is requested for the following reasons:
l. Size - The maximum size of signs permitted is
twenty (20) square feet. The proposed signage will be in
excess of this requirement.
2. Heiqht - The sign to be applied to the north side
of the building will exceed the maximum height:
twenty-five (25) feet from the existing grade. This variance is being requested in accordance with Chapter
16.36 of the Vail Municipal Code and complies with the propose
sect'-ion of that chapter. The variance is requested to lessen the
practical difficulties associated with strict compliance of the
provisions of the sign code. The difficulty arises because of
the size of the structure and the relationship of the structure
to its surroundings. The variance is requested to properly and
adequately identify the building and will not be detrimental to
persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent
property, to the neighborhood or to the public welfare in
general.
~ ~ v. . .
' . ' ~ ~
.
- , . . •ti _ 'c,~~~.~,,•q.r~~. . . . . , , .
_ ,
. . .
• • . ' . , ' . • • ~ ' .
. . , . . , . , •
, ' . , , , ' , ' , • • . . , • ' , ~ ' • , < IC'
~DOUBLETUE . . • ~ : ~ ~ p, . - r-- _h :
. ~ .
I ( . . . . HOTEL
~ ~ I . . . . . .
~ . . • . . .
. . . .
If
. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ , .
- - ~ . . _ . ~ . , : . - . . . . ~ ~
; . , . . . . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . • ~
, . . . , . • . • ~ . .
i ~ , . . , . , . „ . . ; . . • • . • ~ .
. • , , • . . ' , . . . . .
. : . . , , . ~ , ' Id. , ~ ~ '
• - • • . . - . • • ' I , ~ .
• , :~::i:'` ' . ~ • ~ .
~ • . • . • } " , ~ . . .
, . . . , ~ . . . . . . • • .
' ' . . , . _ ~ : . . . • . . ~ • ~ . . . ~ ~ . ; _ ,
~ , . ' . ' . . .
Z . . ' ` . . . . . . ~ -
• ~
. ,70
. V . ~ • / _
. . . . ~ I\
~
~ t, i ~ • ~~i I •i „ .
~ ~ ~'J~ 1 ~ . • ~ 1 1 a ~1' ~ ~I~ ~J~, . i' ; . ~ ; ; : II" 'I : :
~ ~ ~ I~~ i al~~ll~~~ ''II; . ; ~ i~ ~ , -~~I; ,.ii~ . , ~i', '
4 1
I , i~ ~ ~li I ; i
i~l I
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: July 7, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a density variance in order to enclose
a deck at Unit 2, Capstone Townhouses, Lot 21, Re-
subdivision of Buffehr Creek Subdivision
APPLICANT: Mr. Lee Rimel
The applicant, Mr. Lee Rimel, is requesting a density variance
in order to enclose a 79 square foot second story balcony of
Unit 2, Capstone Townhouses. Capstone Townhouses is currently
over their allowable GRFA, and as a six unit townhouse do not
qualify for exterior applications as allowed in Ordinance 4.
In a multi-family building, Ordinance 4 may be utilized for
interior additions only. On June 8, the Planning Commission in
a 3-1 vote, voted to approve Mr. Rimel's request. The members
of the Planning Commission voting for the project felt that
there was some practical hardship in this case, due to the
annexation from Eagle County and the subsequent zoning put in
place by the Town of Vail that created the nonconforming
situation. The Planning Commission member voting against the
approval recog-nized that there were many other projects in the
community that were in the same position and felt that this
project did not meet the criteria of previous approvals and the
criteria of Ordinance 4.
The staff recommendation on the request is for denial. The
staff recommendation to the Town Council is that the PEC
decision be overturned.
1
,
C TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a density variance in order to enclose a
deck at Unit 2, Capstone Townhouses, Lot 21, Resub-
division of Buffehr Creek Subdivision
Applicant: Mr. Lee Rimel
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicant, Mr. Lee Rimel, is requesting a density
variance in order to enclose a 79 square foot second story
balcony of Unit 2, Capstone Townhouses. The Capstone
Townhouses were constructed in 1979, within the jurisdiction
of Eagle County. The Eagle County zone district at the time
of the development was Residential Multi-Family. Upon
annexation of the property to the Town of Vail, the zone
designation assigned to Capstone Townhouses was
Primary/Secondary. This created non-conformance with GRFA
and Unit number density requirements of that zone district.
The allowable GRFA on this site under the Primary/Secondary
zoning is 6,379 square feet. The existing GRFA is 9,183
~ square feet. By enclosing the deck as requested, the
applicant would be adding 79 square feet of GRFA to the site.
If this project had remained under Eagle County jurisdiction,
there would be development rights available to complete this
enclosure. Attached is applicant's request.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existin
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The proposed deck enclosure is compatible with the existing
residential uses in the area. An approval of this variance
has potential to set a precedent in relation to several
other projects within the community that were annexed from
Eagle County to the Town of Vail and purposely zoned primary-
secondary in order to freeze development on these sites.
~
. " ' ~ • .
C The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The Community Development Department feels that approval of
this request would be a grant of special privilege due to the
fact that there is no physical hardship which would warrant
the variance. It is the applicant's responsibility to prove
physical hardship, and the fact that the approval of the
variance would not be a grant of special privilege. In 1985, the Community Development Department, the Planning
Commission and the Town Council decided to attempt to create
a venue which would allow property owners within Vail to
upgrade their property through small GRFA additions without
having to prove the difficult argument of physical hardship
and grant of special privilege. Ordinance 4 of 1985 was
eventually adopted to allow for small GRFA additions without
the need for density variance approval. This ordinance does
not provide a means for allowing exterior additions to units
in multi-family buildings. Multi-family structures were
omitted due to concern about the potential of wholesale
balcony enclosures on multi-family buildings that may create
negative impacts through bulk, mass and design impacts. With
~ respect to this specific request, Ordinance 4 does not
provide any relief from having to review multi-famiy
additions with the density variance criteria.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and ublic
safety.
There are no significant impacts on any of the above factors.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
III. RELATED FACTORS IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
Community Design
2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site
improvements should be encouraged.
This proposal for the deck enclosure supports and meets this
~ criteria of the Community Action Plan policy.
. ! .
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
~ The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department must recommend denial of
this request, as we cannot support the density variance
without the demonstration of physical hardship. There are
many other properties within the Town of Vail that are in the
same zoning nonconformance as the Capstone Townhouses. The
Eagle County and corresponding Town of Vail Medium Density
Multi-Family zone districts differ in their density
allowances. If the Town of Vail had zoned these properties
with the corres-ponding Medium Density zone district, there
would have been creation of both GRFA and Unit density rights
on many parcels that were annexed. At that time, it was not
the intention of the Town of Vail to allow further
development on those sites. That is the reason the
Primary/Secondary zone district was utilized for these
properties.
Ordinance 4 of 1985 was an attempt to maintain the integrity
and density desires of the original annexation and zoning
~ actions while meeting some of the policies of the Town of
Vail regarding upgrading and remodeling of structures.
Unfortunately, legal and design problems restricted this
ordinance from addressing multi-family dwellings.
~
REQUEST FOR DENSITY CONTROL VARIANCE
~ Capstone Townhouses, Unit 2
Lot 21
A Resubdivision of Buffer Creek
Town of Vail, Colorado
The applicant wishes to enclose an existing balcony on Unit 2 of the Capstone
Townhouses to provide needed living space for he and his family in their
primary residence. The property is currently zoned Primary/Secondary Resi-
dential with a six unit structure which is nonconforming with Section 18.13.080
Density Control. Therefore, the proposed enclosure requires a density control
variance to allow an additional 79 square feet of gross residential floor
area.
The Capstone Townhouses were constructed in 1979 when the property was regu-
lated by Eagle County and zoned Residential Multiple Family. Upon annexation
of the property, the zone designation was changed, thus making the project
GRFA non-conforming with the Town of Vail regulations. The Primary/Secondary
uensity requirements are not consistant with the neighborhood and impose
apractical difficulty to the upgrading and remodeling of the Capstone Town-
house units.
The adjacent proptery to the north is zoned Medium-Density Multiple-Family,
other properties in the area are zoned Residential Cluster and Public Accomo-
~ dation, most of the existing development in the vicinity is multi-family.
The Land Use Plan adopted in 1986 designates the preferred use for this
property as Medium Density Residential. The granting of this variance will '
allow the applicant a density which is consistant with other sites in the
vicinity and will not be a grant of special privilege.
With the proposed additional GRFA, Unit 2 will have a total GRFA of 1,695
square feet. In the future, should the owners of each of the other five
Capstone units elect to increase their GRFA accordingly, the total building
density would be 10,170 square feet. This total is consistant with the adja-
cent property density as per the attached Medium-Density Multiple-Family
District Zone Review.
Since the Additional GRFA requested will be gained by enclosing an existing
balcony, the site will not be further impacted by the granting of this
variance. Furthermore, it will not effect the light and air, distribution
of population, transportation and trafffic facilities, public facilities
and utilities, or public safety. '
We respectfully request that this variance be granted.
~
b
r\ •
•
ZONE REVIEW
~ Capstone Townhouses
Lot 21
A Resubdivision of Buffer Creek
Town of Vail, Colorado
ZONE DESIGNATION: Primary/Secondary Residential District
LOT SIZE: 52y577 square feet
18.13.080 DENSITY CONTROL
ALLOWABLE GRFA: 6,379 square feet
EXISTING GRFA: Unit 1- 1,616
Unit 2- 1,616 + 79 ADDITIONAL = 1,695 square feet TOTAL
Unit 3 - 1,445
Unit 4 - 1,616
Unit 5 - 1,445
Unit 6 - 1,445
Total 9,183 square feet
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL GRFA: _ 79 square feet
~ PROPOSED TOTAL GRFA: 9,262 square feet
18.13.090 SITE COVERAGE
ALLOWABLE COVERAGE: 20% x 52,577 = 10,515 square feet
EXISTING COVERAGE: 5,053 square feet
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COVERAGE: 79 square feet
PROPOSED TOTAL COVERAGE: 5,132 square feet
THE FOLLOWING DENSITY FIGURES WOULD APPLY IF THE CAPSTONE TOWNHOUSES WERE
ZONED MEDIUM-DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT:
18.18.090 DENSITY CONTROL
ALLOWABLE GRFA: 35% buildable site area* x 38,570 = 13,500 square feet
ALLOWABLE GRFA PER UNIT: 13,500 = 2,250 square feet
6
XLot Size: 52,277 square feet
~ Site Area in Excess of 40% Slope: -142007 square feet
Buildable Site Area: 38,570 square feet
~
YC -
A A'a '
O
THE TOWN OF VAIL FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CORDIALLY INVITES YOU AND YOUR FAMILY
TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL
TOWN OF VAIL EMPLOYEE PICNIC
DATE: FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1987
d ' . O
~ w
TIME: 2:00 P.M.
PLACE: BIGHORN PARK, VAIL
THE MENU INCLUDES PLENTY OF:
SPARERIBS POTATO CHIPS
FRIED CHICKEN CHERRIES
HAMBURGERS STRAWBERRIES
HOT DOGS FRESH SPRING FRUIT MIX
BRATWURST HAWAIIAN SALAD
HOMEMADE GREEN CHILI APPLE & CHERRY PIES
POTATO SALAD CHOCOLATE CAKES
SEAFOOD SALAD CONDIMENTS
SODA, BEER & WINE COOLERS WILL ALSO BE PROVIDED
THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT HAS SET UP TEAM COMPETITION EVENTS
INCLUDING VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENTS, PIE EATING CONTESTS, A BEER
RELAY, A WATERMELON SEED SPITTING CONTEST, AN EGG ROLLING CONTEST,
AND A STONE SKIPPING CONTEST (FUN! FUN! FUN!).
HOPE TO SEE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY THERE!!!
CCD
o,
o _o ,y
lowo, of 75 south trontage road department oi public works/transportation
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
MEMORANDUM
T0: RON PHILLIPS
FROM: STAN BERRYMAN
DATE: JULY 3, 1987
RE: MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS UPDATE
VILLAGE TRC ROOF REPLACEMENT
Project completed
4-WAY STOP IMPROVEMENTS
Project completed
Morter to replace two lights illuminating entryway sign with
"less intensity" lights
CHILDREN'S FOUNTAIN CONCRETE
Project completed
Six slabs of damaged concrete broken out and re-poured
STREET LIGHTS - GORE CREEK PROMENADE
4 street lights installed
WEST VAIL STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Town crews have installed 907 of storm sewer system ,
B&B and utility companies have completed 807 of utility stub-outs
to undeveloped lots
Pavement recycler has pulverized 807 of existing road surface as
rough preparation
B&B will begin pouring concrete drainage pans and performing final
paving preparation next week
I
o> aMEMORANDUM TO RON PHILLIPS
REGARDING MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS UPDATE
JULY 3, 1987
. PAGE 2
FOREST ROAD BRIDGE
Bridge tees set last week
Completion target date: mid-August
I-70 INTERCHANGE
After several meetings with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) the Environmental
Assessment and Interstate Access Modification Application continue
to be revised
Final drafts target completion date: Mid-July
Closing date for Environmental Assessment scoping comments: July 8, 1987
SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The consultants (Shapins/Moss, BRW, and Ampersand Studios) are
currently completing an inventory of existing town signage. The
. Transportation/Parking Task Force will meet with the consultants
on July 16.
CASCADE BIKE PATH
Project to begin mid-July
RECREATIONAL PATH MAINTENANCE
Project to begin mid-July
STREET MAINTENANCE (ROUTINE PATCHING)
To begin mid-July "
BLACK GORE BRIDGE
Replacement to begin in the fall
4VOH
tow75 south irontage road office of the town manager
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
July 1, 1987
Ms. G. Elizabeth Cordier
The Great American Lobsterbar, Inc.
223 East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Amplified Sound Permit `
Dear Ms. Cordier:
An amplified sound permit was issued to you effective_May 28, 1987 for
a period of 30 days to June 26, 1987. As stated in the conditions for
the amplified sound permit your performance pursuant to those
conditions was reviewed. In the review process, we took into account
comments both written and oral which we have received from surrounding
property owners concerning your use of amplified sound during the
period up to June 26. We have received the following comments:
1. Amplified music is frequently played until 9:30 or 10:00
p.m., and at least twice in the last two weeks was loud
enough to easily discern lyrics on adjacent properties.
2. On Tuesday, June 24, 1987, Billy Idol was played from 9:00
until 10:30 p.m.
3. On Saturday, June 13, 1987, contemporary jazz was played
until approximately 10:00 p.m.
These complaints indicate that the Great American Lobsterbar, Inc. is
in direct violation of the conditions for the amplified sound permit
which was granted effective May 28, 1987. Because of those violations,
Ms. G. Elizabeth Cordier
July 1, 1987
Page 2 the amplified sound permit will not be renewed and amplified sound
_ should immediately be discontinued on the premises of the Great
American Lobsterbar, Inc.
In accordance with Section 8.24.060 I, you have the right to appeal
this decision by filing such appeal with the Town Council within thirty
(30) days of the date hereof.
Since y,
~
Rondall V. Phillips
Town Manager
RUP/bsc
Pr:,i„i,
Revised: 7/ 2/1987
TOWN OF VAIL
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX
History and Budget
~ 1986
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 ; 1987 1987 BUDGET
MONTH ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ; BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE
January 63,999 98,089 106,981 119,972 78,053 80,733 101,374 ; 83,191 130,231 47,040
February 40,595 69,018 105,024 132,220 86,289 170,052 64,906 ; 81,801 43,980 ( 37,821)
March 69,886 126,935 109,533 137,820 62,693 63,831 92,557 ; 82,747 38,791 ( 43,956)
April 76,855 94,653 65,900 103,526 173,321 90,396 182,743 ; 96,338 95,554 ( 784)
May 42,738 84,324 54,663 90,599 96,006 228,673 98,651 ; 75,862 120,984 45,122
June 62,239 125,433 54,488 140,638 76,467 49,513 79,915 ; 71,266 73,782 2,516
Subtotal 356,312 598,452 496,589 724,775 572,829 683,198 620,146 ; 491,206 503,322 12,116
July 49,367 186,110 104,262 68,539 157,598 88,528 70,441 ; 87,508
August 79,859 115,499 71,282 97,806 58,937 32,860 100,182 ; 72,969
September 59,800 113,992 49,332 96,746 64,671 48,516 108,167 ; 67,721
October 108,510 154,000 42,498 122,546 88,732 109,633 93,860 ; 93,572
November 102,623 107,768 81,698 91,385 105,109 74,909 89,047 ; 84,020
December 142,662 133,867 110,911 56,533 81,890 333,139 106,695 ; 103,004
TOTAL 899,133 1,409,688 956,572 1,258,330 1,129,766 1,370,783 1,188,538 ; 1,000,000 503,322 12,116
SIDNEY SCHULTZ-ARCHITECT -
. 141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
, VAIL, COLORADO 81657
303/476-7890
Members of the Town Council, '
~ Town Manager Ron Phillips
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
I regret the misunderstanding many of you had with the
letter of June 17 from me and four other members of the Planning
Commission to the Highway Department. I don't think any of the
Commissioners wished this letter to be construed as confronta-
tional with the Council. We were simply responding to a letter
from the Highway Department addressed to the Planning Commission
asking for our opinion and comments. Since this has been the
only time the Planning Commission has been asked for imput on
, this issue, I felt obligated to give my opinion. While I do _
agree with each of the points made in the letter, these are my
"opinions" based on the limited facts that have been made avail-
able to me. These are also the opinions of very many people I
have spoken with in Vail.
' I disagree with those who._say that everyone waited until the
last minute to voice their concerns on this issue. I can remem-
ber public meetings where citizens did voice their opposition to
Highway Department proposals, numerous letters of opposition in
local newspapers and I have personally discussed my concerns with
Staff inembers. It seems only natural for people to object the
loudest when faced with a deadline for voicing those objections.
It is unfortunate that the Commission had only a few days to
respond to the Highway Department letter and could not meet with
' the entire Council to discuss our concerns. We did contact those
members of the Council who were available prior to the mailing of
" the letter and Staff was aware of our intent several days before
the deadline.
It seems to me that for most problems there is almost always
more than one solution. As I understand the Highway Department's
proposal, I am not sure that it is.the best solution. I look
forward to reviewing the additional materials from the Highway
Department and hope that with all of the facts the Planning
Commission and Town Council can agree on what will be best for
the long-term interest of Vail.
Sincerely,
.
Sidney Schultz, AIA
i'
MEMBER. THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
h 1 ' , ' ~ 1 1 ~ I L T A I AT 1r•_r [-\.,I
INFORtv1AT I ON BOOT H
1
YE4F;L'f GUESi" CA I•M1'T5
2370(P)
1 2267(P) 2961(P)
13424( ) 13325(V
3284(P) 3361(P) 2762(P)
~ J 10346(V 10949 V 11043(V
c-D
C) 1396(P)
U-' 7210(V) 1524(P)
~ ~
~682 V
2021(P) 1471(P)
CL ~ 4203(p 4301(V) 4932(V)
W ~ 6
[7] ;A,- 867(P)
r 3249(V)
~
~
~
~
~
.-A I
PTP
C)
L~ i A 0 1.1 D J F ~d A tvi
u u L, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a p ci
n I g p t v 0 ri b r r y
ki9 ONTH S
E] VISITORS PHONE CALLS
aErwEEN rY~ FRNr5 31Z .
i
TM
1989 WORLD ALPINE
~ • ~ ~ B
HIPS ~
SKI
t
}
~
~
i
t
R -'E'K
VE CRE,
i
VAIL/BEA
• 1
I G t
I COIOf KEy 1
~
~
B:hlue PMS299
A-pue PM5312 S
G'grom PUS333 ~
TM TM
. TM
~
,
!
p 9. ~
~ C\
. ~
~
io R, A S6 e / ro ~
~E
A ~
f
~
G
~
~
1989 WORLD ALPINE K CHAMP ONSH PS
SKI CHAMPIONSHIPS VML1989 :
~
VAIL/BEAVER
VAIL/BEAVER CREEK CREEK
~
~
~
The Vail Valley
Home of the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships
6 July 1987 •
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager
Town of Vail
P.O. Box 100
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Ron:
Stan Berryman provided me with a substantial amount of background material
regarding the signalization and ramp proposals. Unfortunately I cannot
attend the July 7th meeting with the Town Council regarding this issue.
Consequently, I would like to take this opportunity to convey my thoughts.
Running the risk of gross oversimplification, it seems to-me that tfiere
are two major issues and several related but lesser issues. First is the
proposal for the Lionshead on/off ramp and, second, is the proposal for
signalization at the main Vail interchange. It appears that if traffic
flowing into and out of the main Vail interchange can be managed more
efficiently, the requirement for signalization begins to disipate. I
believe that the major concern many people in the community have,
including myself, is the appearance of the signals at the main Vail
interchange, Vail's "front door." I think there are also concerns about
the effectiveness of the signals resolving the traffic problem, especially
during peak demand periods.
If the design and construction of the Lionshead on/off ramp can be
completed separate from the installation of the signals at the main Vail
interchange, much of the concern voiced recently could be resolved. I say
this realizing that additional traffic managment efforts will have to be
implemented. Manual traffic control, seasonal traffic management, an
increase in communication and cooperation, the closing down, as required,
of the present eastbound off ramp, even the implementation of daily peak
period traffic control - all directed at keeping traffic out of the main
Vail interchange - could alleviate the problem.
An option which should be reconsidered is the installation of an on ramp
located east of the Vail parking structure linking the eastbouth south
frontage road to eastbound I-70. That ramp alone, perhaps installed at
the Booth Creek underpass, would do a considerable amount to eliminate the
departing afternoon eastbound traffic problems.
I noted several comments in the various materials provided me seem to
indicate that some of the above mentioned measures might, in fact, be
appropriate to resolving the traffic problem. Among those are the
following:
o Rosall Remmen & Cares memorandum - June 27, 1986. This memo seems
to indicate that manual traffic control is at least an alternative
to the introduction of signalization.
"It is our conclusion based upon the best available date that the
proposed Vail Master Plan through the completion of Phase V, which
includes only category I and II improvements can be accommodated
without requiring new capital improvements to the four-way stop,
beyond the introduction of signalization or the presence of
traffic control officers." (Emphasis mine.)
o Vail Traffic Counts, Centennial Engineering - March 1986. It
struck me as odd that the date selected, March 21 and 22, 1986,
was, by everyone's admission, probably the single busiest weekend
of the season. The date was selected to coincide as closely as
possible with the March 26 and 27, 1983 traff'ic count study date.
My point is that these two calendar dates don't necessarily bear
any resemblance to one another with respect to seasonal impacts.
It seems that the trend established is somewhat skewed to the
point of showing a situation which is not quite as adverse as
portrayed by the 1986 study. I don't mean to underestimate the
severity of the problem. It is clear that the trend is increased
traffic impact on the four-way stop. However, I think the study
date selected shows a far greater increase in traffic utilization
than was actually the case, especially in relation to the 1983
study date.
In the same study, it is acknowledged that "The appropriate design
hourly volume is generally considered the 30th highest hourly
volume occurring during the year." However, the study goes on to
say that "no ranking has been...computed for 1986, as was done in
1983 because the information was not provided." Establishing
the appropriate design hourly volume appears to be crucial to
determining the present impact on the four-way interchange and the
requirement for signalization. It is also obviously crucial in
establishing the comparable between 1983 and 1986.
o Rosall Remmen & Cares memorandum - June 27, 1986, the
Environmental Assessment - December 9, 1986, the Application for
Interstate Access Modification - June 19, 1987 and others.
Al1 these studies indicate that the problem appears to be most
crucial in the afternoon hours. Al1 of the documents I read seem
unanimous in this observation. The installation not only the
Lionshead on/off ramp to expedite traffic in and out of the
Lionshead area, but also the installation of an eastbound on ramp
from the Frontage Road to eastbound I-70 would reduce a majority
of this problem as it relates to the main Vail interchange. It
seems to be true that a variety of other mitigative measures to
manage traffic flow into and out of the interchange will also
have to be implemented.
In conclusion, I believe the solution lies not necessarily with the
signalization of the interchange, but rather with other means of access
between I-70 and the frontage roads. Installation of the ramps, both at
Lionshead and, if possible, at Booth Creek or somewhere east of the Vail
Village parking structure, should be reconsidered as an alternative to
installation of signals.
I appreciate the time and consideration given to the Planning Commission's
concerns regarding this issue. I hope my comments are meaningful to the
problem.
Yours truly,
.
~
~ame J. Coll' s
e -er
anning and Environmental Commission
jc76d