Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-15 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1988 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ten Year Anniversary Award to Hignio Romero 2. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, second reading, an ordinance rezoning (proposed) Tract E-1 from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation and establishing Special Development District No. 20 for (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing and Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 3. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance amending Sections 3.40.05 Excess Tax Remittance; 3.40.130 Collection of Sales Tax; 3.40.140 Sales Tax Base; and 3.40.290 Amendments of Chapter 3.40 Sales Tax of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail providing for an increase in the sales tax rate of three-tenths percent (.3%); to provide that all revenues raised by said increase be earmarked specifically for marketing for the Town of Vail and its environs; providing that before the three-tenths percent (.3%) sales tax increase set forth in this ordinance be imposed, it shall be submitted to and shall receive the approval of a majority of the registered electors of the Town of Vail voting in a special municipal election; providing that the three-tenths percent (.3%) sales tax rate increase authorized by this ordinance shall cease to be effective on unless the extension of said three-tenths percent (.3%) be submitted and shall receive the approval of a majority of the registered electors of the Town of Vail voting at a regular municipal or special election prior to .said expiration date; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 4. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 3.40.130 (2) of Chapter 3.40 Sales Tax of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide that taxpayers whose monthly collected tax is less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150) may make returns and pay taxes at intervals not greater than three (3) months; amending Section 3.40.170 (2) of Chapter 3.40 Sales Tax clarifying exemptions for charitable organizations; amending Section 3.40.170 (6) of Chapter 3.40 Sales Tax of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide that rooms or accommodations permanently occupied and which occupancy is secured by a written agreement are exempt from tax and defining the .term permanently occupied as being a period of sixty (60) or more consecutive days; amending Section 3.40.170 (8) of Chapter 3.40 Sales Tax of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide that all sales of construction and building materials are exempt from the sales tax if the purchaser of such materials provides the retailer with a building permit number; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance rezoning a part of Lot N and a portion of Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filling from Heavy Source District to Commercial Core I and establishing Special Development District Number Z1 for a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot 0, Block 5D Vail Village First Filing in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 6. Resolution No. 6, Series of 1988, a resolution supporting the Black Lakes reservoir project proposed by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, with certain conditions. 7. Action on Bravo! Colorado Contract CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 8. Town Manager's Report 9. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1988 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Ten Year Anniversary Award to Hignio Romero 7:35 Z. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, second reading, rezoning Tom Braun tract E-1 from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base Recreation, and establishing Special Development District No. 20 on tract E-1 and lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing (Golden Peak House) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/continue Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, on second reading. Background Rationale: This ordinance will establish approvals for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House Building and the development of a ski base facility immediately adjacent to the Golden Peak House. The applicant has requested the ordinance be continued until the April 19, 1988 Evening Meeting (see enclosed letter). Staff Recommendation: Continue Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, until the April 19, 1988 Evening Meeting for second reading. 7:45 3. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, first reading, increasing Larry Eskwith sales tax by .3q for marketing Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: The ordinance increases the sales tax by .3% which money would be earmarked for marketing the Town. Before it becomes effective, it must be approved by a vote of the registered electors of the Town. 8:05 4. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1988, first reading, amending Dani Hild Chapter 3.40 of the Town Municipal Code relating to Sales Steve Barwick Tax Collections Action Requested of Council: Review the proposed amendments to Chapter 3.40 and approve/deny Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: The changes are necessary to bring Chapter 3.40 into agreement with sales tax policies approved by Town Council and by the Town Manager. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1988, on first reading. 8:20 5. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1988, first reading, rezoning Rick Pylman a part of Lot N and a portion of Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing from Heavy Service to Special Development District with Commercial Core I underlying zone district (Vail Gateway) (Amoco Station) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: This ordinance has been proposed in order to facilitate redevelopment of the Amoco Service Station site located at the four-way intersection in Vail Village. The existing zoning is Heavy Service District. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation will be given at the Evening Meeting. 8:45 6. Resolution No. 6, Series of 1988, supporting the Vail Larry Eskwith Consolidated Water Districts' Black Lakes Proposal Peter Patten Dave Mott Action Requested of Council: Review the Black Lakes Water Augmentation plan submitted by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water Districts for County 1041 approval and approve/deny Resolution No. 6, Series of 1988. Background Rationale: The Black Lakes proposal will have important effects on stream flow in Gore Creek which may affect the fish habitat. The Town needs to ensure that the augmentation plan will help provide water for Town growth, for snowmaking and does not destroy or seriously injure fish habitat in Gore Creek. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 1988. 9:00 7. Action on Bravo! Colorado Contract Larry Eskwith Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the Bravo! Colorado/Town of Vail contract. Background Rationale: The Town has approved paying "Bravo" a total compensation of $56,625 for the provision of summer street entertainment and programs for the Amphitheater. A contract needs to be entered into between the parties setting forth the details of .this arrangement. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 9:15 8. Town Manager's Report 9:20 9. Adjournment -2- RECD MAR 1 1 1988 ISAACSON, ROSENBAUM, SPIEGLEMAN, WOODS, LEVY & SNOW, P. C. STANTON D. ROSENBAUM DONALD E. SPIEGLEMAN GARY A. WOODS SAMUEL L. LEVY BRIAN A. SNOW L BRUCE NELSON STEVEN G. WRIGHT H. ROBERT WALS H, JR. ROBERT L. CONNELLY, JR. WILLIAM M. SILBERSTEIN LAWRENCE J. DO NOVAN, JR. LAWRENCE R. KUETER JONATHAN H. STEELER LYLE L. BOLL RICHARD L. NATHAN R. G. (SHELLEY) KROVITZ MARK G. GRU ESKIN ROBERT DOUGLAS CLARK JUDITH POST SCHMIDT KIM E. IKELER ROBERT D. SIMON JULI E. LAPIN ALAN L. MAYER~ GARY A. KLEIMAN ADMITTED TO PgACTICE IN CALIFOPNIA ONLY LAW OFFICES SUITE 2200 633-17TN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 March 10, 1988 Lawrence A. Eskwith, Esq. City Attorney Town of Vail P.O. Box 1294 Vail, CO 81658 Re : Ordinance PJo . 7 , Golden Peak House and base facility Dear Larry: Series of 1988 Renovation addition LOUIS G. ISAACSON OF COUNSEL CHARLES ROSEN BAUM 119 0 1-19 731 SAMUEL M. GOLDBERG (1903-1974) JOSEPH J. STOLLAR 119x6-198x) CIVIC CENTER OFFICE SUITE 910 1290 BROA DWAV DENVER, COLORADO 60203 TELEPHONE 303/292-5656 TELECO PY 303/292-3152 This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of March 9th regarding our request on behalf of the applicants to continue the second reading of the above ordinance, now scheduled for March 15th, to the Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 19, 1988. We have advised Thomas J. Ragonetti, Esq., as the principal spokesman for the opposition to this ordinance, of this request. It is our understanding that he will not oppose this request as long as he is given advance notice should the applicants request a further extension of the second reading. We have agreed to give him such notice. Since the agenda for Tuesday's meeting has already been released for publication, you indicated that the second reading would remain on the agenda, but that you would present our request for a continuance at the meeting and anticipate that the request will be granted. Ron Riley ISAACSON, ROSENBAUM, SP~EGLEMAN, WOODS, LEVY & SNOW, P. C. Lawrence A. Eskwith March 10, 1988 Page 2 will be present at the meeting, should there be any questions regarding this request. If you become aware that there will be any opposition to this request, both Tom Ragonetti and I would appreciate your so advising us. Thank you for your attention to this matter. V truly yours, ~ ~ ' ~ ~tiC ~ ~ ~~ Gary A. Woods GAW/dv cc: Thomas J. Ragonetti, Esq. Ronald H. Riley Lawrence E. Lichliter ORDINANCE N0. 7 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE REZONING (PROPOSED) TRACT E-1 FROM AGRICULTURAL/ OPEN SPACE TO SKI BASE/RECREATION AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 20 FOR (PROPOSED) TRACT E-1, VAIL VILLAGE FIFTH FILING AND LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approval for .certain parcels of property within the Town known as (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing and Lots A and. 6, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing to be known as Special Development District No. 20, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak House; and WHEREAS, the rezoning of (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation is necessary in order to allow for the range of uses and activities proposed for SDD No. 20; and WHEREAS, the proposed development plan is consistent with both the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the proposed Special Development District No. 20 with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District No. 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning 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 the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed .development plan for SDD No. 20. s , Section 2. Rezoning of (Proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing. (Proposed) Tract E-1, Uail Village Fifth Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of .287 acres, more or less, is hereby rezoned from Agricultural/Open Space to Ski Base/Recreational. Section 3. Special Development District No. 20. Special Development District No. 20 and the related development therefore, are hereby approved for the development of (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing, and Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of .4457 acres, more or less. Section 4. Purpose Special Development District No. 20 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Uail, to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town, and to provide recreational related facilities to .serve. residents and guests of the Vail. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and meets all applicable design .standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development No. 20 which. cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the development standards in either the Commercial Core I or the Ski Base/Recreation zone district. To further respond to the unique aspects of this special development district, SDD No. 20 is delineated by Development Area A and Development Area B. Development Area A of SDD No.20 shall generally apply to Lots A and 8, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Development Area B of SDD No. 20 shall generally apply to (proposed) Tract E-1, Vail Village Fifth Filing. SDD No. 20 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its .unique character. Section 5. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD No. 20 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development of Areas A and B within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by John M. Perkins, Architect, and consists of the following documents: 1. Site plan, dated January 4, 1988 2. Typical floor plans and roof plan, sheets 2 through 8 3. Elevations, dated January 4, 1988. 4. Vicinity Map, sheet 10 2 5. Finish area vicinity map, sheet 11 6. Preliminary landscape plan, dated 10/6/86 7. Environmental Impact Report and Development Proposal as prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. B. The development plan shall establish parameters for the following development standards: Setbacks Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Height Building heights shall be as indicated on the elevations and roof plan listed above. Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally indicated on the preliminary landscape plan listed above. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for final approval. Parking. Parking demands generated by this development shall be met by payment into the Town of Vail parking fund as established in Section 18.52.160 B of the Municipal Code. Section 6. Density Existing development on the site consists of 20 dwelling units and 9,861 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area. The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 6 dwelling units, consisting of 6,114 square feet of GRFA. Total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 26 dwelling units and 15,975 square feet of grass residential floor area (GRFA). Section 7. Uses A. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses for Development Area A shall be as set forth in the Commercial Core I zone district. B. Development Area B of SDD No. 20 is primarily intended to provide for the recreational base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain. In addition, year around community events and activities, along with summer recreation uses, are encouraged to achieve multi-seasonal use of this facility. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses for Development Area 6 shall be as follows: 3 Permitted Uses - Lower Level The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the lower level within Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Ski and sport equipment rental 9. Recreational related accessory sales 10. Candy, snack, and sundry sales 11. Meeting room facilities 12. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 13. Ski training center 14. Guest business and communication center 15. Children's Center 16. Host reception/reservation center 17. Public restrooms and changing areas 18. Special/community event center 19. Company offices--accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25% of the gross square footage of the facility. Permitted Uses, Upper Level A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B: 1. Lift ticket sales 2. Ski school lesson sales 3. Ski and boot locker rentals 4. Employee lockers 5. Ski storage facilities 6. Basket storage facilities 7. Ski repair 8. Meeting room facilities 9. Ski training center 4 10. Guest business and communication center 11. Children's center 12. Host reception/reservation center 13. Public restrooms and changing areas 14. Special/community event center 15. Company offices--accessory to permitted and conditional uses, not to exceed 25% of the gross square footage of the facility. 8. The following uses shall be permitted within the main structure at the upper level of Development Area B provided the total floor area of these uses does not exceed 25% of the total gross footage of street level of Development Area 6: 1. Ski and sport equipment rental 2. Recreational related accessory sales 3. Candy, snack and sundry sales 4. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities 5. Kitchen/food preparation facilities Permitted Uses, Deck Level The following uses shall be permitted on the deck level of Development Area B: 1. Restaurants in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan. 2. Cocktail lounges and bars in a seasonally enclosed facility as per approved development plan 3. Outdoor dining decks Section 8. 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 the 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 9. Expiration The applicant must begin construct ion 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 5 toward completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the proceeding sub-section, 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 10. Conditions of Approval for Special Development District 20. (These conditions of approval include only those conditions recommended by staff. Conditions recommended by the Planning and Environmental Commission are reflected in the cover memo dated March 1, 1988.) 1. A comprehensive drainage plan shall be submitted (and approved by the Town Engineer) and approvals for the relocation of utilities and easements shall be provided by affected utility companies prior to final DR6 approval. 2. The developer is responsible for relocating the bike path (as generally shown on the site plan), and the two mature pine trees on the south side of the project shall be relocated in the area of Pirate Ship Park. In the event these trees die within 12 months of relocation, the applicant is responsible for placement of spruce trees of 20 feet high or more. 3. The Town of Vail presently maintains the lawn behind the Golden Peak House Building. The Public Works Department will require indemnification from the owners against any damages to the underground structure prior to resuming maintenance in this area. This area must remain useable to the general public - no roping or fencing off will be allowed. 4. Owners' use restriction as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the Municipal Code shall apply to these 6 new units proposed in the Golden Peak House (or an equivalent number of units). 5. The inclusion of street trees on the Bridge Street side of the Golden Peak House may be incorporated into the approved development plan. Final determination as to the appropriateness of these trees shall be made subject to the outcome of the Vail Village Streetscape Conceptual Design study (to be completed in the summer of 1988). 6. The applicants' participation in public improvements shall be accomplished by participation in a "mini-special" improvement district to redesign and 6 relocate Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district to redesign and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the applicants' contribution for Seibert Circle toward an overall improvement district for Vail Village will be established, if and when a Village-wide district is formed. Section 11. 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. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment 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 , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 7 INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988• Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ORDINANCE N0. 8 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3.40.05 EXCESS TAX REMITTANCE; 3.40.130 COLLECTION OF SALES TAX; 3.40.140 SALES TAX BASE; AND 3.40.290 AMENDMENTS OF CHAPTER 3.40 SALES TAX OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SALES TAX RATE OF THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%); TO PROVIDE THAT ALL REVENUES RAISED BY SAID INCREASE BE EARMARKED SPECIFICALLY FOR MARKETING FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL AND ITS ENVIRONS; PROVIDING THAT BEFORE THE THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) SALES TAX INCREASE SET FORTH IN THIS ORDINANCE BE IMPOSED, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND SHALL RECEIVE THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL VOTING IN A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; PROVIDING THAT THE THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) SALES TAX RATE INCREASE AUTHORIZED BY THIS ORDINANCE SHALL CEASE TO BE EFFECTIVE ON UNLESS THE EXTENSION OF SAID THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) BE SUBMITTED AND SHALL RECEIVE THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL VOTING AT A REGULAR MUNICIPAL OR SPECIAL ELECTION PRIOR TO SAID EXPIRATION DATE; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council has held numerous public meetings to determine what municipal projects the public wishes to have public funds expended upon; and WHEREAS, increased marketing of tourism by the Town was an important goal of the members of the general public who attended those meetings; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to implement the desires of the inhabitants of the Town in regard to increased marketing of tourism; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail believes that it is in the best interest of its citizens to increase expenditures for the purpose of marketing tourism; and WHEREAS, in order to increase such expenditures, the Town believes it is necessary to increase the Town's sales tax rate from four percent (4%) to four and three-tenths percent (4.3%) and to earmark the revenues raised by said three tenths percent (.3%) increase for the purpose of marketing and promoting the Town of Vail and its environs as a year-round resort. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, that: 1. Section 3.40.050 Excess Tax; Remittance is hereby amended to read as follows: If any vendor, during any reporting period, collects as a tax an amount in excess of THE SALES TAX RATE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3.40.140 OF THIS ORDINANCE, TIMES HIS TOTAL TAXABLE SALES, then he shall remit to the Finance Director the full amount of the tax imposed in this Chapter 3.40 and also such excess amount. The retention by the retailer or vendor of any excess amount of tax collections over ~~e f^„~ ^°N^°^+ ~"a~ sf eho ~t~-SAID RATE TIMES THE TOTAL taxable sales of such retailer or vendor or the intentional failure to remit punctually to the Finance Director the full amount required to be remitted by the provisions of this Chapter 3.40 is declared to be a violation of this Chapter 3.40 and shall be recovered, together with interest, penalties and costs, as provided in Section 3.40. 2. Section 3.40.130 Collection of Sales Tax, paragraph (1) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.40.130 Collection of Sales Tax (1) Every retailer, also in this Chapter 3.40 called "vendor", shall, irrespective of the provisions of Section 3.40.140, be liable and responsible for the payment of an amount equal to {^~~~ ^°N^°°+ ~"°~~-FOUR AND THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (4.3%) of all sales made by him of commodities or services as specified in Section 3.40.120 and shall, before the twentieth (20) day of each month, make a return to the Finance Director for the preceding calendar month and remit an amount equal to said FOUR AND THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (4.3%) on such sales to the Finance Director. Such returns of the tax payer or his duly authorized agent shall be furnished by the Finance Department. The Town shall use the standard municipal sales and use tax reporting form and any subsequent revisions thereto adopted by the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue by the first full month commencing one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of the regulation adopting or revising such standard form. 3. Section 3.40.140 Sales Tax Base, paragraph (2) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.40.140 Sales Tax Base (2) There is imposed upon all sales of commodities and services specified in Section 3.40.120 a tax at the rate of ~^~~~ ^^~^°„+ ~"~` FOUR AND THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (4.3%) of the amount of the sale to be computed in accordance with the schedules or systems set forth in the rules and regulations prescribed therefore. Said schedules or systems shall be designed so that no such tax is charged on any sale of twenty-four cents ($.24) or less. (i) ALL REVENUE RAISED BY THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) OF THE SALES TAX RATE SHALL BE DEVOTED SOLELY TO AND SPECIFICALLY EARMARKED FOR THE MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF TOURISM FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL AND ITS ENVIRONS. ANY REVENUES RAISED BY SAID THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) OF THE SALES TAX RATE NOT EXPENDED ON -2- MARKETING IN ANY GIVEN YEAR MAY 8E UTILIZED FOR THE REPAYMENT OF ANY EXISTING GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT OF THE TOWN OF VAIL. ONCE A YEAR DURING EACH YEAR THAT THE REVENUES RAISED BY THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) OF THE SALES TAX RATE ARE EARMARKED FOR MARKETING PURPOSES, THE TOWN SHALL IN SOME APPROPRIATE WAY, STUDY AND MEASURE THE EFFECT SAID EXPENDITURE HAS HAD ON TOURISM THROJGH THE TOWN OF VAIL AND ITS ENVIRONS. (ii) NONE OF THE REVENUES EARMARKED FOR MARKETING IN THIS SECTION 3.40.140 SHALL BE EXPENDED UNTIL THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SETS FORTH AND AUTHORIZES A MARKETING PLAN FOR PROMOTING TOURISM IN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND ITS ENVIRONS. (iii) THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) OF THE FOUR AND THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (4.3%) SALES TAX RATE SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION SHALL CEASE TO BE EFFECTIVE ON UNLESS THE EXTENSION OF SAID THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) OF THE SALES TAX RATE BE SUBMITTED AND SHALL RECEIVE THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL VOTING AT A REGULAR OR SPECIAL ELECTION PRIOR TO SAID EXPIRATION DATE. 4. Section 3.40.290 Amendments of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: The Town Council may amend, alter or change this ordinance,-~ t~i~fe~~e-rEe~-r4°'~~te--e~-ta~~~e ;- EXCEPT THAT IT MAY NOT INCREASE THE FOUR AND THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (4.3%) RATE OF TAX SET FORTH in this Chapter, subsequent to adoption by a majority vote of the Town Council. EXCEPT FOR AN INCREASE IN THE FOUR AND THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (4.3%) RATE OF TAX SET FORTH IN THIS CHAPTER, such amendment, .alteration or change need not be submitted to the electors of the Town for their approval. 5. Before the three-tenths percent (.3%) sales tax increase set forth in this ordinance shall be imposed, and this ordinance becomes effective, it shall be submitted to and shall receive the approval of a majority of the registered electors of the Town of Vail voting at a special municipal election to be held on 1988. For this purpose, the question to be submitted for approval or rejection by the registered electors at said election shall be substantially as follows: "Shall the sales tax imposed by the Town of Vail, Colorado, be increased from four percent (4°~) to four and three-tenths percent (4.3%) for the purpose of providing revenues for marketing of the Town of Vail and its environs all in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. Series of 1988, at the -3- ,~ Town of Vail said sales tax increase to become effective on 1988." 6. 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. 7. 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 Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 day of , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on .the day of 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -4- ~~~ ORDINANCE N0. 10 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.40.130 (2) OF CHAPTER 3.40 SALES TAX OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE THAT TAXPAYERS WHOSE MONTHLY COLLECTED TAX IS LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($150) MAY MAKE RETURNS AND PAY TAXES AT INTERVALS NOT GREATER THAN THREE (3) MONTHS; AMENDING SECTION 3.40.170 (2) OF CHAPTER 3.40 SALES TAX CLARIFYING EXEMPTIONS FOR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS; AMENDING SECTION 3.40.170 (6) OF CHAPTER 3.40 SALES TAX OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE THAT ROOMS OR ACCOMMODATIONS PERMANENTLY OCCUPIED AND WHICH OCCUPANCY IS SECURED BY A WRITTEN AGREEMENT ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX AND DEFINING THE TERM PERMANENTLY OCCUPIED AS BEING A PERIOD OF SIXTY (60) OR MORE CONSECUTIVE DAYS; AMENDING SECTION 3.40.170 (8) OF CHAPTER 3.40 SALES TAX OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE THAT ALL SALES OF CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SALES TAX IF THE PURCHASER OF SUCH MATERIALS PROVIDES THE RETAILER WITH A BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail approved a new sales tax ordinance providing for self collection of the sales .tax in September, 1987; and WHEREAS, during the administration of this new sales tax ordinance, the Town staff has become convinced the ordinance may be improved by the addition of certain amendments thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, that: 1. Section 3.40.130 Collection of Sales Tax, subparagraph (2) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.40.130 Collection of Sales Tax (2) If accounting measures regularly employed by the vendor in the transaction of his business or other conditions are such that returns of sales made on a calendar month basis shall impose unnecessary hardship, the Finance Director, upon written request of the vendor, may accept returns at such intervals as shall, in his opinion, better the suit the convenience of the taxpayer whose monthly collected tax is less than ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($15^) to make returns and pay taxes at intervals no greater than three (3) months. 2. Section 3.40.130 Collection of Sales Tax, subparagraph (3) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.40.130 Collection of Sales Tax (3) The Finance Director may extend the date for making a return and paying the taxes due under such reasonable rules and regulations as may be prescribed therefore but no such extension shall be for a greater period than as provided in Section 3.40.130 "-~ (2). t* 3. Section 3.40.170 Exemptions, paragraph (2) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.40.170 Exemptions (2) All sales 'i "' ^r^~"~~at~ons in the COn~urt ~f Chair AND DIRECT PURCHASES BY RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE AND QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS, IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR REGULAR RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE AND QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITIES ONLY SHALL BE TAX EXEMPT. (a) THE ORGANIZATION SHALL HAVE APPLIED FOR, BEEN ASSIGNED, AND FURNISHED TO THE VENDOR THEIR FEDERAL EXEMPT INSTITUTION LICENSE NUMBER AND THEIR STATE OF COLORADO EXEMPT INSTITUTION LICENSE NUMBER. IN THE EVENT NO SUCH EXEMPT NUMBER IS FURNISHED, THE VENDOR IS TO CHARGE THE TAX. (b) FOR THE PURPOSE OF VAIL SALES TAX, "RELIGIOUS", "RELIGIOUS PURPOSES", AND "QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL", "QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES", SHALL BE DEFINED AS BEING CHARITABLE OR FOR CHARITABLE USE ONLY. (c) SALES TO MINISTERS, PRIESTS, RABBIS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES, STAFF MEMBERS, FACULTY AND STUDENTS OF RELIGIOUS OR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE ARE TAXABLE. INTERNAL GROUPS, CLUBS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OF CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS ARE TAXABLE. (d) SALES TO OR SALES BY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS ARE TAXABLE. SUCH ORGANIZATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS ARE TAXABLE. ALL SALES TO THE EMPLOYEES, FACULTY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBERS, ETC., OF THE ABOVE ORGANIZATIONS ARE TAXABLE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID OR CHARGE. 4. Section 3.40.170 Exemptions, paragraph (6) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.40.170 Exemptions (6) All sales and purchases of commodities and services under the provisions of Section 3.40.020 (25) to any occupant who is a permanent resident of any hotel, apartment hotel, lodging house, motor hotel, guest house, guest ranch, condominium, townhouse, trailer tour±, mobile home, auto camp or trailer court or park and who enters or has entered into a written agreement for occupancy of a room or accommodations for a period of at least }"~~}~~ '~~'-SIXTY (60) consecutive days during the calendar year or preceding year. DEPOSITS PAID FOR ROOMS OR ACCOMMODATIONS SHALL NOT BE TAXABLE WHEN PAID IN ADVANCE EXCEPT THAT ANY SUCH DEPOSITS SHALL BE TAXABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT -2- -~ THEY ARE NOT REFUNDED TO THE CUSTOMER. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, WHEN ROOMS OR ACCOMMODATIONS ARE FURNISHED, THEN ANY DEPOSITS PREVIOUSLY PAID ARE TAXABLE. 5. Section 3,40.170 Exemptions, paragraph (8) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.40.170 Exemptions (8) All sales of construction and building materials, as such term is used in Section 29-2-109 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, if such materials are picked up by the purchaser ,a~-OR if the purchaser of such materials gives to the retailer a building permit NUMBER. ^N ^+hnr ~nri~mon+~+inN r + ~1 + +M~ T~••.~~ 6. 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. 7. 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 Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of-any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 day of , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor -3- ~~ ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -4- M E M O TO: The Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: March 15, 1988 SUBJECT: Vail Gateway The Vail Gateway Project entails a request to change the zoning of the existing of the Amoco service station from Heavy Service District to Commercial Core 1, and to apply Special Development District No. 21. The Vail Gateway proposal is for a mixed use project containing retail, office, commercial and residential uses. Please refer to the enclosed PEC memos and the applicants environmental impact report for a detailed analysis of the proposal. The staff recommendation on this proposal has been for denial. Although we are generally supportive of the concept, we feel there are some substantial issues that have not been adequately addressed. These issues include: 1) New corridor encroachment 2) Set back from Vail Road 3) Building and urban design issues. The Planning and Environmental Commission voted 4 to 3 to deny a motion for approval for the Vail Gateway Project. Two of the PEC members voting against the motion for approval indicated that they felt further revisions needed to be made before this project could be approved. The other two members voting against the motion for approval indicated that they had fundamental zoning problems with this type of project in this location. The applicant has made several revisions to the project through the planning and environmental commission hearing process in order to satisfy staff and planning commission concerns. It is the understanding of the Community Development Department that the applicant is currently working towards resolution of the remaining staff concerns. A complete staff recommendation will be given at the public hearing. ~. ~,,.~ ~: tows of uaill% 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1988 SUBJECT: Vail Gateway The applicant for the project has made several revisions to the Gateway plans in response to concerns voiced at the Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1988. These significant changes include: Elimination of surface parking along Vail Road. Provision of a six foot wide pedestrian loggia along the south side of the Building. Addition of one tier of structured parking. Change of third level office space to residential. Provision of a planter extending around the north west corner of the site. REVISED FLOOR AREAS & PARKING CALCULATIONS RETAIL: 10800 s.f. 36 parking spaces required. BANK: 3800 s.f. 19 parking spaces required. OFFICE: 3750 s.f. 15 parking spaces required. 13 DWELLING UNITS: 13000 s.f. 26 parking spaces required. TOTAL: 96 parking spaces required 90 parking spaces provided ... The Community Development Department still has several serious concerns with the Vail Gateway project. Please refer to the PEC memorandum dated 2/22/88 for our complete analysis of this project . The proposal requires a zone change, an relevant criteria that this project mus the 3 rezoning criteria, the SDD design Design Guide Plan and the Vail Land Use issues that we still are concerned with criteria. VIEW SDD DESIGN CRITERIA C d an SDD approval. The t be reviewed by include guidelines, the Urban Plan. The following relate to these The Staff still feels strongly that this building should present no encroachment into the view that is established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. During the Vail Village Inn Phase IV approval process, much time and effort was put into maintaining a broad view of Vail Mountain from the four-way- stop. The eventual and approved building design of the Vail Village Inn Phase IV, reflects this effort and presents a wide view of the Mountain from the four-way-stop. The Community Development Department Staff conducted an independent view analysis study of the Vail Gateway project. We feel that the view analysis as submitted by the applicant with respect to the east ridge of the Gateway project and it's relation to the Vail Village Inn and to the mountain views is accurate. We still feel that the encroachment (any encroach- ment) of the Gateway project into this view is unacceptable. With the regard to the west ridge of the Vail Gateway project, we feel that the view corridor analysis submitted by the applicant is quite inaccurate. The analysis conducted by the Staff shows that the west ridge of the Gateway project would have a substantial impact above what is described in the applicants view impact analysis. We feel that this level of encroachment into the view of Vail Mountain from the four-way-stop is not acceptable, and that further revisions need to be made to this building to respect the view that is presented by the Vail Village Inn project. MASSING SDD DESIGN CRITERIA G The staff's on-site massing demonstration also revealed a major concern with the impact of the height/mass of the tallest portion's of the building as it relates to the Frontage Road and Vail Road. This had not been evident before until demonstrated on-site. The peak of the roof ridges near the roads (30 feet away from property lines) present an unacceptable impact upon pedestrians and motorists in the area. .-` SETBACK SDD DESIGN CRITERIA A The Community Development Department still feels strongly about the request for a 20 foot setback from property line along the Frontage Road. We believe that this project should always have the ability to provide an adequate buffer to the Frontage Road. We feel that a 20 foot setback is a minimum setback that we can accept in this location. The applicant has argued that the existing landscaped planter that is located along the Frontage Road, serves as an adequate buffer from this elevation of the building. That landscape buffer is located on State Highway right-of-way and is not under control of the applicant or the Town of Vail. (See attached letter from Richard Perske) The State Highway Department has not provided us the reassurance that that planter will remain unaffected by further road and intersection improvements. The Vail Gateway building will be in place for quite some time, and there is no guarantee that this landscape buffer will remain. We feel that it is important that the applicant be able to provide an acceptable buffer on his own property. We have discussed the potential for the applicant to build to his property line on the east. This would allow a fairly even trade of square footage by providing the 20 foot setback on the north, and would also eliminate the alley between the Gateway and the proposed Vail Village Inn. URBAN DESIGN SDD DESIGN STANDARD G, URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN With regard to the Urban Design aspects of the proposed Vail Gateway project. The Community Development Department Staff has some concerns with the fundamental design and orientation of the building. The building is designed with a pedestrian plaza at a high traffic corner that is difficult to reach on foot. We understand that the desire of the applicant that the building make a statement to people entering the community. We feel however, that main entrance of the building should be oriented more toward the direction of pedestrian approach the southwest. The proposed design may encourage unwanted traffic down Vail Road and into the Village Core. Another concern that the Staff has with the Urban Design aspect of the building is the architectual issue of the flat roof areas, although this is essentially a Design Review Board issue it is an issue that should be addressed at this crucial stage of this project. We are concerned with the introduction of the flat roof element in the vicinity of the Vail Village area, where through the Urban Design Guide Lines, flat roofs are not allowed and gable roofs are highly encouraged. . ~ .. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department still feels that there are significant issues with this project that must be addressed. We feel that these issues are very significant with the regards to views, bulk & mass impacts and Urban Design principals and as proposed cannot support this project as it is currently presented. The applicant has responded positively to some of our concerns, however we feel there are outstanding issues which need to be further addressed. The staff recommendation is, as can be found in the memo dated February 2, 1988 for denial. ~, TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1988 SUBJECT: Request to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing from Heavy Service District to Special Development District with underlying Commercial Core I zone district. Applicant: Palmer Development Company I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This rezoning request has been proposed in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing Amoco Service Station on the southeast corner of the 4-way intersection in Vail Village. At the present time the Amoco Station is zoned Heavy Service District. The Heavy Service District uses consist of industrial and service businesses. The existing Amoco station consists of 8 gasoline pumps and a small one-story building containing 4 service repair bays and a car wash. The size of this site is approximately 24,154 square feet. The proposed Vail Gateway project is a mixed use development containing retail, office, commercial and residential uses, with a majority of the parking being provided in an underground structure. Section 18.40.010 of the Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of Special Development Districts. It reads as follows: "The purpose of special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provision of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas." The Special Development District chapter in the Municipal Code goes on to state that: "The uses in a Special Development District must be uses `permitted by right' conditional uses, or accessory uses in the zone district in which the Special Development District is located." In order to meet these requirements of the Special Development District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone this property from Heavy Service District to Commercial Core I and simultaneously apply for Special Development District No. 21. This memorandum will address the rezoning of the property from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I, as well as the application of Special Development District to this parcel with Commercial Core I as the underlying zone district. A summary of the proposed development is as follows: A. Floor Area• Retail: 11,200 sf Retail/Commercial: 3,900 sf Office: 4,900 sf Residential:. 12,000 sf, 13 du B. Building Heights: Building heights of the east and west ridges as calculated by the standard Town of Vail method are approximately 62 and 57 feet respectively. The peak ridge heights are 57 and 52 feet above the elevation of the 4-way intersection. C. Site Coverage: 14,357 sf, 60% D. Parking 75 covered spaces 3 surface spaces E. Proposed Uses Uses as proposed are to be those uses specified within the Commercial Core I zone district. F. Access: Vehicular access to the underground parking would take place off of Vail Road on the southwest corner of the site. A comprehensive traffic analysis is included within the development plan. In order to evaluate this proposal, we .must first evaluate the request to airierid the zoning from Heavy Service to Commercial Core I. The Heavy Service District as it is defined in its purpose section in the zoning code is intended to provide sites for automotive oriented uses and for commercial service uses which are not appropriate in other commercial districts. .Because of the nature of the uses permitted and their operating characteristics, appearance and potential for generating traffic, all of the uses in this district are subject to conditional use permit procedure. Some of the uses allowed as conditional uses within the Heavy Service zone district include animal hospitals and kennels, automotive service stations, building material supply stores, business offices, corporation yards, machine shops, repair garages, tire sales and service, and trucking terminals. The Heavy Service District does require 20 foot setbacks from all property lines, allows a 38 foot building height, 75% site coverage, and requires a minimum of 10% landscape coverage. Density standards are not applicable to the Heavy Service District, as no residential type use is listed as a permitted or conditional use in the Heavy Service District. The Commercial Core I zone district allows a variety of retail, commercial and residential uses, all of which are controlled as permitted or conditional uses on a horizontal zoning basis. The proposed change from HS to CCI entails a major change in the allowable uses for this parcel of land. A complete analysis of the merits of this zone amendment is addressed in another section of this memorandum. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. The first set of criteria to be utilized will be the three criteria involved in an evaluation of a request for zone change. The second set of criteria to be used in review of this proposal will be the 9 development standards as set forth in the Special Development District chapter of the Zoning Code. The third set of criteria will be a general comparison of the proposed project to the Urban Design Guide Plan, as stipulated in the CCI zone district. Also, the Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any request to change zoning. However, because this site is part of the area covered by the Vail Village Master Plan/Urban Design Guide Plan, the Land Use Plan made no recommendations for this site. The Vail Village Master Plan, as yet unapproved, recommends no changes in the land use of this site. Staff comments include those of Jeff Winston, our urban design/landscape consultant. III. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HEAVY SERVICE TO COMMERCIAL CORE I A. Suitability of existing zoning The staff feels that the existing gas station is an acceptable use as existing on the corner of the 4-way stop. We do recognize, however, that it is one of the few uses allowed in the Heavy Service District that would be an acceptable use in this highly sensitive location. The conditional use review process would require Town of Vail approval for any change in use on this site. We have also recognized for quite some time that redevelopment of this site could allow the opportunity to present amore pleasant and appropriate entrance statement to the Town of Vail. We generally support the uses proposed at this location. B. relationshi Municitial o The Amoco site has been called out on the Urban Design Guide Plan as a special study area and has been reviewed previously as a potential portion of the Vail Village Inn development project. With concern over the potential congestion a bank could cause at this location, we feel that the uses proposed for this piece of ground are generally consistent with the surroundings uses. C. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. We feel that development of a gateway project into Vail is a sound concept. This concept can provide for orderly and viable growth within the community if revisions to the plan, such as inclusion of a left turn lane and elimination of parking along Vail Road are incorporated. IV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code: A. A buffer zone shall be provided in a S strict that is adjacent ntial zone district. Th pecial to a low e buffer zone t free of buildings or structures and must landscaped, screened or protected by natural features Development density res must be kep so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the propo use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, a are sed The proposed development is surrounded by commercial development on the south and east sides, by Vail Road on the west side and by the Frontage Road on the north side. There is no residential area that this project should provide a buffer from. The staff does feel strongly, however, that the north side of the building should maintain a 20 foot setback from the property line. We feel that the proposed 10 foot setback is inadequate from the Frontage Road. There is an existing landscape buffer between the service station and the roadway. This planter, however, is entirely located on State Highway .right-of-way and neither the applicant nor the Town of Vail control future development on that property. We feel that this building should have the ability to provide a sufficient buffer from the roadway should this planter be eliminated. B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for emergency pur oses. Bicycle traffic should be considered and rovided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. As is many of these criteria, this consideration is intended primarily for large scale development. As it relates to this proposal, the vehicular access to the underground parking occurs in the southwestern corner of the site. There is a comprehensive traffic analysis that has been submitted as part of the development~pl~n. This traffic analysis states that there is a 40 foot stacking distance for cars waiting to turn left into the Gateway project from Vail Road. The Community Development staff and Public Works feel that circulation related to this project would benefit greatly by the design and implementation of a left turn lane on Vail Road to serve the Vail Gateway project. This improvement makes sense due to the predicted daily traffic flow of 810 cars/day into and out of this driveway. The approved Vail Village Inn project left turn lane for their access point distance down Vail Road from this pro it is important to circulation at the intersection that this left turn lane of the project. does contain a a short ject. We feel 4-way be made a part The applicant has also designed into the project approximately three surface parking spaces that fall partially on the applicant's property and partially on the road right-of-way on Vail Road. The staff feels that these surface parking spaces are not appropriate as they are designed and that surface parking may not be appropriate at all on this site. The spaces are too close to the intersection and would impede future road improvements if needed. We feel that if the applicant wishes to pursue surface parking, it should be redesigned to be completely on the applicant's property and in an area where it does not conflict with circulation patterns. C. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (includin drainage areas), recreation, views, conven runczion. trees and ence, and The Community Development Department feels strongly that this building should present no encroachment into the view corridor that is established by the approved Vail Village Inn development. During the Vail Village Inn Phase IV approval process, much time and effort was put into maintaining a view corridor from the 4-way stop. The eventual and approved building design of the Vail Village Inn Phase IV reflects this effort and presents a wide view from the 4-way stop. Although the applicant has not submitted to the staff a complete view analysis, it is apparent from the information that we do have that the existing building will require substantial revision to maintain .the view parameters that are established by the WI. D. Variety in terms of housing type, densities, facilities~~a~rid open space. This Special Development District proposal includes 13 dwelling units with GRFA of approximately 12,000 square feet. With CCI as the underlying zoning, the allowable density on this parcel would be 13 units and approximately 19,300 square feet of GRFA. The use of the units (i.e. rental or condominium) has not been determined. E. F. G. It is difficult, on a site of 24,000 square feet that contains only 13 dwelling units to apply the criteria of variety of housing type and quality and amount of open space. These two criteria are not really applicable to a development of this scale. The applicant has attempted to provide some open space by creating a large setback from the 4-way intersection in the form of a landscape or sculpture plaza. Staff feels that this design form is very appropriate to this development. Privacy in terms of the needs of individuals, families and neighbors. As with other criteria, these considerations are felt to be more relevant to large scale SDD's. The applicant has provided pedestrian entrance to this building on the northwest corner as well as a pedestrian entrance centrally located on the south elevation. The pedestrian entrance on the south elevation is located in the center of the building to allow pedestrian traffic to arrive at the building by coming through both the existing and approved Vail Village Inn developments. The approved Vail Village Inn Phase IV development was designed in a manner to screen view and pedestrian access from the existing gas station. We feel that it will be important the eventual developer of the Vail Village Phase IV project amend certain circulation and design aspects of his project to better relate to the Vail Gateway project . The staff does feel that pedestrian safety would be greatly benefited by providing a pedestrian walkway from Vail Road to the building entrance on the south side of the building. The pedestrian access. as designed conflicts with the vehicular access to the parking structure. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk. The Community Development Department staff has serious concerns with the site relationship of the proposed development, with the height, and with the massing of the building. There was much discussion during the approval process of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn project regarding stepping those buildings down toward the 4-way stop. That concept was reinforced in the original SDD documents and in planning studies completed by Eldon Beck that show proposed building height allowances for the Vail Village Inn area. H. The architects have recognized this concept and, to a certain extent, responded. We do, however, have serious concern with the height of both the east and west ridges. We feel that the height of these ridges presents an unacceptable encroachment by narrowing the wide view corridor to a smaller "tunnel." Lowering of the ridge heights will accomplish two objectives in the development of this site. It would reduce or remove any impact of this building on the view corridor and it would further reinforce the concept of stepping down toward the corner. In the present proposal, there is approximately 5 feet difference from the ridge heights of the Vail Village Inn and the Gateway projects. We feel there should be a substantial step down from the Vail Village Inn ridge height to the Vail Gateway ridges. This would reinforce previous design considerations as well as the applicant's own architectural concept. The staff also has a concern, as has been previously stated in this memo, with the relationship of this building to the Frontage Road. This development plan proposes a 10 foot setback from the front property line. While there is an existing planter that buffers this site from the Frontage Road, that planter is located entirely on State Highway right- of-way. There are no assurances that can be made by the Town of Vail or the applicant that further Frontage Road improvements will not impact this planter. We feel that a 20 foot setback from the main road in Vail is the minimum buffer that should be allowed. Buildi materi liahti I. Landsc of the total site in terms o es types, maintenance, suitability and effect on neighborhood. With regard to this proposal, a majority of these issues relate to the Design Review level of approval. Staff feels that the design of the plaza entrance on the northwest corner of this development is appropriate and presents a great opportunity for development of a landscaped plaza, possibly with some sculpture. This plaza area can contribute much toward the positive image of Vail. The plaza as it is designed is very conceptual and further work will need to take place at the Design Review level. VI. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Uses The applicant is proposing this Special Development District with the underlying zone district of CCI. As required in the Special Development District section of the Vail Municipal Code, the uses in an SDD must match that of the underlying zone district. In the CCI zone district, permitted and conditional uses are defined horizontally by building level. We feel that utilizing CCI as an underlying zone district requires the applicant to structure his uses in accordance to the horizontal zoning of CCI. This will require submittal and approval of a conditional use permit for the office uses.. For the purpose of review of this project, the staff has assumed that office will be an eventual use on the 3rd and 4th levels, and see no negative impact to these uses. The total size of this parcel is 24,154 square feet. Under CCI zoning, this would allow a 19,323 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The applicant has proposed approximately 12,000 square feet of GRFA and 13 dwelling units. The density proposed is within allowable density of the zone district. The staff does feel, however, that the overall bulk and mass of this building results in several major concerns of this development proposal. The level of density being requested by the applicant contributes to the massing of the building, and is therefore related to those concerns. B. Parking According to standards outlined in the Off-Street Parking section of the zoning code, the uses involved in this proposal will require from 89 to 104 parking spaces; depending upon whether or not a bank is involved and what the size of that facility would be. The applicant has proposed 75 structures spaces and 3 surface spaces. Staff feels that the surface parking as located and designed is inappropriate. That leaves 75 parking spaces to serve this development. Staff feels that this is inadequate and sees no reason on this site to entertain a parking variance to any degree. The applicants have submitted a parking management plan they feel addresses the ability of their development to serve their parking needs. The parking management plan has been included as a part of your packet on this project. VII. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan addresses this parcel of land as a special study area and does identify two sub-area concepts that relate to this proposal. Sub-area concepts 1 and 2 on East Meadow Drive involve both short and long term suggested improvements as an entry into the community and to Vail Road. Improvements include planting bed expansions, an island to narrow Vail Road, and tree planting to further restrict views down Vail Road. These sub-area concepts also reinforce the fact that this parcel should be a future study area. Other than some initial work done by Eldon Beck, that suggest building heights for this parcel as well as the Village Inn parcel and some study done to incorporate this site into the WI, no special study of this parcel of land has been conducted to date. The Eldon Beck study does show that building heights for development of this parcel of land should reach one to two stories. The Beck plan also shows that the Vail Village Inn development behind this parcel should be a maximum of 3 to 4 stories. The staff supports the Beck concept of stepping down to the intersection, but given the heights of the approved Vail Village Inn project, we certainly feel that 2 to 3 stories of development on this site are appropriate. While this proposed development is within-the general area of the Urban Design Guide Plan, we feel that many of the Urban Design Considerations may not be appropriate criteria with which to review this project. We do, however, have concerns of several aspects of this proposal in a general relation to the Urban Design Considerations. The building height and views, in particular, are concerns of this proposal and issues that do not adequately correspond to the Urban Design Considerations. The Urban Design Guide Plan building height consideration provides for a maximum height in the CCI zone district. This building height requirement is a mixed height of 33 and 43 feet, with 40% of the building allowed up to 43 feet in height. We feel that these height guidelines, coupled with the concept of stepping this building down toward the intersection, suggest appropriate design guidelines for this development proposal. The Design Consideration regarding views and focal points states that: "Nail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment, and by repeated visibility, orientation reference points." While the view corridor through the approved Vail Village Inn project from the 4-way stop is not a designated view corridor by ordinance, we feel it is a very important view upon entering the community. The Vail Village Inn project responded to staff concerns and attempted to maintain an acceptable view corridor from the 4-way stop. We feel strongly that the Vail Gateway project must respect the view corridor as defined by the Vail Village Inn Building. The applicant has responded well with his building design to several of the other design considerations including streetscape framework, street edge, vehicle penetration and service and delivery. However, we have major concerns with the amount of flat roof proposed. Flat roofs are discouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan. VIII STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff generally supports the mixed use concept proposed in this redevelopment plan and the concept of the rezoning to CCI. Although it may be considered spot zoning, we feel that the uses are compatible with the adjacent Vail Village Inn Special Development District and are appropriate for this location within the community. However, we are not supportive of the uses proposed without the left turn lane and elimination of the surface parking as well as adequate parking provisions. We feel that the general concept of development proposed by the applicant is appropriate and believe that there is an opportunity here to provide an exciting and aesthetically pleasing entrance into Vail. The Community Development Department staff has, however, major concerns with the project as proposed. We feel the issues of bulk and mass, height, setbacks, view corridor encroachment and parking are all important issues that must be addressed. The staff recommendation for this project would be for the Planning Commission to table this and allow the staff and the applicant to work together to try to resolve some of these issues. We feel that with adequate resolution of the aforementioned issues, we could support this project. However, as presented, we feel there are major issues that need to be addressed and cannot support this project as presented. Although many of the uses of the Heavy Service District would certainly not be acceptable in this location, we feel that the existing service station is appropriate to this location. We believe that'SDD #21 as proposed, presents impacts that are not acceptable. If the applicant wishes to move forward with this project as proposed, staff recommendation is for denial. RESOLUTION N0. 6 Series of 1988 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE BLACK LAKES RESERVOIR PROJECT PROPOSED BY THE VAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT, WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District (UVCWD) has submitted an application to Eagie County for a 1041 permit to enlarge Black Lake No. 1 located near Vail pass and constructing an additional two hundred twenty-seven (227) acre feet of additional storage capacity; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has received advice on the issue from an engineer; and WHEREAS, the Town's engineer believes the project will not adversely affect the Gore Creek fishery; and WHEREAS, the reservoir project is an element of an overall augmentation plan now being implemented and said plan will not have adverse impacts on Gore Creek; and WHEREAS, the Town's engineer believes the plan is a reasonable compromise meeting the municipal water demand of the Vail area and the fish and stream demands necessary for a resort community; and WHEREAS, the augmentation decree contains a clause which would allow the Town of Vail to reopen consideration of the, plan if the Council finds the plan does not operate as anticipated and stream flow has dropped below those expected resulting in damage to the fish population or other forms of adverse impacts; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that while it can support said augmentation plan, it is necessary to place certain conditions upon its support to help protect the fish habitat in Gore Creek. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: The Town Council of the Town of Uail generally supports the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District plan of augmentation for the Black Lakes reservoir project with the following conditions: 1. The VUCWD shall participate with the Town of Vail and the Trout Unlimited 'J organization in a multi-year stream habitat improvement program. The UVCWD shall contribute a minimum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to this program. 2. The VVCWD shall be responsible for restocking fish in Gore Creek if a significant fish kill occurs through the diversion of water from Gore Creek. The Colorado Division of Wildlife shall be solely responsible for determining when a significant fish kill occurs. The fish stocking program shall be done in accordance with direction given by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 3. The VVCWD shall enter into an agreement with the Town of Vail committing to the terms and conditions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 hereof. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -2- ..~ ,~ -~r~ REC'0 FEB 2 6 1 88 BISHOP-BROGDEN ASSOCIATES, INC. 165 S. UNION BLVD. (SUITE 670) • LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228 • (303) 980-8654 Harold F. Bishop February 24, 1988 Robert E. Brogden Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Eskwith: As you requested during our telephone conversation February 18, 1988, we have reviewed on behalf of the Town of Vail the effect of the Vail Valley Consolidated District's augmentation plan and proposed enlargement of Black Lake Reservoir on the fishery through the Town. Based upon our investigation, we believe the augmentation plan and water resources development plan proposed by the Vail Valley Districts will not adversely affect the fishery. During the course of the investigation, we reviewed data you sent us concerning the augmentation plan and correspondence regarding the plan; met with and reviewed the overall augmentation plan aspects with representatives of the applicant including attorneys Wayne Schroeder and Sean Sullivan, engineer Tom Williamson, and resource and fish specialist Bob Weaver; discussed the matter with representatives of Eagle County including Sid Fox and County hydrology consultant Bill Lorah; and discussed the plan with the Colorado Water Conservation Board. As I indicated to you, we had previously reviewed the plan for another client of ours, Union Oil, and we are currently involved in similar issues in Summit County concerning minimum streamflow impacts on behalf of our clients Summit County and the Keystone ski area. Based on the information we reviewed, there is no more depletion to Gore Creek during the summer months with the augmentation plan than without the augmentation plan with the exception of during the months of May and June when Black Lake Reservoir is filling. This will have the effect of removing some of the flood runoff peak which would otherwise pass down the river through the Town. Operation studies by the applicant's engineers indicate that flows in Gore Creek during the summer months through August will be in excess of the State's minimum streamflow of 16 cfs. It is possible during the month of September that flows may approach 16 cfs infrequently and on the order of once every few years, drop slightly below 16 cfs. At such time as the flow drops below 16 cfs, the District is required to restrict lawn watering irrigation. The operation studies show that flow without the plan, assuming agricultural irrigation was still taking place, would have dropped below 16 cfs more frequently. During the winter, flows will frequently be below the minimum streamflow of 6 cfs. The Vail Valley Consolidated Water Districts have reached a stipulation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and State Fish and Wildlife to allow these flows to drop below the 6 cfs. Such flows, in the :1 ~.. ~ [ L c ~, " ~aEe¢ e~ESOUZCes ~n9ineetln9 anc~ ~sounc~ ~atet ~eoCo9y ,. o .. ~ Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith February 24, 1988 Page 2 opinion of the State as well as the applicant's fish specialist Bob Weaver, will not adversely affect the species of trout found in the stream. Mountain trout are tolerant to low streamflows and during the winter when they are in semi-hibernation, the fish stay in the deeper pools and do not migrate along the stream. Our work in Summit County substantiated the fact that the type of fish generally found in mountain streams can subside on extremely low streamflows during the cold winter months. This period of time is also one of which would not be aesthetically damaging to the tourist trade since winter skiers are more concerned with the skiing than stream beauty. We believe the plan is a reasonable compromise meeting the municipal water demands of the Vail area and the fish and stream demands necessary for a resort community. The fish habitat should not be stressed or destroyed by the augmentation plan; however, obviously additional winter waters would be advantageous. Based on the information .given by the applicant such additional water can only be provided from additional storage or by reduction of municipal diversions. The reduction of municipal diversions may not be in the best interests of the Town since future development would be limited. Construction of storage facilities in steep mountain canyons is expensive. One mitigating factor that could assist in the protection of fish habitat, as identified in the County's review process, is the construction of additional habitat in those portions of the stream where it could be beneficial. One side effect of the minimum streamflow filing and CWCB stipulation is that it effectively blocks any new development from taking water from Gore Creek or its tributaries above the Vail Valley Consolidated District's point of diversion. While the CWCB has entered into a stipulation allowing the Vail Valley District to divert below the minimum flow, any new water user will not have that stipulation and would have to provide full augmentation water to meet any new depletion which occurs when the flow at the Vail gage is at or below 6 cfs during the winter. As with any complicated water plan, there is always the possibility of a hidden flaw. The decree. has a retained jurisdiction clause which essentially says that if the plan does .not operate as intended and someone is in fact injured or otherwise affected beyond what the plan contemplates, the plan can be reopened and the courts can rule on the problem. The Town of Vail could reopen the plan. therefore, if it is found the plan does not operate as anticipated and streamflows drop below those expected resulting in damage to the fish population. We have enjoyed working with you on this brief assignment. Enclosed for your information is a pamphlet describing the services of our firm. We have previously worked for the Town of Vail and Beaver Creek Metropolitan District on water resource matters. If we can be of further service, or ~' .. ~ Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith February 24, 1988 Page 3 if you have any questions concerning this assignment, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, BISHOP BROGD ASSOCIATES, INC. ~si~~ ~_. d Bi HFB:sjm Enclosure 7047 ~" 3/11/88 NOTE TO COUNCIL: Pat Dodson has arranged for each Council member to receive two tickets to the Stephen Stills concert Saturday night, 3/12. The concert will begin at 8:00 p.m. at the Ice Arena (doors open at 7:00 p.m.). You can pick your tickets up at the window Saturday night. If you know Friday afternoon (3/11) that you will not be using your tickets, please call me. We might be able to arrange for someone else to use them. Thanks! /bsc DATE: 3/11/88 ACTION LIST -ITEM ASSIGNED T0: 1. Restaurant menu boards Community Development 2. Revise street cut ordinance Larry 3. Submit Smoking Ordinance to Community Development/ Council Larry 4. Dobson Ice Arena analysis for conferences Recreation Dept. 5. Signage recommendations for Public Works/Community phasing Development 6. Enhanced 911 analysis Police Dept./Fire Dept. 7. Develop new closed container ordinance Police Dept./Larry 8. Analysis of potential Police Dept./Fire Dept./ annexation of I-70 in West Vail Community Dev./Larry 9. West Vail bus shuttle Transportation/Public Works COMPLETED Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1988 1:00 PM Site Visit 1:30 PM Work Session on Cascade Village 3:00 PM Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of 2/22/88. 2. Appeal of a staff decision regarding a home occupation license for Bowling Alley Pizza at 2754 South Frontage Road. Appellants: Darlene and Steve Schweinsberg 3. Request for an exterior alteration and a variance to permitted common area in order to build an air lock at the Gasthof Gramshammer. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer To be withdrawn: 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a postal facility on Lot 1, Block 1 Lionsridge Subdivision,Filing 3. Applicant: United States Postal Service 5. Discussion of new ordinance concerning vested property rights. Gordon lZ. f'iercc Architect A.I.A. March 10, 1988 Ms. Diana Donovan P.O. Box 601 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Diana: Thank you for your call today regarding the proposed traffic signals for the main intersection to our. town. Like you, my first choice would be some sort of hand signal program rather than lights. As I told you, if traffic lights are to be part of the program, I want an overall landscape plan incorporated with .the simplest light design possible. One concern I have for traffic control goes beyond the main. intersection in that I often see problems at the West Vail exit and along both Frontage Roads. I believe that it might become necessary some day. to have controls (manual or electronic) in a number of areas. It is this concern that leads me to think that our problem may become too big for manual control. Perhaps the proposed redesign of the main intersection could have all the necessary wiring and foundation in place for. the possible future alternative of the electronic solution. I would not be opposed to this idea if we adopted a very structured hand signal program; that is, a pedestal for specially uniformed traffic control officers to stand on with better light at night, etc. In other words, make it a unique feature rather than the spontaneous solution we presently have. Diana, I must emphasize here that I am more impressed with known facts regarding the. efficiency of lights versus a hand signal program and will rely on the experts' knowledge. Your comments and questions have been helpful in prompting me to pursue this matter a little further before I will decide on what seems to make the most sense. Thanks again for your help. Sincerely, ordon R. Pierce GRP/Irt cc: Vail Town Council 1000 South Froutagc Road, Wcst V~-il, Colorado K11~57 3O3; X76-4433 lows v T5 south Irontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 office of the town manager Mr. David Mott General Manager Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water and Sanitation Districts 846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Dave: ,~ March 9, 1988 VAIL 1989 This letter is to follow up our conversation of this morning concerning the Vail Town Council's desire to have a discussion at some point with the Vail Consolidated Water District's Board. I think the desire of the Council members is to begin forming better lines of communication between the two elected bodies. After hearing the discussion by the Council yesterday, I would suggest the following items for a possible informal agenda: 1. Water distribution system infrastructure in Vail. 2. Usage of Vail user fees and property taxes. 3. Surplus property. 4. Bighorn Lake - fishery improvement. I am sure that the Water District Board will also have some suggested topics for discussion which should be added to this proposed agenda. Please discuss this. idea with your Board, and if there is agreement to Mr. David Mott March 9, 1988 Page 2 have a joint meeting, perhaps you and I can then work on mutually acceptable dates and location. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Since , ondall Phillips Town Manager RUP/bsc cc: Uail Town Council members WILLIAM L. ARMSTRONG ~ COLOMDO F ~nite~ ~tate~ senate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 February 2~4, 1988 Dear Friend: Colorado's Clean Air Campaign is on the move! ~~°~ MAR 1 1 19~~ Coloradans can take pride in their efforts to clean the state's air. While a great deal of work remains, much has been done. As far back as the 1880's, Denver was battling its Brown Cloud by maintaining eighteen sprinkler tanks to keep the dust down, and by the mid 1920's coal and woodburning restrictions were enforced. Here are just some of the efforts underway as we continue to battle our two worst pollution problems -- the Brown Cloud and carbon monoxide. * In July, the state launched a more aggressive vehicle inspection and maintenance program to remove more high-polluting cars from our roads. ~ Colorado's Air Quality Control Commission implemented the nation's first mandated oxygenated fuels program to reduce winter carbon monoxide levels. ~ A number of areas on the Front Range have passed or are considering woodburning bans on high pollution days. Also, the state legislature may consider woodburning bans due to Colorado's severe particulate pollution (the Brown Clouds in a number of Colorado communities). } Midway through the Better Air Campaign, carbon monoxide had been reduced 10~ because motorists had driven 3 million fewer miles a day, indicating not only widespread industry and government support, but citizen participation. * A $1.5 million comprehensive study of the sources and .components of Denver's Brown Cloud is underway. The study is being shepherded by the Denver Chamber of Commerce, and is funded by more than twenty sponsors including Public Service Company, Cyprus Coal, the Gas Research Institute, Coors, and the City and County of Denver. ~ The state legislature and a number of local city and county governments will consider tougher clean air measures in 1988. ~ Private businesses are taking initiatives to reduce air pollution. ~ Public Service Company voluntarily converted from coal to natural gas for ~0+ days this winter, burning $3.5 million worth of natural gas, as part of the study of the sources and components of the Brown Cloud. Also, a number of private businesses contributed $1.2 million in cash and $300,000 in-kind to conduct the study. ., * Colorado Springs business. leaders helped launch a campaign to help improve air quality in that region. * King Soopers and Coors are working-with the Colorado Department of Health on a study of diesel emissions and what can be done to reduce them. * Denver's Total Fuels, Inc. provided the labor and equipment and Colorado Interstate Gas and Public Service Company provided the natural gas and money for equipment installation to totally convert three Denver City vehicles to compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel. Total Fuels also is involved with CNG demonstration projects with Royal Crest Dairy and Boulder's Special Transit Systems. * Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc., a southwest Colorado electricity generating plant, is the first to use state-of-the-art circulating fluidized-bed technology commercially and on such a Large scale to reduce coal-burning emissions. ~ Charfuel Process Technology -- potential breakthrough technology that can eliminate coal-burning emissions -- has received $8 million in Wyoming state funds .for a demonstration project, and is now seeking a Colorado test site. These are reasons why I say Colorado's clean air campaign is on the move. But more must be done. In my last letter, I sent two dozen options for improving Colorado's air, inviting advice and further suggestions. From those options, your advice, and with the aid of further research, I have developed a clean air legislative agenda I hope you will support. A number of these proposals, although controversial, can be enacted into law this session. These proposals include: ~ Urging Colorado to adopt as its goal meeting carbon monoxide air quality standards before 1993 by reducing carbon monoxide 50$ ~ Supporting state and federal efforts to reduce Colorado's Brown Clouds ~ Seeking prompt Senate action on clean air legislation * Removing disincentives for use of low-sulfur coal * Helping Colorado achieve year-round daylight savings time, which can reduce carbon monoxide by ~1~ to 6~ ~ Offering financial incentives to car makers building cleaner-burning cars * Establishing tax credits to encourage greater mass transit use :. * Facilitating federal employee use of alternate work schedules in high pollution areas Please carefully read the enclosed material discussing these and additional proposals. Together, we can make a difference in the quality of Colorado's air. Best regards. William L. Armstrong February 24, 1988 Armstrong Clean Air A1~enda After extensive study, seeking the advice of thousands of Coloradans, and convening the state's first Clean Air Summit, Senator Bill Armstrong today announced his agenda for cleaning Colorado°s air. Armstrong's Clean Air Agenda includes: ~ Urging Colorado to adopt as its goal meeting carbon monoxide air quality standards before 1993, the 100th anniversary of the writing of "America the Beautiful". Carbon monoxide reductions of 50~ are necessary and possible. ~ Supporting programs to reduce particulate pollution -- particles in the air -- which make up the Brown Clouds throughout Colorado; for example, supporting woodburning bans on high pollution days, increased streetsweeping, and inspection and maintenance for diesel vehicles. * Urging Senate leaders to schedule early debate on fedeY°aI clean air legislation. ~ Further improving clean air programs by: ~ Assisting Colorado's exemption from the Uniform Time Act of-1966 t~ allow year-round daylight savings time, a move which alone could reduce carbon monoxide pollution by ~N to 6~. ~ em or the use of low-sulfur coal, which initially contains fewer acid rain components and is more economical to clean. ~ Offering financial incentives to ear makers to build ears using cleaner-burning fuels. ~ Requiring car makers to disclose on window stickers whether the car will efficiently burn cleaner fuels like MTBE, ethanol or methanol. ~ Establishing tax credits to encourage greater mass transit use. ~ Establishing as a national priority that ~~ billion in federal mass transit funds be spent in high pollution areas. ~ Allowing federal employee alternate work schedules if such schedules would be an effective part of a comprehensive state and local clean air campaign. ~ Recognizing the creativity of those individuals or groups making important contributions in the battle against air pollution, whether the achievements are major technological breakthroughs or conscientious individual everyday efforts. Each of these proposals is detailed in the following pages. Setting ambitious, achievable Colorado clean air goals ~ Carbon monoxide With a conscientious team effort, Coloradans can meet carbon monoxide air quality standards by December 31, 1992, dust in time for the 100th anniversary of the writing of TMAmerica the Beautiful". This song was written atop Pike's Peak by Katherine Lee Bates, inspired by Colorado's pristine air and glorious vistas. By reducing Colorado's carbon monoxide (CO) pollution 50~, Colorado can attain air quality standards for CO. We can meet this goal by making sure Colorado implements all currently planned programs. Programs now implemented include improved vehicle inspection and maintenance, woodburning bans on high pollution days, mandatory oxygenated fuel use in winter, and the Better Air Campaign. Coloradans are challenged to quickly implement remaining programs. Programs yet to be implemented are year-round daylight savings time and improved mass transit, including the initial mass transit corridor from the Denver Tech Center to downtown Denver, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and remaining mass transit corridors established by state legislation last year. The 50~ figure was reached as a compromise due to the number and extent of CO violations in the last two years. In 1987, Denver violated the CO standard 19 times. The federal CO standard is 9 parts per million (ppm). Denver's second highest value or violation was 15 or 16 ppm. (The second highest violation is chosen because the FPA gives each nonattainment area one "free" violation.) With this value of 15 or 16 ppm, a ~40~ro reduction in CO is necessary for attainment of CO air quality standards before 1993• In 1985, Denver had 36 violations with the second highest value being 21~ or 25 ppm. Using this value, a 60~ reduction in CO is necessary for attainment. However, Denver's violations are generally lower than 25 ppm. Consequently, a 50~ reduction is a realistic goal that could mean attainment of the CO air quality standard before 1993• f Particulates (the Brown Clouds in a number of Colorado's communities) Particulates are particles in the air. While carbon monoxide is invisible, particulates are Colorado's visible pollution -- the worst example being Denver's Brown Cloud. Colorado potentially has 19 communities violating the particulate standard -- a greater number of communities than any other state in the nation. These communities are located throughout the state and are of varying sizes. Particulates are a health and economic hazard to Colorado, as is carbon monoxide. However, unlike carbon monoxide, Colorado's particulate problem has not been analyzed in detail. The Colorado Department of Health is now working to develop a plan to reduce particulates in our air. Meantime, recognizing Colorado does have severe particulate pollution, Coloradans should implement programs attacking particulate pollution now. For example, expanded streetsWeeping efforts: as much as 25~ of the particulate pollution in Denver may be from "re-entrained dust" from road sanding, deteriorating pavement and tires, and dirt from roads and construction kicked into the air by vehicles. One strategy for reducing this pollution is to more regularly clean city streets, particularly on roads sanded after snowstorms. Pueblo has an aggressive street sweeping campaign that has helped reduce Pueblo's air pollution problems. Other cities should follow Pueblo's lead. Also, the Colorado General Assembly can strengthen state and local efforts to clean the air. State legislation has been suggested giving the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission power to require all metro Denver cities to ban woodburning during pollution alerts, and require government vehicles to use cleaner burning propane or natural gas; if areas do not comply, the state could withhold their share of gasoline tax revenues. State legislation has been introduced to extend the vehicle inspection and maintenance program to light and medium diesel vehicles. IIrging prompt Senate action on clean air legislation Now pending in the United States Senate is major legislation amending the federal Clean Air Aet. Senator Armstrong joins a number of other Senators asking Senate Republican and Democrat Leaders to schedule early Senate action on clean air legislation.. Armstrong favors provisions in the clean air bill such as tougher ear emissions standards, alternative fuel use, additional high altitude emissions testing, air quality atttainment deadline extensions, and better vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. But current legislation is not perfect. Congressional debate no doubt will address concerns about the bill's costs and environmental effectiveness. For example, the bill requires an annual national 12 million ton reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions at a yearly cost of more than $9 billion, rejecting a proposal to achieve a 10 million ton annual national reduction costing less than $2 billion. Further improving clean air programs Senator Armstrong is backing other clean air programs which may be added to clean air legislation. Among those programs: ~ Year-round daylight savings tine Implementing year-round daylight savings time in Colorado could reduce carbon monoxide levels as much as 4~ to 6~. During winter, evening rush hour occurs after sunset. The heavier, colder night air holds emissions nearer ground level, and that's typically when Denver exceeds carbon monoxide standards. If rush hour occurred an hour earlier, the sun's radiation would continue to help disperse pollutants, hence the reasoning for year-round daylight savings time. Year-round daylight savings time may be achieved in two ways: a state legislative request to the U.S. Department of Transportation to put Colorado in the Central Standard Time Zone, or a Congressional exemption of Colorado from the Uniform Time Act of 1966. An exemption currently is limited to three years. * Incentives to car makers to build cars burning alternative fuels Under current law, ear makers must build ears to meet fuel efficiency standards. Cars must meet established miles-per-gallon ratings. Substantial fines are imposed if they don't: if a fleet does not meet required MPG ratings, the car maker is fined $5 per ear. For example, if the law requires car makers to achieve an average 27.5 MPG for all cars they make, but a car maker achieves only 26.5 MPG, that manufacturer must pay a $5 fine for each car produced...a substantial penalty when multiplied by the millions of cars produced. Armstrong is cosponsoring S. 1518 which encourages the production of vehicles using alternative fuels by calculating their fuel efficiency in a more favorable way. If a car burns alternative fuels interchangeably (ethanol, methanol, or methane (which is natural gas, liquified or compressed)}, the fuel efficiency would be calculated on a lower amount of gasoline, and increase the MPG rating. This would help ear makers meet fuel efficiency standards, avoid substantial penalties for not meeting those standards, and encourage ear makers to build clean fuel cars. ~ Clean fuel disclosure requirement Under current law, car makers must disclose on window stickers each new car's estimated MPG capability. Armstrong will cosponsor an amendment to disclose on window stickers whether the car efficiently burns cleaner fuels, such as oxygenated fuels. ~ Provide tag credit for mass transit use Current law permits employers to offer employees only $15 a month in tax-free fringe benefits to reimburse mass transit commuting costs. Armstrong cosponsored legislation to increase that fringe benefit to $60 a month. His decision to cosponsor was in part inspired by the example of Denver's Children's Museum, which offers financial incentives to its employees who use mass transit to commute. As part of the Better Air Campaign, the Children's Museum offers its employees salary increases if they reduce their driving time by 20~. ~ Award federal mass transit grants to h eh pollution areas The federal government spends nearly $4 billion annually funding state and local mass transit projects, yet there is no requirement that funds be first awarded to high pollution cities. Armstrong will offer an amendment to clean air legislation making poor air quality a priority criterion for awarding mass transit funds. This may help Denver get federal backing for two major transit projects...the Southwest corridor mass transit projects and the Downtown Denver/Denver Teeh Center light rail project. ~ IIse of low sulfur coal_ Federal requirements should not neutralize the advantages of burning low sulfur coal. Using cleaner-burning coal should be encouraged, rather than its advantages being negated by across-the-board emission control equipment requirements, such as scrubbers. We should be reducing coal-burning emissions, but doing so in ways that do not create the tons of waste resulting from the use of scrubbers. For example, while Colorado-Ute Electric is pioneering emission control technology on one of its plants, three of its other plants use scrubbers. Each of these three scrubbers produces 20 to 30 tons per day of waste due to the scrubber process. ~ Federal employee alternate work schedules in high pollution areas Under current law, employees of the federal government and federal contractors can work flexible hours. But current law does not facilitate federal agencies or contractors offering flexible work schedules if such schedules can reduce air pollution. In 1979, federal agencies in Denver experimented with flexible work hours to determine their effect on air pollution. The experiment worked. Reports concluded that, "considering both the air quality and energy objectives, the Denver experiment must be considered a full and significant success" in helping reduce emissions during rush hours. Colorado has 50,000 federal employees, most of whom are in the Denver metro area. Armstrong will back legislation allowing federal agencies and contractors to approve alternate work schedules for employees in high pollution areas if the alternate schedules are part of a comprehensive clean air campaign. This could help Denver due to its concentration of federal regional agencies, military bases and federal contractors. For example, the Bureau of Land Management in Denver is seeking approval for a plan offering its employees longer workdays in exchange for a day off every two weeks. This is identical to the work schedule of the Colorado Department of Health. This schedule also may match an employee's Better Air Campaign no-drive day every one or two weeks. ~ Reco~nizin~ contributions_in the battle aKainst air pollution Armstrong would like to learn of the ways in which individuals, groups, businesses, communities and governments are helping to reduce Colorado's air pollution. Armstrong believes these successes should be recognized and encouraged. The achievements may range from revolutionary new technology to more efficient use of existing knowledge to individual awareness of our pollution problems dictating a more careful, thoughtful lifestyle. For example, the Eaton school-district converted its bus fleet to compressed natural gas fuel six years ago; the Denver Children's Museum offers employees financial incentives to reduce their driving time; DU Professor Donald Stedman created a radar beam to detect vehicle emissions; and Colorado-Ute Electric is pioneering commercially large-scale coal-burning emissions reduction technology. UPPER EAGLE VALLEY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS 846 FOREST ROAD • VAI L, COLORADO 81657 (303) 476-7480 March 9, 1938 Airs . U1 f Edborg P.O. Box 665 Vail, CO 81657 Re: Water Main Break on Forest Road Dear Mrs. Edborg: 'D MAR 1 1 1988 Ron Phillips, manager of the Town of Vail, passed me a copy of your letter expressing concern about the water main break on Forest Road on February 26th. Since domestic water supply is the responsibility of the Vail Valley Consolidated TAlater District, not the-town, I am taking this opportunity to respond. The water main break was caused by ground settlement. Slight ground movement, especially in steep terrain is not uncommon in our mountainous area and causes stress on underground pipes. In this case the water main was forced against a rock which caused the pipe to fail. The resulting water leakage was detected about noon and our crews worked until 3:30 a.m. Saturday morning to restore service. Since the ground was frozen, it took longer to dig down to uncover the problem. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate the opportunity to explain the circumstances behind the water outage. We continue to make improvements toward the reliability of the water and sewer systems. For example, this year we will be inspecting and repairing the water and secaer lines in conjunction with the Forest Road paving project. Please contact me if you should have further questions or constructive suggestions. Sirs ere y, AIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT ~~, ~~ ~`~~C~~ ~.. David E. P4ott, General 'tanager DF,M/ng PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS - ARROWHEAD METRO WATER • AVON METRO WATER ~ BEAVER CREEK METRO WATER • BERRY CREEK METRO WATER CLEAN EAGLE-NAIL METRO WATER ~ EDWARDS METRO WATER ~ LAKE CREEK MEADOWS WATER • UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SANITATION NAIL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED WATER ~ NAIL WATER AND SANITATION O REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL, INC. 816/333-7650 AN APPRAISAL OF VACANT TRACT SEQ I-70 AND BIG HORN ROAD VAIL, COLORADO DECEMBER 12, 1984 MR. ELAINE MORGAN REAL ESTATE AGENT TEXACO, INC. 4601 DTC BOULEVARD DENVER, COLORADO 80201 6306 WALNUT STREET • KANSAS CITY, MO. 64113 r ~. O REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL, INC. 816/333-7650 December 12, 1984 Mr. Blaine C. Morgan Real Estate Agent Texaco, Inc. 4601 DTC Boulevard s Denver, Colorado 80201 Re: Appraisal of a vacamt tract located in the southeast quadrant of I-70 and Big Horn Road l (Old Highway 6), Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Morgan: L In accordance with your written request, we have inspected and appraised the above property. Legal description is given in the body of the report. Property rights appraised are assumed to be in fee simple title without limitations. The purpose of this appraisal is to determine the highest and best use of the subject property, and to estimate the Fair Market Value of the property. Definitions of highest and best use and Fair Market Value are given in the body of the appraisal report. The function of this appraisal is to assist the owner in establishing a sales price for the property if the property were, indeed, to be sold. L L L 6306 WALNUT STREET • KANSAS CITY, MO. 64113 Mr. Blaine C. Morgan December 12, 1984 The property was originally inspected and necessary field work was done during the week of December 10, 1984. The effective date of the appraisal was the date of last full inspection which was December 12, 1984. It is the appraiser's opinion that th e estimated Fair Market Value of the property, as of December 12, 1984, is as follows: ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS $160,000 This appraisal is made subject to the Limiting Conditions and Certificate which are attached and are a part of this appraisal report. This letter is part of the complete appraisal report and must not be used apart from that report. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted, f /~ ~ ~ ~ l 3 avid E. Hopkins, ASA 1 DEH/s i L L f r o REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL, INC. 816/333-7650 LIMITING CONDITIONS No responsibility is assumed for matters of legal nature concerning the appraised property or for questions of title or survey. Unless otherwise designated, the property appraised is assumed to be free and clear of all debts, liens, and encumbrances, and to have all taxes and special assessments paid in full. This appraisal must be considered and used only as a-unit; it becomes invalid if any part is separated from the whole. The opinion of value expressed herein is the result of, and is subject to, the data and conditions described in detail in this report. The appraiser herein, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give testimony or attendance in any court or at any governmental hearing with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made therefore. ~ I hereby certify that: CERTIFICATE ~' 1. I have no past, present or contemplated future, undisclosed interest in the property appraised herein. L L L L 2. Neither the employment to make this appraisal nor the compensation is contingent on the value reported, or upon anything other than delivery of this report which is made in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the professional groups to which I hold membership. 3. No matters affecting the value of the subject property have been knowingly withheld or omitted. 4. Either myself or my associates have personally inspected the subject property and comparables used herein. No one other than the under- signed prepared the analysis, conclusions and opinions concerning ,real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. ( ~ ~ David E. Hopki s, ASA ~,g 6306 WALNUT STREET • KANSAS CITY, MO. 64113 SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT COPICLUSIONS Owner of Property: Texaco, Inc. (Getty Refining & Marketing Company) Location of Property: A vacant tract located at the southeast quadrant of I-70 and Big Horn Road (Old Highway 6) known as the East Vail Exit, Vail, Colorado. Legal Description: A parcel of land being part of Sections 2, 11 and 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P. M., Eagle County, Colorado. For the complete and lengthy legal description, see the Addenda of this appraisal report. Date of the Appraisal:. December 12, 1984 General Area: The subject property is located in a 100$ residential area with the exception of the first floor retail space in the Pitkin Creek Condominiums immediately east of the subject property. There has been no new development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property due to the lack of land zoned for commercial use, and due to the lack of demand for ` condominium units. This trend is expected to continue. Streets and Highways: Big Horn Road or Old Highway 6 is a wide, two lane, primary arterial which carries a fair traffic flow. Interstate 70 is a typical four lane interstate highway and carries a relatively heavy traffic flow. Access: Excellent Visibility: Good Utilities; All available Zoning: LDMF - Low Density Multi-Family. For further detail, see the copy of the zoning ordinance in the Addenda of this appraisal report. Assessed Valuation: $25,260 l Taxes: $1,815.81 i t i i Site Description: An irregular but basically triangular shaped tract with 240 ft of frontage on Big Horn Road, and containing a total of approximately 1.02 acres. For further details, see the plot plan in the Addenda of this appraisal report. Highest and Best Use: The subject property is zoned for an eight unit multi-family ressidential complex and it is very unlikely that the site can be rezoned for commercial use. For this reason, multi-family residential development is the highest and best use of the site. Value Indicated by the Cost Approach: Not applicable Value Indicated by the Income Approach: Not applicable Value Indicated by the Comparison Approach: Eight units at $20,000 per unit $160,000 L L L I Final Indication of Value: $160,000 Anticipated Future Appreciation: 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION Letter of Transmittal and Estimate of Value Limiting Conditions and Certificate Summary of Important Conclusions ANALYSIS, DESCRIPTION AND CONCLUSIONS Owner of Property Location of Property Legal Description Date of the Appraisal Purpose of .the Appraisal Function of the Appraisal Definition of Fair Market Value 1 Definition of Highest and Best Use City Data 2 Neighborhood Data Street and Highway Data Access Visibility Utilities 3 Zoning Assessed Valuation and Taxes Site Description 4 Highest and Best Use The Appraisal Process The Comparison Approach 5 Comparables No. 1 - No. 5 6 - 10 Explanation of Adjustments 11 - 12 Correlation and Final Indication of Value 13 Anticipated Future Appreciation 14 r ADDENDA Photographs of the Subject Plot Plan Legal Description Zoning Ordinance Area Maps The Appraiser's Qualifications I L L t r r r APPRAISAL REPORT Owner of Property Texaco, Inc. (Getty Refining & Marketing Company) Location of Property A vacant tract located at the southeast quadrant of I-70 and Big Horn Road (Old Highway 6), known as the East Vail Exit, Vail, Colorado. Legal Description A parcel of land being part of Sections. 2, 11, and 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado. For the complete and lengthy metes and bounds legal description, see the Addenda of this appraisal report. Date of the Ap raisal (_ The subject property was inspected and necessary field work was done during the week of December 10, 1984. Effective date of the appraisal was the date of the last full inspection, which was December 12, 1984. Purpose of the Appraisal The purpose of this appraisal is to determine the highest and best use of the subject property, and to estimate the Fair Market Value of the subject property. Definitions of highest and best use and Fair Market Value are given later in this appraisal report. Function of the A raisal The function of the appraisal is to assist the owner in establishing a sales price. for the property if the property were, indeed, to be sold. Definition of Fair Market Value Fair Market Value is defined as the highest price, estimated in terms of money, which the property will bring if exposed for sale in the open market by a seller who is willing to sell, but not 1 r r r L obliged to sell, allowing a reasonable amount of time to find a buyer who is willing to buy, but not obliged to buy, with both parties having full knowledge of all the uses to which the property is capable of being used. Definition of Highest and Best Use Highest and best use can be defined as that use which, at the time of the appraisal, is most likely to produce the highest present worth and/or the highest income to the property and/or improvements over a stipulated period of time. Said highest and best use considers: (a) its possible use or those uses which are physically possible for the property in question, (b) its permissible (legal) use or those uses which are permitted by zoning and deed restrictions of the property in question, (c) its feasible use or possible and permissible uses which will permit the highest net return to the owner of the property under current and projected market conditions, (d) that use among the alternative possible, permissible, and feasible uses that will produce the highest net return or the highest present worth. City Data The subject property is located at the East Vail Exit, in the far eastern portion of the community of Vail, Colorado. Vail is located in the northwest-central portion of the state, approximately 98 miles west of Denver. Vail is well known as a ski resort community, .with the Vail ski area being the largest source of employment and revenue for the community. L Vail has been a growth community in a growth area. Vail had a 1970 census population of 484; a 1980 census population of 3,550; and a current estimated population of over 5,000. The above population figures are misleading, however, since the town swells to a much larger population during the ski season, and also enjoys a good tourist trade during the summer. Vail has total accomodations for 25,000 tourists. The average number of people L in the community during the summer months is 12,000 and during the winter ski season is 22,000. The community has all necessary amenities to fairly well assure continued growth which has been the history of Vail. In addition to the expanding permanent population of Vail, the tourist trade has also been increasing. Commercial land values have been increasing; however, land for residential and condominium use has lost value in recent years. L r Neighborhood Data As previously indicated, the subject property is located in the southeast quadrant of I-70 and Big Horn Road (Old Highway 6), at the East Vail Exit. The subject property is located in a 100 residential area with the exception of the first floor retail space in the Pitkin Creek Condominiums immediately east of the subject property. There are several single family and multi-family residential developments, especially southeast and southwest of the subject, and a few developments on the north side of the interstate. Due to the restrictive zoning ordinances in the town of Vail, it is doubtful any other commercial development will ever take place in the immediate vicinity of the subject. Street and Highway Data Big Horn Road, or Old Highway 6, past the subject property, is a wide two lane, asphaltic concrete roadway with open ditch drainage. This roadway provides the only access to East Vail, and carries a fair traffic flow. Interstate 70, just north of the subject propert is a t ical Y YP four lane, interstate highway with hard surfaced shoulders, grass median, and controlled access. Traffic flow is heavy and speed is fast. Access ____ As previously indicated, the subject property is a vacant tract and thus, currently there are no curb cuts. The subject property has excellent frontage along Big Horn Road or Old Highway 6 and , thus, access should be excellent. The subject property is located at the interstate interchange, and interstate access will also be excellent. Visibility The subject property enjoys good visibility for both directions of traffic on Big Horn Road. The site also has good interstate visibility, especially if it were improved. Utilities All public utilities are available. All city services are available. 3 r r i Zoning The subject property is zoned by the City of Vail, Colorado, LDMF, Low Density Multi-Family. A copy of the zoning ordinance which refers directly to the subject property is included in the Addenda of this appraisal report. This ordinance spells out there shall be "a maximum of eight units, two of which shall be reserved for sale or lease by a resident/employee of the Upper Eagle Valley and 10,250 sq ft of gross residential floor area". The appraiser was informed that there have been several attempts made to rezone the subject property to commercial use and all of these attempts have failed. It is highly unlikely that the zoning on the subject could ever be changed. Assessed Valuation and Taxes Eagle County has the subject property assessed at $25,260. The total 1983 real estate taxes were $1,815.81. The taxes are paid. Site Description According to the site plan furnished the appraiser, the subject property is an irregular but basically triangular shaped tract which can be described as follows: Beginning at the southeasterly corner of the subject property; thence northwesterly along the northeasterly right of way line of Big Horn Road or Old Highway 6 240 ft; thence continuing north/northwest along said right of way line 83.32 ft; thence east along the southerly right of way line of I-70 91.50 ft; thence east/southeast and continuing along said right of way line 324.61 ft; thence southwest 227.87 ft to the point of beginrrs~g, and containing a total of approximately 1.02 acres . - '--~-'--- For further detail on the dimensions and configuration of the subject property, see the plot plan in the Addenda of this appraisal report. The subject property is from four to six feet below grade of Big Horn Road, and the site slopes downward from northwest to southeast. There is a drainage ditch along the easterly side of the property, and a depression near the southeast corner. Fill and extensive site preparation would be necessary prior to construction on the site. L L ' i r Highest and Best Use As indicated above, the subject property is zoned for eight multi-family residential units, and it would be nearly impossible to rezone the site for a commercial use. For the above reasons, the highest and best use of the subject property is for an eight unit condominium. The Appraisal Process The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the National Association of Real Estate Boards generally recommend that the market value of real property be estimated by the use of the three recognized approaches to market value. These approaches are the replacement cost new less depreciation approach, commonly referred to as the Cost Approach, the Income Approach, and the Comparison or Market Data Approach. The value indicated by each approach is carefully studied and, in the judgment of the appraiser, the approach that most adequately and accurately solves a particular appraisal problem in connection with a particular property under appraisement is selected as the best indication of market value. Since the subject property is a vacant tract, neither the income approach nor the cost approach to value were applicable. The appraiser will utilize the comparison or market data approach to estimate the Fair Market Value of the subject property. The Comparison Approach t L The comparison or market data approach requires that the appraiser verify sales of properties similar to the subject. Adjustments are made for dissimilarities and these sales are then utilized to estimate the Fair Market Value of the subject property. The following sales were used to estimate the Fair Market Value of the subject property. Following the comparable sales there will be an explanation of adjustments. These sales, and the subject itself, are marked on the map in the Addenda of this report. 5 r COMPARABLE N0. 1 i i Location: An inside tract located on the west side of Basingdale Boulevard, south of I-70 in West Vail, Colorado Grantor: Mary E. Walker, Public Trustee Grantee: Minturn Development, Inc. Date: October 5, 1983 Recorded: Book 369, Page 882 Legal: Lot 13, Block 10, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision Size: An irregular and somewhat "L" shaped tract with 360.27 ft of frontage on Basingdale Boulevard, by a maximum depth of 200 ft, and containing a total of 1.85 acres. This property is zoned for four multi-family residential units containing a gross floor area of 7,560 sq ft. Price: $71,286.09 or $17,821 per unit Remarks: This was a foreclosure sale on the courthouse steps. This property previously sold from James E. Pansing to Jurgen Schuler and Leonard Vogelaar on October 3, 1980 for $77,360 or $19,340 per unit. 6 i r l i L i COMPARABLE N0. 2 Location: An inside tract on the southeasterly side of Lions Ridge Loop, just northeast of Buffer Creek Road, on the north side of I-70, in the Sandstone area of Vail, Colorado Owner: Lions Ridge Associates, Ltd. Date: Current asking Legal: Lot 1, Block 1, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 3 Size: A slightly irregular but basically rectangular shaped tract with 450.29 ft of frontage on Lions Ridge Loop, by a maximum depth of 337 ft, and containing a total of 16.1,724 sq ft. This property is zoned for 30 multi-family residential units with a total gross floor area of 41,910 sq ft. Asking Price: $850,000 or $28,333 per unit Remarks: This property previously sold from Lions Ridge Ventures to Lions Ridge Associates, Ltd. on August 20, 1980 (Book 309, Page 556). The sales price was $1,090,000 or $36,333 per unit. As this comparable clearly shows, residential land values have been decreasing. Z °~ ~/ , / 7 r r i i ~'s 1 COMPARABLE NO. 3 Location: Just west of the northwest corner of Highway 6 and Aspen Lane, Vail, Colorado Owner: Ron Lustig and George Feinman Date: Current offering Legal: Lot 2, Block 3, Big Horn Third Addition Size: An irregular but basically rectangular shaped tract with 190 ft of frontage on Aspen Lane, by a maximum depth of 214.85 ft, and containing a total of approximately 40,817 sq ft. This property is zoned for a five unit condomin- ium containing a total gross floor area of 9,179 sq ft. Asking Price: $155,000 or $31,000 per unit Remarks: This property previously sold from William T. Luke, et ux, to Ron Lustig and George Feinman on January 25, 1981 (Book 317, .Page 808). Sales price was $175,000 or $35,000 per unit. As this sale indicates, residential land values have been decreasing in Vail, Colorado. 8 I f I I I I f I L f I. COMPARABLE N0. 4 Location: Just west of the southwest corner of Eagle Road and Larkspur Lane, on the south side of I-70 in an area known as Eagle Vail. Owner: Andrew J. Beck Date: Current asking Legal: Lot 3, Block 4, Filing 1, Eagle-Vail Subdivision Size: An nearly square shaped tract with 105 ft of frontage on Eagle Road, by 100.02 ft of frontage on Larkspur Lane, and containing a total of 10,454 sq ft. This property is zoned for a four unit condomin- ium, with a total gross floor area of 5,227 sq ft. Asking Price: $90,000 or $22,500 per unit. 9 r COMPARABLE N0. 5 Location: The southeast corner of Lions Rid a Loo g p and _ Buffer Creek Road, on the north side of I-70 in the Sandstone area, Vail, Colorado Grantor: Lions Ridge Associates, Ltd. Grantee: Gorman-Whitney-SMA, Vail I General Partnership Date; September 30, 1981 ~~ Recorded: Book 330, Page 34 Legal: Lot 27, Block 2, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 3 Size: A very irregular shaped tract fronting on the south side of Lions Ridge Loop and the east side of Buffer Creek Road, and containing a total of 2.10 acres. ~` This property is zoned for a 15 unit condominium project. Price: $468,200 or $31,213 per unit ; Remarks: Since. the time of this sale, there has been a sign- ificant decrease in residential land val ues. L L L 10 r Explanation of Adjustments As throughly discussed in the body of this appraisal report, the subject property is subject to a very restrictive zoning ordinance. The subject property can only be utilized for a ~h~4x~ wt~rYt~ multi-family residential complex with a ~e~te-~ of eight units. The ordinance also stipulates that the complex will only contain 10,250 sq ft of gross residential floor area, or 1,281 sq ft each, • which is smaller than the average. Furthermore, the value of the site is reduced by a stipulation in the ordinance which states that two of the eight units must be sold or leased to a resident/employee of the Upper Eagle Valley. As previously discussed in this report, residential land values have been decreasing over the past two or three years in Vail, Colorado. This is due to the over-supply of condominium units on the market. According to the local real estate brokers, there are over 1,500 units currently available on the market, and there have been few sales over the .last year. The asking prices on these units are often less than the construction costs. This over-supply is expected to last for another two or three years, and thus there will be very little demand for new condominium units and, consequently, very little demand for vacant land zoned for condominiums. All the above factors have a negative affect on the subject property and limits its value. Since the most important factor on vacant sites zoned for condominiums is the number of units allowed, the appraiser will utilize a sales price per unit basis • of comparison. Comparable No. 1 This is the sale of a 1.85 acre tract zoned for four condominium units. This property sold on the courthouse steps on October 5, 1983, for $71,286.09 or $17,821 per unit. In adjusting this sale to the subject property, little if any L adjustment is required for time. Location is inferior, requiring an upward adjustment for location. Zoning is superior, requiring a minor downward adjustment for this factor. No further adjustments are required. Net adjustment is upward approximately 100 or $1,782. After adjustment for dissimilarities, this sale indicates a value for the subject property of $19,603. L 11 Comparable No. 2 This is a current asking on a 3.7 acre tract zoned for 30 multi-family units. The asking price is $850,000 or $28,333 per unit. In adjusting this comparable to the subject property, a significant downward adjustment is required since this is an asking and not a sale. The appraiser was informed by the real estate broker that there has been no interest shown in this property at the asking price. The property previously sold on August 20, 1980 for $1,090,000 or $36,333 per unit. The comparable property is larger than the subject property, requiring a minor upward adjustment for size. Location is similar. Zoning is superior requiring a downward adjustment for zoning. No further adjustments are required. Net adjustment is downward approximately 30g or $8,500 per unit. After adjustments are made for dissimilarities, this comparable indicates a value for the subject property of $19,833 per unit. Comparable No. 3 This is the current asking on a .94 acre tract zoned for five units. The asking price is $155,000 or $31,000 per unit. This property previously sold on January 25, 1981, for $175,000 or $35,000 per unit In adjusting this comparable to the subject property, a significant downward adjustment is required since this is an asking and not a sale. Size is similar. A downward. adjustment is required for location. A minor downward adjustment is also made _ for zoning. Net adjustment is downward approximately 30$ or $9,300 per unit. After adjustments are made for dissimilarities, this comparable indicates a value for the subject property $21,700 per unit. Comparable No. 4 This is the current asking on a 10,454 sq ft tract zoned for four condominium units. The asking price is $90,000 or $22,500 per unit. In adjusting this comparable to the subject property, a downward adjustment is required since this is an asking and not a sale. The comparable property is smaller than the subject property, requiring a minor downward adjustment for size. Location is superior, requiring a minor upward adjustment for this factor. 12 i~_ i i i i L No further adjustments are required. Net adjustment is downward approximately 15$ or $3,375 per unit. After adjustments are made for dissimilarities, this comparable indicates a value for the subject property of $19,125 per unit. Comparable No. 5 This is the sale of a 2.10 acre tract zoned for 15 condominium units. This property sold on September 30, 1981, for $468,200 or $31,213 per unit. In adjusting this sale to the subject property, a significant downward adjustment is required for time since residential land values have decreased sharply since 1981. Location is slightly superior, requiring a minor downward adjustment for this factor. Zoning is also slightly superior, requiring a minor downward adjustment for zoning. No further adjustments are required. Net adjustment is downward approximately 35~ or $10;925 per unit. After adjustments are made for dissimilarities, this sale indicates a value for the subject property of $20,288. Correlation and Final Indication of Value As previously indicated, neither the income approach nor the cost approach to value was applicable to this particular appraisal problem. The appraiser did utilize the comparison or market data approach to estimate the Fair Market Value of the subject property. The five comparables utilized were all located in Vail, and were all zoned for multi-family residential units. Sales dates ranged from September, 1981, to current. Sales price per unit ranged from $17,821 to $31,213. After adjustments were made for dissimilarities, these five comparables indicated a range of value for the subject property of from $19,125 per unit to $21,700 per unit. Most of the comparables utilized indicated a value for the subject property near the mid portion of this indicated range, or $20,000 per unit. Based on the foregoing, the estimated Fair Market Value of the subject property, as of December 12, 1984, is as follows: Eight units at $20,000 per unit $160,000 13 • r Anticipated Future Appreciation As thoroughly discussed throughout this appraisal report, there are over 1,500 condominium units available in the Vail market, and sales have been very slow. The asking prices, in many cases, are less than construction costs, and sales are still i slow. There is also apprehension among the real estate brokers and possible buyers that the new tax laws will have a negative # affect on the condominium market in this ski. resort town, and ij further lower the value of these properties. Obviously, with this over supply of condominium units on the market, multi-family residential land values have not been increasing and, in fact, there has been a significant decrease in land zoned for this use since 1980. While the prices appear to have bottomed out, the appraiser could foresee no anticipated future appreciation over the next five years. 14 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Photograph taken from the southerly side o€ Big Horn Road with the camera pointed north/ northeast showing the subject property virtually in its entirety. The chainlink fence in the left hand background is the northwesterly property line, and the trees in the righthand background are the east property line. L r r Photograph taken from Big Horn Road with the camera pointed basically west showing the subject's frontage along the northerly right of way line of Big Horn Road. - _- i L L Photograph taken from Big Horn Road with the camera pointed north/northeast showing the northwesterly property line along the right of way fence. i r r r l L Photograph taken from Big Horn Road with the camera pointed basically north showing the easterly portion of the subject property. L L L ~A~ ~ 1 t ~~ .. ~• ~ , ' , : ti `~ ~ \ .. ~ '~~~.. +.,~. ~ ~ . S ` .y1~ ` •f~~/ . 1 ~ r t -a.•.ia I ., ..~. ~` ~ ,~ 1 ~ . ,r ` ``., .•~ .ems \ ~' ~/ , .~~~ 1 ~. ) r~ , ~~r~ i ~ ~~. ~- - --.,.. ,.. ~~ t ' ~ 'i' ,l_. Getty Oil Sfte L -~ ~~ ' . '~%~ East Vai1,C0. ~~~ ~ .. ~~i b _~ _. ~~ + i'_ ~ - { ~~ ~~ L _ _... ~-~; . ~ ~~ .. :._. ~ ;:'.tom . f i EXHIBIT "A" A parcel of land being part of Sections 2, 11, and 12. Township 5 South, Range 80 41est of the 6th P.t4., Eagle County, Colorado more particularly described as follows: . Beginning at a point on a curve and on the East line of said ' Section 11. said point being South 00 degrees 24 minutes 28 seconds East, 412.80 feet from the Northeast corner of said Section 11; thence Northwesterly along the Southerly right of way line of Federal I~ighway I-70 and along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 2705.00 feet, and arc distance of 275.50 feet, the cgord of said arc bears ~lorth 54°32'28" W. 215.30 feet; thence N. 59 28'16" W. along said Southerly right of way line 276.00 feet to the True Point of Be inning; thence N. 59°28'16" W. alon4 said Southerly right of way line 15.00 feet to an angle point said Southerly right of way line; thence N. 71°44'43" W. along the said Southerly right of way line, 324.61 feet, more or lest, to a point on the North line of said Section 11; thence South 89 46'04" W along said Southerly right of way line, 91.50 feet to a point on the existing Northerly right of way line of old U.S. Highway No. 6 said line also being the Westerly line of the now-vacated Pitkin Creek Meadows subdivision; thence along said Northerly right of way line S. 35 29'17" E. 83.32 feet to an angle point in said line; thence S. 46°19'25" E. along said Northerly right of way line 240.00 feet; thence departing from said Northerly right of way line, North 56°50'09" E. 227.87 feet to the True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON CONVEYANCE DEED TO GOVERN. •`'.N . ~ - OJ~:.IKANCE r" ~~ • Series of _~3t3U • AN ORDITANCE REZO\ING A PARCEL CO?~t~fONLY HE)•'EtikEil 'iU i-S THE • GETTY OIL SITE, A 1.02 ACRE UNPLATTED PIECE OF LAND 1N BIGHORN, FROM NE!IVY SEF1VlCE (}iS) TO LOiY DENSITY ?SiIL'1'I- • FAIfILY (LDidF) AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS RELATED Ti(ERETO.' H'IiEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.110 of the Vail ltunicipal Code, a rezoning has been re- quested by 1Soodbridge Group, Inc. td rezone the Getty Oil Site from Heavy Service (HS) to Low Density IJulti- • Family (LDLiF'); and, • •tiIiEREAS, the applicant has agreed to a maximum of eight units and 10,250 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Arca (GRFA); and, •. 111iEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission ' of the Town of Vail has considered.the same and recommend- ed approval of said rezoning to the Town Council; and, t„HEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is inn the public interest to rezone said property; • NO1S, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOIYN COUNCIL OF THE T01SN OF YA IL, THAT (1) The Council specifically iinds•that the . procedures•ior the amendment of the Official Zoning lisp and•rezoning of properties within the 'Town of Vail as prescribed in Section 18.G6.110 of the Vail ltunicipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Council hereby receives. the report and recommendation of the.Plannin~ and Environ- mental Cor.•imission rcco^unending the approval of the re- zonin;; of the subject property. • (2) Pursuant to Section 15.66.160 of the Vail 1!unicipal Code.. the Getty Oil Site 1s rezoned from ' Heavy Service (iiS) to Low Density Sfulti-Family •(LD:iF) • ~c•ith a maximum of eight units two of which shall be • reserved for sale or l.case by a resident/employee of the Upper Eagle Valley and 10,250 square feet of Gross • i t r i i _ t, I~ . 'lydinance l;o_ ;~ P:,[~e ?. kesident,ial t'loor Area (Vltt'A). ~(3) As providod in Section 18.08.030 of t},e Vzil A1~inicipal Code, the Zoning Ad~oinistrKtor, is here- by directed to promptly modify and amend the Official Zoning btap to indicate the rezoning Specified in para- graph (2) above. • (4) If any part, section, subsection, 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 that it would have passed t2tis • ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. ~ • (S) The Town Council hereby finds that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READIt:G, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISIiED ONCE IN FULL, this 19th day of February, 1980,. and a'public hearing on this ordinance shall~be held at the regular meeting of_the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 4th day of ifarch, 1980 at ?:30 P.11. in the •3Sunicipal Building o2 the Torn. • - -~ ~. r ~ - Q ~~ Layor (/ AITEST: • ~ ~~ ~ ' . ~. Tox--i'Cicrk ~ r . . • ~ ~r~.`.1fL .~ •~~ . t,~ • . Ordinlnce Tvo. 9 I~ni;e 3 It;'fRODUCED O~ 5ECO~D READING, READ, AND APPROVED ' AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY THIS 7th day of Itarch, I980. . l ~„ ~ ~ . . . itiayor . . .ATTEST: . ..ll ~. own C erk • ~ - . . ` • ~. •;.. - . ItESTRIC'fIOV kEL9TI\'i: TU Th., T110 E~tl'LOYI:E UPIITS O*J 1'ftE GEiTY OIL SITE • Units and are subject to the following restrictions on sale, resale,•lease ' or sublease: (1) The units shall be sold only to qualified purchasers. • (2) If the units are leased or sublet they shall be leased and sublet only to qualified purchasers• and said lease.or sublease shall not be for a term of less than ninety (90) days. • (3) A "qualified purchaser" shall be a resident of the Upper Eagle Valley which includes the Gore Valley, Avon, )tinturn, Red Cliff, Gilman and Eagle/Nail, and a full-~ time employee in the Upper Eagle Valley. "Full-time Employ- went" shall'be deemed to mean employment of more than 30 hours per week. lJembers oY the family of the employee shall be exempt from this requirement. • (4) These restrictions shall be in full force and effect for two years from the date of closing, at which time they shall terminate. .~ (5) These covenants and restrictions relating • to units :nd shall run with the land and be binding thereon and they shall run in favor of the Town of Vail which may enforce the provisions hereof. f r\/ \) I t t `• I - a .rows .. _ ' •~ //~ - ~ ~ ~F r ,~ - ~' -- ~ r "" { ~' ~~ - ~ ~i~ L - - - c~ - k°, ~ 9297 ~4 ` ;__~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ /!~ - - ~ - G _ - ~ `~- ,.~ ~ -_' - -- G o ~ ~~ - ~ - _~ ~ alai w ~~ \~,.~ ~.; `'~_ . Yana frsR- / - rr~awsw,c~ - ----- _ u \s`'T ~-,_ ~ ~i~ ~~„-~~'%NO~ G c l 1 ~~~ e-vf~ ~_ ~_ ~_t ~ ~~ s• i ^a~ ~ _ ~ `F ~w _~..~~. Vail i. ~ ~ ~s. ;f r ; _ -v~(L -- - ,M,.--~~~ ~\\~\ ~Y, ~ ~;~ ' ~ •t, 8 ~_ '~~ -1 - r ~~ \ 1 \ ~ =a ;' ~••~ '-tom. "f` '~~ r r ~• _ _- ~ ` I \ ~ ~ _ 1x 10. ~ _ __ a• ~ `'----~ ~~ \ ~ `\\ \ ~\-- "~~.~~-~ ---f .\:.~~ ` ~ ,- ~ ~\ .l ~ ~ •r.~ r--~---- r---- r---- t-~.~ r--~ r° ;--- r---• r-•- ~..-~. .I...I~ ®.~.a. ~I,..I, ~...~I 111, ~.~1; °.~°..~ ....~ °--.~ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GOLDEN PEAK M~ ~ a Soccer ~~ '4 Feld yo c Tennis m I~® 1'H~- v Mlq/Cr N•'tiq,~ VdIeY gall ( eek C ~ T ® ~ , ennis Gerakf R Fad ® ~r~H~r1 Park ®~rsf;~ ..axte~ ~V~ R~ Po Tennis ~?'+~~®ux~ u~ ?9B8 «TO fast ~ r~ fail ~ po~ ~~To perlKy ~ulh frglla9e qd 0~ ~© ~' \ 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 IB 19 20 VILLAGE ~_ ovwn o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ i °x o •1 Z ~ •~ , $hrp -. ~~ ~Q~ V ad Rd ~ ~ R°ck ledge Ro ~ LIONSHEAD a ~ ~~ ~~~,_~J• '~ m '~ x / roe~r..__ i r.. lnreslale ~ `~'- EAST VAIL ~; ~ - ', -- -- ~ --~-L'.' ~ "'x.' ~-T2 , _ _. _ ' ,.~' ~® EXIT 76 Rd °d„ Rd Est Meadowow p~ ® (~ ®©+ \ ~y~ 21 22 23 24 ZS 26 27 28 ~ s Fo,„ WEST VAIL _ ~ Ho 0 ~©e 4\ I-7o ~ 0 O N F «,re~, ~ 0 O~ A ©• •'c ~ Fores! Rd ®~ d G~ Tennrs ~/\ n ::;tl:~c: ~ , o d ~ ® ~o~ Tennis ~ ~(`~ m m Tol lnl~ !•" ~ SQt~t~9 Gur Volle E3alr ^ H A ~ • „p e Creek Y .r` ~~s/~o s Qa `''~~ ~Croys P, t+~'" \~~~ ~ ~ b o~ mS 9 East L+onsHead Cr ~~~ m ~ ~ ~m ^ ^ 0 • ~ . /Spruce CI vr^ ^ d F ' ~ s p,A ' @ ~ Lions R,dge L©a«r,m r~ Frontage Rd Frunta9c rrx r•x rwr ~ o ^ ~ ~ ~W' Su"tn e5t NoAr, m ~ ~ 0 O ~~ Into stale 70 Easl Inter sta(c 7~ ~ Peneslr~an Overpass ~ ~ • •' n lYl'_ ae cP~ 0 \\ ~ ,~ cA5 /t•.ea SANDSTONE 1 ARC Chrklren's /kips 1-IS 22 Crctl M•ti:q h IS 41 Mtlkr Urt r,a+' qr~ Arrn.r n 17 62 OkI 4trxrl FIUUW c-1 83 4xnn- G,u y ;F 107 Vm M•u nl A\ukLnun f 4 2 All Srasan d~6 23 Crotvaxh Crntrr y 11 12 K+,urlar lr xkp• I II 63 Ck x• V.al N.xr J-9 81 Yxrivlx u, n Ri 101 V.W Mew hkrutx •t r• N 3 Nplxxn y-14 21 Cya,xq~~ BlukLrq d-8 43 I,u xL rwnk Ir-!r 61 N.xr,t &ulOk x) 0~9 , 85 4n~u •n. dl, I w rtr~l ,n'.;..d ! l 102 V.ul Mn+ Mtiurl r7 /H Agnnr 4arxlxd g-13 25 Etk•Mcnc r-11 H Lrnrr lk nnl NSxl M.r k•,1 ,N! 65 RH.ttn P.nrh CIUU j~l4 86 Slx,xktlr Cn+•; 'r 1p 103 Vnl Ar R•noa~ d-9 S Nrlers f-22 6 pnlt, Park r-5 26 En7:.+n at V.xd h-11 27 f 45 I drrdry h-I / 66 R+n[rry .x V.rd h-76 87 Sml,n,l !, x lye r l I' IW V. o, y,r h !+ 7 4( xk• Burkkn d-9 ur Ikxnr f-I1 28 R M l r B 46 lfirxxnr I;rk7• rr .41 67 RdnhlN nn Irxk~' a-6 88 4n V. «r I ;'I 105 b,~d fr.nl~ Ertl r-6 , , g a ,n st u V•nl I Il I7 In,nd ir,xl (r•nrn• ,I 14 68 Mil I km 13uudnx) d-H 89 4•N•rn, u~ h ,"1 I06 Va: fr,el•. tAr•,t r 6 A'~rn 11tC 1-16 / 29 uN1 k'n nr 11 k' T1x11 CII III ur' r' / 18 l xH,'.1 N'.«) P,,fx rl rl tillin 11I1r' 11 IN 69 M«1 Sxxf•,trxk• Elertxrrl. n'~ I ; 90 It'r.ll I, ~N rr. ,,, ,, ~ rl ' 107 4',r~l fs,n r•.Ix ;,I..fnY+ Ct•r,;. r I N 9 &~II TtrnRr BulklrnT r-9 30 CixRrkJ (iaunV+.unn k'rr~l 49 lxn~.4gl,•n•irxk>.•~Y(unf U•1 1170 Mve MrL le•+1-10 91 ILe ~I~Irxlrp•:I/ 108 L'.m 11 Bud.I~•«i h~lp +O Br+t Wr51t'm Varlyb Lrxkp•P l,' 3I Gk•nlr.kr Onxr fLukLrxlr lL 50 In,m. A.1.n x•r-,'H 71 Rru•r lNruw c•II X92 Gntin Murk, .I ,, rr f;,:~+_-. +109 U,d V.dN-ylw~.l ~,brl .: ti5 r;(n,l Il Brr. *.na.ry Wr\t qll 32 Cx n, fern R•. rk,S Sl Iinn}Rxb•B,.•4lnxlh.'0 72 Mn~•.,xxr4 .i Rdn,•U.I,r •. a 110 V.,,I V. u,xr•nrr. k.,•,I ',' 12 Bra +ner• 117 33 Cr •N k•n {t•,rk Ikkra• J H 52 In Np•.rt lx.rd N~.«I rr IN 73 '.u xl•.n nx• Grr•k Ckn, rr l/ 93 I•r.try r•, I I.1 ttl b:r~+',411,x r~ +,xr y :, 13 C.nl.Nk•Vill,xX•r~18 31 (nvxk rl.r Bun,In«fylo 53 Irxk •.+I Ynd :IV p 71 nxP.Inr x• /0 h~16 91 14+n1, ~,n:!rrr•4 r~r,.., 'r. '~-"' tl2 \tuo re ~•t I,y l1 1 C.ixnxr B1nk NIx r 9 35 (xnr (rtr•N H.r.:r IA n46rx1 r III 51 I,xN7• ~lurpr I Ill 75 '.uxl'.O nx' P.nk Cur xL ~.. + J' ~ 95 l1S I1 ,tit f /r'~„ ., 14 113 V.u'!.«r' H./x V•rrl r III IS C)1rIS1~N K1 of Vnl Il / 18 16o«I C1n wn, dr. t rrnrvl h 1Y SS hinv •, V, of r + 76 ~, r ~ 14 ,~Irl 31,63,81 V, nl k,•.r. ,, c•~~. '~~ wrc (Yr- • IN 16 Ckxk Irrvu•r W,dr lxkl r H 36 IN ~IVtti /kxr,r rl I,' $6 (yt.nn, qt\ ~.Lur M~.r ..I y .'. 77 Cn nhn Rr,ny p) rl J ~ ~ ,. 115 Vdl,r <, r,.•r., r I { 17 CUkM.kll kr AMrurnn 1 Il 37 Ik!la ).r), Nvr ,) I ( $7 Mrll r •,ry (rrnr fN u4l~ru I M I 78 L;nn.nl liur46rrl rvIU % V. ul AIr:N •P~ .,~ •. 14.,, , ~ 116 btu ,, fr~ ( r+c~, r IU 18 Ccxxert F1,NI H,r,•d h /f 38 INkrx•tt.l4r n ,'N 58 A,1, ,nr.u kv,n r I 97 •J. •J (r..n •r . ;l, . _ 19 CanKC A(Axlrrrh xt l-/ 018, 107 Infun ckv, r 4 Ik,•N:• y'I .C r '~ 59 ht, ,,ntl,un rtwr .tl V. rn • t< (~ y, (hd~ `/. •rl h 4 98 V•~I lrgr,n,n. n,., 4, x 118 ,r r. •..,r It,/n (r., y ~. '.0 Covrrtxl Brkk Blnklxk r9 1 39 Mkrrl.rrtl+(lr, x•I rl( I ~ PJ.rtun•(rr u..r + I 17,03,81 `yr `. rx.~; ,,t Vnlrt'Jr', r. it rr ,Yl ~ \."r lirl~•xr.,, It,•~«fk.~.1~~-., rr r .J 119 \'r n~l'•~!, rx l~, ,l,n «Ir •; ZI Crte•kfxk• &uk4rkl r 9 40 I{><x r•n,,r 1-I i 61 N, XIIrwkrxh Ir I 8Z '.u'rr !4r !,bnl r H binl l+, .r... , ~~., ~., r .'.l~,i 100 , 120 V nL,r ,'•., •. ' 121 Wrttn+INnr+r// 122 Wr•tNk^n. rr Ih 123 \t4 °.rwn x 1 ,n \a,.; r, ; 1 121 Wrlk rv/, :1 125 Wn•r~ ~~ a EAST VAIL WEST VAIL 1 H«{,«„ r M+n,, . I 1 HaxkN••.~. fi nh 4r+l r .. 2 I,r~• v.,~ ;.r~,td•. ' 2 (r~,n«.. ,,r B,rd,o•~~, 3 Lour, y , -I 3 Nn..n blr~l V.,,' I .' 1 1 lltl r.• i r ,.I fu:••nv., ,'.,~ ~ I 1 {'. ,,L IyL •, x,k M.'. I.' s I,r,.rr r,., S {1.,,,n«Irr. n,..n.rr., 6 .. d l. +' r r i e,~ f h ,l .r . ~, ,, 4 6 M x nr h 11 7 ..r,l n, 1, x.r ~r,,~rr '. , .. 1. .rl • 7 ~ r•,.,.ry, I 10 'A r•~.I ':.w Mall r i~t O ~. REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL, INC. 816/333-7650 THE APPRAISER'S QUALIFICATIONS r i L DAVID E. HOPKINS ~nrTnamTnri Degree in Business Administration - University of Missouri at Kansas City Course 101, SREA, Rockhurst College, Kansas City, Missouri Course 1-B, AIREA, Rockhurst College, Kansas City, Missouri Course 2, AIREA, Rockhurst College, Kansas City, Missouri Real Estate Finance, Avila College, Kansas City, Missouri EXPERIENCE Real estate appraiser presently and since August of 1977; associated with James T. Job, Real Estate Appraisal of Kansas City, Missouri. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Senior Member - American Society of Appraisers - ASA Candidate - American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers CONDEMNATION WORK DONE At the request of individuals, companies or Condemning Authorities in cases involving individuals, companies, Jackson County, Missouri, Missouri State Highway Department, United States Government, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. ! GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE L AREAS WHERE APPRAISAL WORK HAS BEEN DONE Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North *' Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texac, Virginia, [L Wisconsin and Wyoming. 6306 WALNUT STREET • KANSAS CITY, MO. 64113 r Mr. David E. Hopkins Page 2 PARTIES APPRAISED FOR Acapulco Restaurants American Petrofina Company of Texas Amoco Oil Company Blue Valley Federal Savings & Loan Association Champlin Petroleum Company Charter Bank - Ward Parkway ~, City of. North Kansas City, Missouri DX Oil Company Denny's, Inc. Employee Transfer Corp. En-Com Properties, Ltd. Fidelity State Bank First Federal Savings and Loan of St. Joseph, Missouri First National Bank - Topeka, Kansas Foodmaker (Jack in the Box) Getty Refining and Marketing Company Government Employees Hospital Association Hudson Oil Company Interstate Commercial Properties Jackson County, Missouri Jackson County State Bank - J. C. Nichols Company ~ Kroh Brothers Development Company Land Trust of Jackson County, Missouri Leo Eisenberg & Company McDonald's Restaurants Metro North State Bank Missouri State Highway Commission Mobil Oil Company National Economic Development Association (Small Business Administration) Phillips Petroleum Company Pizza Hut Plaza Savings and Loan Association Sinclair Marketing, Inc. Sun Oil Company Taco Bell, Inc. Texaco, Inc. f University of Missouri at Kansas City L Varnum, Armstrong & Deeter, Inc. Various Businesses, Builders, Developers, Attorneys and Individuals